User talk:Nihonjoe/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74

An editor I need help with

I found you through Wikiproject Japan. I was wondering if you knew someone who maybe could adopt User:Electric Japan. I don't speak Japanese, and he doesn't speak English very well. It's difficult for me to explain things to him. He has conflicts with other editors about material he's been adding to various articles. Let me know. Thanks, Enigma ^message 16:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I can try, but there may be others who may be more helpful in this. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU

Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Shōjo (disambiguation)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Shōjo (disambiguation), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 20:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Blade of the Phantom Master

You've edited the article, so I come to here your help. I think you already saw the dispute and WP:RFC at the page, but I don't know why you're calm on this. ocn.ne.jp ISP user(s) has vandalised the manhwa article earlier several times and keeps removing Korean mention in the lead at Blade of the Phantom Master along with the banned Azukimonaka (talk · contribs). The article originally mentioned the Korean manhwa, not manga until last June. Besides, an obvious sock of the anon appeared at the article as User:Jazz81089 after his long break 8 months, so I need your input on this. Thanks. --Appletrees (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It was originally published in a Japanese magazine by a Japanese publisher, so I would call it manga. Besides, "manhwa" and "manga" are just two words with the same meaning (for all intents and purposes). Fighting over it is stupid. Did you expect me to go berserk on someone over this? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I did not expect much from you because of too obvious reasons in the past. You have not helped me at all, but always give me an insulting comment. You did not see the edit history, and my version of the edit. The anon and sock account removed "Korean manhwa artists" exclusively. That the creators are Korean manhwa artists is a hard fact. Besides, the work is not purely manga. It can be manhwa as well. Therefore, my version is compromised version to please the each side such as "a cartoon and animation series drawn by Korean manhwa artist... specialized as Japanese manga published by Japanse manga magazine. Besides, the Japanese publisher just translated the original draft from Korean to Japanese and then published it. Well, I also did not remove the Anime category at all and the mention of manwha and Korean nationality was not inserted by me first.

