User talk:Nihonjoe/Archive 67

Archive 60

←

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

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

I, IP

Hi. Just letting you know that I was a bit puzzled by the revert (a word -on either TP- would have been nice, too) on U:5.249.14.10. Should your edit summary be true, this Category is in great danger. Anyhow,I had therefore compliantly erased all links from my IP pages to my registered account pages (and that includes the page of the JP Task force).

But then, although you had kindly invited me to join the JP task force on the IP's TP (it's still there; I was glad, I felt invited), after I joined, you removed me, stating IPs couldn't join (which, by the way, is not so nice, if it's a WKP rule (or not)). It's your task force, so you can do pretty much what pleases you there, but why invite people and then exclude them?

Just letting you know that because I don't feel welcome & when I don't feel welcome, I leave.--Ian K.W. 19:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@I Know AA: I apologize for any confusion. As IPs are most commonly dynamic (meaning they could change at any given time), editors editing from IP addresses only can not generally join a WikiProject in a formal manner. Since you have a username now, you are welcome to join the project under the username. The reason the message is on the IP page is because that's where the talk page link went to. I recommend using only your named account and not doing anything from the IP in the future. It makes things much easier to sort out, and you won't run into this confusion in the future. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

In fact, I have added your actual username to that page for your convenience. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and update. I'll be off the grid for a while, and may not be active. --Ian K.W. 10:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

line up of intro

Hi there, you have changed the intro of some of the Japanese articles with the argument "The English won't always line up directly with the Japanese, this is what it is called in English." The point of the introduction is to be as correct as possible, not necessarily reflect 1:1 what the name of the article is. You can see these as an example Prime Minister of Spain, Prince Harry, President of the United States, President of Russia, Prime Minister of Russia, etc. Thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Gryffindor: Hi there. The title of the article should be in the first line of the article. If it isn't, then the title of the article should be changed. The title of the article should be what the topic is called in English, and the first line should mirror that. If further explanation of what it may be called in the source language is needed, then that can be included in the first paragraph (perhaps even in the first line). Again, if the title and first line of the article don't line up to what the person is really called in English, then the title of the article should be changed (or the first line should be changed). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Gryffindor: Also, you are edit warring on Emperor of Japan and Imperial House of Japan. You made an edit, it was reverted, so you should be going to the talk page of the article to gain consensus on what should be done. You're an admin, so you should know better than to edit war. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• I think British Royal Family is a better point of comparison than any of those articles listed above; each of which does have an official title. The British Royal Family, like the Japanese Imperial House, does not have an official name; and while it is known throughout the Commonwealth as simply the "Royal Family", we do not include that alone in the lead sentence. The "Royal Family" is known worldwide as the "British Royal Family", and similarly, the "天皇" is known as the "Emperor of Japan". The correct title for the Emperor of Japan is "天皇", not Emporer alone, and for the Japanese Imperial House is "皇室", not "Imperial House" alone; so matters of correctness of English terms are already strained. I am not however, sold on MOS as a reason for including the article title verbatim, and conceive we might find compromise. I concur on the edit warring - Stop it. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Nihonjoe, I respect your point of view, but please refrain from public accusations of WP:EW when the 3RR has not been broken and assume WP:GF. An edit war can look very different to how we are discussing at the moment, and I would like to continue to keep it civil and constructive. However if it came across to you that way, I will refrain from further reverts to accomodate your wish even if I don't agree with it. Gryffindor (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Gryffindor: To quote WP:EW (end of the second paragraph): "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." Yes, you need to stop reverting. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

Hi,

The backlog over there is as bad as I've ever seen it. I know this isn’t how I’m supposed to do this but the template has had no effect, nobody’s posted to AN in ten hours so I don’t know if anybody’s paying attention there, and while User:Acalamari just worked on it a bit, they can't stay. You were the first admin I came across who’s been active in the last hour, so would you mind? RunnyAmiga (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Whoops, forgot to say: I went through the half-dozen or so admins who are regulars there and none have been active within the past few hours. RunnyAmiga (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

NoMoreSilence420

Thanks for the block of this sock, much appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:29 on August 5, 2016 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Help me talk to Oluwa2Chainz because what ever i say to him he doesn't reply to my message even when i asked him questions i don't get reply.

They are laying fuse allegation on me that i am a sock puppetry of choccitymusic1 and the later even make edits similar to that of the already blocked Markzy90 as it was stated.

• I am a sock puppetry of AmPizzle because i am a big fan of the guy's style of music production and i was told by you to change my user name, which i did but because could not wait for your respond i created this account and Huon declined my request because i had opened a new account without waiting, so i was asked to keep using this account and now i am been accused of been a sock puppetry of someone i don't know if the person is not AmPizzle it can't be me.--Obari2Kay (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

You named your original account, User:AmPizzle, after someone else. While you may be a big fan of him, that's still not permitted because it gives the impression that you are him, and you should not impersonate someone you're not. The sockpuppetry case, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Obari2Kay, is unrelated to that previous account of yours, and personally I don't think there's much to it. I'll leave a commet at the SPI page. Huon (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything I can do in this situation. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Urusei Yatsura

This is ridiculous, 5 times the changes to the episode count has been changed now in 15 days. Is this sufficient for a short lock? The addition of the episode to the episode list hasn't made a difference because they keep changing that as well.SephyTheThird (talk) 03:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Mikage

Hi, I was looking at the old article alerts and noticed you PRODed Mikage last week and later replaced it with a disambiguation page. I am curious what the old version of the article said, as Mikage is more than just a couple of train stations but a rather posh area of Higashinada-ku, Kobe. Is it possible to see the deleted contents? Thanks, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Athomeinkobe: It was about some light novelist who wasn't notable in the least. You're welcome to create an article for the location you mentioned, then add a link to it on the disambiguation page. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. That is something I may get to... one day. The ward articles need improving before I consider writing about areas within a ward. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Athomeinkobe: No problem. I have tons of articles I'd like to create and improve, so I can understand having a priority list. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

What edit war?