Of course, the two share only the same meaning in the different language along with the different pronunciation. That's why manga/manhwa/manhua articles exist independently. There are all Japanese/Korean/Chinese cartoon and animation is original translation in English. The term, manga, manhwa are all recent neologism. Maybe visiting talking with you is really a stupid thing and wasting my time. --Appletrees (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, the only edits I've made have been extremely minor, and had nothing to do with the actual content. And don't get all huffy just because I'm not willing to do what you want. I couldn't care less about this article (as is obvious from the amount of time I've spent editing it). I don't know much about it other than the little bit I read to respond to you, and I don't care to know any more about the subject. If you have an issue with the content being changed on the article, I recommend working out your differences with the other regular editors of that article rather than attacking someone who has barely touched the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I come to you is you're an admin who have edited the article. If you're not in the "two" condition, I would not really spend my time here with no gain. You can say you have no intention to help me, that is totally fine. But you added the unsuitable comment. Attacking was started by you, not me. I response the same to what others do. However, I appreciate your last advice. --Appletrees (talk) 06:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Where did I attack you? I asked you a question because you told me (and I quote), "I don't know why you're calm on this." I've only edited that article a couple times, but you came here acting as if I should be incensed that some editors (including you) were edit warring over something as small as whether or not to include a few words. Again, how exactly did I attack you? I'm willing to help where I can, but you obviously don't believe I'm impartial, so I find it somewhat absurd that you keep coming to me when you don't believe anything I write and don't trust anything I do (no matter how irrational those beliefs may be). Again, I'm willing to help where I can, but I don't feel much inclination to do anything for you given the reasons listed above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I admit that I don't fully thrust you because whenever I really needed a help from you, you ignored or gave absurd comments against me. You're the only admin having edited anime-manga articles that I've know of. Regardless, I tried to thrust you again but always feel bitterness from your improper comments. You don't seem to realize that your way of speaking is not really kind to me, or others. Sorry to say I tend to have a high expectation from admins. Fighting over it is stupid. Did you expect me to go berserk on someone over this? --> This is a clean personal attack. Editors here come to edit what they believe is right or helpful to develop articles even though it looks stupid to you. The sentence says I was acting crazy as fighting with the anon. No matter how irrational those believe may be? Again, you just prove yourself. All these conversation is nothing but confirming impossibility to communicate with you. If you can't help me, why don't you just simply say "no" and end it? --Appletrees (talk) 06:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A personal attack would be, "You are stupid." Stating that "fighting over it is stupid" is not a personal attack but rather an opinion that a particular action is just plain dumb. And my question was already explained. Yes, editors come here to edit and be helpful in developing articles, but edit warring as you have done on this article—and on many others—is not helpful in the least and shows only that you are unwilling to work out a compromise with the other editors involved. The only way things can change is if you stop edit warring and start trying to wok things out with the other involved editors. You'll accomplish a lot more by dong that, too. Again, I strongly urge you to take your concerns to the talk page in question and work things out with the other editors. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It is pretty sad that you do not listen to my saying at all. I particularly presented a compromised version to the japanaese anon, and have participated in discussions unlike the other. I already took the matter to the talk pages and got no answer at all. So your so-call advice is a cliche. If the thing can be resolved in a discussion or even get a single response from the other except edit summaries as him reverting, why would I come to here? This conversation is a wast of time. Regarding edit warrings, you can't be so sure about that. Of course, POV pushing and edit warring are generally not good, but just condoning or giving up disruptions does not help to develop articles at all. I witnessed that you made edit warrings several times, even one case of which drove you to be in ANI. So have a good night.--Appletrees (talk) 07:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If you make a good faith effort to discuss things, and the other editors do not participate, then that's a different story. You never said that was the case before now. Another thing you can do is open an RFC in order to get some outside comments on the topic. If you get consensus for the controversial material, and people keep reverting it, then we can discuss what can be done to prevent that. As for your other comments, the English is too broken for me to understand what you are trying to say. I don't edit war, and I have no idea what you mean by "one case drove you at ANI". ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I already filed a RFC on this because I thought that third opinions from many people would help to resolve this thing. But unlike my thought, I also got no answer from the side. Except going to ANI, I've done everything to resolve it, but nothing. Sorry for my broken English, but "one case drove you to be at ANI" is your edit waring on some Japanese magazine or book. I don't think any further description on the case is even needed.--Appletrees (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I still don't recall any books or magazines over which I've edit warred. I guess I'll have to take your word for that. Perhaps posting at WT:JAPAN and WT:KOREA would help get more people interested. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Support

Please show your support. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Japanese_Supercar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spell123 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese Supercar

Hello, Nihonjoe. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese Supercar.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Regards, tgies (talk) 00:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. Thanks. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Naruto character reception

Per the comments at the peer review for List of Naruto characters, I was asked to check with the magazine library to determine whether there was any critical reception on the Naruto characters. As you own a plethora of various anime and manga publications, I was curious whether such reception was present. Thanks, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect there are, but I don't have the time to look through hundreds of books and magazines to try to find references for you. If you can point me to a specific book or a specific issue of a magazine that has something you need, I'll be happy to get the information to you. Have you looked at the What links here page for Naruto? If there are references in cataloged books and magazines, there will be links to that page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I just did a quick glance through the linked pages, and didn't see anything right off. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably the case. I was thinking Newtype USA, as since the article is being prepped for WP:FLC, it would be nice if there was reception from printed sources. If there isn't anything, don't worry about it - I'm pretty sure the article can pass without them. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there are articles, I just don't have time to hunt through several years' worth of issues just to find articles unless someone points me to a specific issue. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks

I suggest that you revert yourself. You did not discuss the major change at the talk page first. If just an ordinary editor did the same as you, he or she might have been indefinitely blocked already (how fair) per the ArbCom rules. The infobox has been one of the contentious subjects of edit warrings along with Sea of Japan (East Sea) and Dokdo/Takeshima, lamest edit warrings, so by consensus, it was deliberately taken out from the article by Furf. --Caspian blue (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

So, I was told you have "an extensive collection of anime and manga related magazines..."

Someone at the Comics WikiProject mentioned that you had "an extensive collection of anime and manga related magazines", so I was wondering if you might be able to help me out. I'm looking for a copy of Toons! The Animation Magazine #1. It was an American magazine published in the late 1990s by Wizard Entertainment. It had a picture of Pikachu on the cover, and several articles about Pokemon inside, one of which discussed the episodes that were "banned" in the US.

I realize this is kind of a shot in the dark, but in the off-chance that you have the magazine sitting around, let me know! (I don't actually need the magazine for any anime-related articles. I need it because it might allow me to verify a fact related to The Simpsons. But I can explain that in more detail later.) Thanks, Zagalejo^^^ 08:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, don't have one. Sorry. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 13:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks anyway! Zagalejo^^^ 18:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Loss of the Mainichi WaiWai column

Hi, Joe. I'm engaged in a discussion over the recent cancellation of the Mainichi WaiWai column, its implications, and the light it shines on the matter of "notability" for Japanese pop subjects (AV in particular, but it applies as well to other idol-types, which were covered in the column). Anyway, you might want to look in and maybe comment HERE. Regards, Dekkappai (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Need some help

Hi, Nihonjoe.

I have been cleaning up articles on the anime and manga scope. We are trying to match it up to quality standards for FA or GA. Can you give me some advice on cleaning up the articles there? Your comments on this situation would be very much appreciated. :) Thanks and best wishes, Greg Jones II 22:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

References

You should read the wiki guidelines, in addition, references for Utada Hikaru are from non-creditable sources. A personal website, and an unofficial news publication. 220.253.0.14 (talk) 04:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

HMV and Oricon are considered reliable sources as the Japanese newsmedia quotes them frequently in regard to number of albums sold, popularity, etc. Please stop removing these links and sources. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Please point out where I deleted an Oricon reference. In addition, the HMV source is not being used to further benefit the article with productive information. Either cite sentences in the references for encyclopedic purposes or don't have it. I am not going to cause an edit war, I'm not stupid. In regards to Utada, the HMV article does not mention anything about the sales figures, point out in the article where it mentions it. The sources in the Utada article are both not allowed by wiki-guidelines. They are personal websites, and neither is credible. 220.253.0.14 (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to dig through all the references you deleted to find it, but there was one (only one as far as I remember). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You also seem to have other incidents with Japanese references, including the Mainichi Wai Wai, which is a tabloid with mostly fictional stories for entertainment. You have been uses these for wiki references? tsk tsk, I think I will need to bring this to the attention of the wiki-RSB. 220.253.0.14 (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Please remain CIVIL. While many stories in Mainichi Wai Wai are pointless, it does have its uses. If you paid attention to the discussion regarding it, you would know that. I recommend creating an account so you can better participate here. It also gives you the added benefit of not telling people exactly where you live (how is life down under?). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Your reverts have damaged articles mate, particularly the Utada article which is rife with references from personal websites. I have no attention of creating an account, it does not enable me to "better participate here" I have been editing the wiki for more than 4 years. There are many advantages to being an IP user. One example is waiting until my IP changes a few times, so a user can not wiki-stalk me. I will then go to the RSB and state my concern, and get approval. As I have done many times in the past, and one previous time when a poor admin didn't seem to know the wiki-guidelines. Quoting your words "it sdoesn't have to be an "official news organization" to e a credible news source" a personal website is not a credible news source mate! you should know that. The HMV article has not provided any useful information, and is simply stating the same sentence on every article, which breaks the NPOV, and is not encyclopedic. If an Oricon reference was removed, it was likely by mistake, or the reference had been mislead and stated no such information (which is the most likely) as I have had to take a similar situation to RSB in the past. You have not provided any validation for your actions, and for an admin that is poor conduct. 220.253.0.14 (talk) 05:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal (or fan) websites can be used until better sources are found, especially if the website has an established history. You are using WP:RS as a policy when it is only a guideline. While guidelines should generally be followed, they can not and do not apply in every instance, and they can be ignored when necessary. Using the same source in multiple articles has nothing to do with WP:NPOV as being used multiple times certainly doesn't make a source POV. Besides, HMV is not a personal site, but is run by one of the largest retail music chains in Japan. Please do your homework before brandishing policies and guidelines like you know what they mean. Wikilawyering won't do you any good with me. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I never said HMV is a personal website, and again, perhaps you should point out where I did mention such a thing. You seem to have difficulty with the simplest of things, like understanding what has been written. Moreover, you should likely read [1] as the websites removed from the Utada article, as well as the website nippop are not acceptable. Care to explain how such websites are acceptable, especially when one is listed as containing malware? Also, perhaps you should explain how you feel the HMV sentence in every article improves the articles with productive and encyclopedic information? Considering you are the user that seems to have a problem with such nonsense being removed. 220.253.1.236 (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The HMV link is being used as a reference, and it is perfectly acceptable as such since the sentence is referring to the artist being listed in the HMV Top X for sales. It's a requirement to show references showing notability, and if an artist is making it into the top 100 or 50 or whatever for one of the major music retailers in Japan, that's a useful reference to have. And please show me where Nippop has been listed as containing malware? It's a pop culture site, so unless you download something from it that happens to contain malware, going to the site will not alone cause you to get anything. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The HMV article never states anything about sales, or what you just said. So please point out where it in fact does make such a statement, and I will surely apologize since I would of certainly been wrong. The google/yahoo search labeled nippop with "This site may harm your computer" malware tag, although it looks like it was a bad coding incident. Nippop is a personal website, with no credible journalism, it is the personal opinion of the sites owners. It is not similar to sites such as allmusicguide, or the Japanese site barks. In many articles, Nippop is not being used to cite anything (which is shouldn't be used, as it is not a reliable source) and is listed under external links, which is using the wikipedia to create publicity for the site. The main issue is the HMV source, which you claim is being used to site sales. Now I speak Japanese fluently, so I would love to see such a citation. 220.253.150.244 (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

I would like request further comments from you on the WT:MOS-AM#Page layout discussion. In case you've forgot, I'm the one who started the discussion by explaining the alternate way I arrange the articles I've gotten to GA. I commented to get the opinions of other editors, to see if anyone else (other than Collectonian) had a legitimate objection to "my layout". No one else actually objected.

But Collectonian insists that "my articles" are "violating" the MoS and that they must be brought in line with the MoS. I've never intended for "my layout" to replace the current accepted layout, but Collectonian insists that's the only way they'll be able to stay the way they are. "My articles" may not be WP:PERFECT, but no article is. I tried to explain (see Talk:The Big O#Layout), but Collectonian doesn't seem to listen to me.

Honestly, I just feel like she's harassing me in an attempt to drive me mad so I'll just stop editing articles altogether. I'm not saying that's what she's doing, I'm just saying that's how it feels. So, if you have anything to say in this matter, anything at all, please comment at Talk:The Big O or WT:MOS-AM.--Nohansen (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

date auto-lemon

Hi, saw your conversionaion on Jimp's talk page. You do admit, don't you, that a system created only for logged-in WPians is actually worse than useless: it damages our ability to see what our readers see (often inconsistently formatted within an article). I think it's one of the worst examples of computer programming ever, and should be dumped immediately. Tony (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? I'm not sure what you want me to admit here since I certainly didn't advocate the position that we should create a system only for people logged in when it comes to date formatting. I'm not sure how you read that into what I wrote. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

poor editing from you again

Care to explain why you placed a fact date in the hiroshi fujiwara article, when the links provided mention such a statement? Now these links are written in English and easily verifiable (if they were in Japanese, it would be understandable, because it is obvious know you don't actually read Japanese) maybe you should try quality over quantity editing! 220.253.63.51 (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. External links do not qualify as references. They are meant to point a user to related sites outside Wikipedia. If you meant to use one or more as a reference, then you need to use <ref></ref>, preferably with one of the {{cite}} templates. And again, please remain civil when working with others. Your condescending tone does nothing to encourage others to help you or answer your questions. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I neither created, nor added the links to the article (which you are assuming) anyway, if you could provide your citation in regards to the HMV article, that would be great! 220.253.56.52 (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You asked why I added the tags, so I gave you a reason. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats fair enough, although I would like you to answer my question. In addition, your behaviour regarding the IP talk page is most inappropriate. 220.253.56.52 (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly how is it inappropriate? IP talk pages are very often marked like that so that people who are using the IP and get a talk page message will know what's going on. Did you think you were the only customer of your ISP? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It was inappropriate, because the talk page was information written to me (and you know it) and other users of the IP shouldn't need to read it. I see no validation from your edit, apart from spitefulness. 220.253.56.52 (talk) 04:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you refuse to create an account, there's not really any way to know for sure, is there? For all I know, "you" are actually a group of people working together. Regardless, you may not remove comments from another IP user's talk page, even if you claim to be that UP user. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from further access as editing Wikipedia is not a right. You must abide by the rules of the site, and one of them is that you may not remove other's comments. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As for the HMV links, all of the ones I checked had the "Top 100" list on the right side. The links were exactly what they said they were, so your removal of them was incorrect. The links were necessary to support the claim that they made the top 100 list at HMV. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like you to cite where in the article it states it is a list relating to sales, which is what you claimed many times. I read the whole thing, and found no such information, but I could of overlooked it. The list is the personal preference of the website operator, and his favorite artists. It is not being used to cite any useful information to wiki-articles, even though it provides a short biography of each artist. In fact, the same sentence added to every wiki-article is creating an "X is superior to Y" situation, which is not what the wikipedia is about. Moreover, it is not what the HMV article is about either. Now if it is in fact a list of best selling artists at HMV, please show me! If you can't, then please answer the original question, on how this is providing useful information! 220.253.56.52 (talk) 04:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You're picking at nits here. When it comes to music artists, popularity necessarily translates into sales. The way music charts rate popularity is by how many sales an artist has. Therefore, someone at the top of the HMV popularity chart is going to be the one selling the most at HMV stores. Adding chart position information (even chart positions for a huge media sales chain) to artist articles is certainly encyclopedic. As I wrote above, it's the chart on the right of the article, not the article itself, which is making the claim to support the information added to the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It mentions no such thing, not anywhere. It has nothing to do with popularity of artists at HMV, not according to what is written. Even if it did, how is that information important to an encyclopedia? You do not read Japanese! You are fraud mate! 220.253.155.6 (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you can't seem to maintain a civil tone, I'm through discussing this with you. You've been nothing but arrogant and condescending throughout all my interactions with you. You are not worth my time. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Doi

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. My head met wall repeatedly. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Lists of basic topics

I've replied to your post at WP:VPR.

The Transhumanist    20:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yukiko Iwai (Onyanko Club)

On 5 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Yukiko Iwai (Onyanko Club), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU, Status, and you!

As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible) system - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot 22:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism by 124.104.*.* user

For the past several days, four anon IPs, 124.104.92.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 124.104.91.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 124.104.84.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and 124.104.92.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) have been vandalizing pages and are possibly the same person. Each of these addresses attacked a lot of articles lately, with several of the common denominators (not by all) are as follows, leading me to suspect that these four are the same person:

• Annabelle Rama‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pinoy Idol‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Raymond Gutierrez‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Richard Gutierrez‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (including its talk page)
• Ruffa Gutierrez‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Regine Velasquez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (including its talk page)

In fact, there is some range hopping going on with vandal edits by 124.104.80.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 124.104.89.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 124.104.80.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 124.104.88.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 124.104.81.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 124.104.94.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 124.104.87.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and many others on this range. Again, I suspect that this is the same person who used these address on his vandalism.

Can a rangeblock be applied on this case because this vandal or must I report the range to WP:ABUSE? Or do you have any other thoughts? Whoever he is, has gone chronic. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 02:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: The vandal used the IP 202.138.180.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), but since this IP belongs to a school, maybe that user studies there.

(I've typed this same report on WP:AN/I hours ago, but no one has responded to it. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 02:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC))

WP:ABUSE is the best place to report it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was already tinkering of that idea. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 03:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)