As someone who used to spend man-months arbitrating edit wars I resent your accusation that a mere PAIR of reverts constitutes an edit war. You clearly have no concept of how bad things can get. For example, consider the very cordial relations over the Tsushima Strait and various related articles between your countrymen and those of Korea. Hmmmmm.

But since you feel this Train Station article was a edit war, then Please properly hang the {{globalize}} tag I was just blocked from adding. You kids really need to grow up and get a balanced perspective. I've been editing here since 2004 and STILL have less than 20 reverts, so you are definitely ridiculous with this accusation. // FrankB 03:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fabartus: I'm sorry you feel resentful. And I'm sorry you think you know anything about where I'm from, who my countrymen are, or how familiar I am with "how bad things can get". Considering I've been an admin for over 10 years, I think I have a far better idea than you about things like that. I'm also well aware of the idiocy manifested on any article involving Japan and Korea, and I have blocked many people over it. Keep in mind that an edit war can be less than 3 edits. It is strongly recommended that if someone reverts an edit you make that you immediately take the discussion to the talk page of the article. You did not do that. I recommend participating in the discussion started by the other editor involved on Talk:Train station. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I misinterpreted your signature as suggesting you were Niponese. Might want to fix the cause. If you've been an admin for 10 years, you're probably overdue to take some time away.

My policy is that any one that reverts without first discussing some objection is totally disrespecting one's time and is about as respectable as worm dung. So any upset I feel is for an A-hole just blithely discarding hours of careful work. I find such action contemptable. I reversed that unforgivable action, and stopped. Nuff said for an edit war. I didn't re-revert. These sort pissy actions aren't worth any more of my time. I'll likely take corrective action over the content as he suggested, but terminus will first need many retargeting edits (which hijacked 'topic' in English lead me to that article). Obviously, 'terminus' and 'terminal stations' are related, but as my edit, and indeed just the language dictate, there is no requirement trains, rails, or depot buildings be anywhere involved. YOU, otoh seem to be in violation of WP:3RR in this case. He and I are both long standing editors, presumably in good repute. No one made multiple undo edits on the article. So I have to suspect you are a friend to him, and confidant. Otherwise, why jump the gun like this? Thanks for doing your job and adding that template. I hate those danged things near as much as I hate reverters, but that article needs de-anglicized! // FrankB 05:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why you are so angry all the time. Looking through your interactions with people, you often seem to assume the worst and attack people without any valid reasons. You assume I know the other editor involved, for example. Until this incident, I had never interacted with him/her (or you, for that matter). Since I didn't do anything other than protect the article to stop your edit warring (which, again, doesn't need to involve 3RR to be considered edit warring), I don't know what logic you're using to accuse me of 3RR. I agree that the article needs some work, but there is not time limit on Wikipedia, so if someone reverts your edits, instead of reverting them back to what you wanted, go to the talk page immediately and start a discussion. You claim to "hate reverters", yet you are just as guilty of that as this other editor. If you stop thinking of other editors as "contemptible", "A-holes", and "worm dung", you might be able to better work with other editors. Assume good faith and all that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry dude, but My AGF goes out the door when the other guy doesn't bother with the talk page option, electing first to trash my work. Reverting is a hostile action, particularly when someone clearly worked hard enough to add (in this case, I'm surprised at quite so many! Double my wordcount guess--but I do try to maintain others work and tone, that pads the results) related content. So I'm happy to be congenial, when people don't try to push me around. // FrankB 19:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, with that attitude, you're going to continue to butt heads with other editors. Going in with guns blazing is not a way to get people to cooperate or work well with you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Episode Dates

Hi, Can you explain why you changed the episode dates for Sabu to Ichi Torimono Hikae. The style guide for Months & Years allows both systems, and I prefer DD MMM YYYY. Yours, Ozflashman (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ozflashman: As I explained in my edit summary, the "MMM DD, YYYY" format was the established format for that page. Just like with English variations, once a particular format is established for a page, it should be consistent throughout the page. I should note that I prefer the "DD MMM YYYY" format, too. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Ozflashman (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ozflashman: Also, thank you for working to expand the Sabu to Ichi Torimono Hikae article. It's appreciated. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

No worries, unfortunately except No. 18 is the last I have access to. Ozflashman (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

I understand why you raised concerns about my revision. I know I should have adequately explained my reason for (again) removing the content. My edits were inexplicably reverted and I was correcting this.

I removed an assorted jumble of mundane details and rankings that have no place in the lead. The present state of the lead (as I have left it) merely reflects the long-standing version. Before I removed those couple of sentences, there had been a gradual creep of tiny details being inserted on the end of that last paragraph, to the extent that it became confusing and unclear. An example of this incoherence: we noted that Japan ranked highly for life expectancy and low for infant morality, then we noted that Japan had the highest number of poet laurettes in Asia. What is the connection here? In the whole there were numerous details that had been added by eager editors that were entirely conspicuous with that paragraph as a whole. This is completely unacceptable for a Featured Article.

Please observe that nothing I removed from that last paragraph cannot be found elsewhere in the article. I am not removing anything of importance from the article. Where appropriate I moved the rankings to the 'economic history' subsection. Other facts, e.g. the highest number of poet laureates can be found in the article. --Hazhk (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Please see this version of the lead from December 2015. I think this was an acceptable revision. No unnecessary details. I did however chose to move the last two rankings elsewhere; I think they are superfluous to the introductory section. I will concede on this point so long as the other details that I removed stay out..--Hazhk (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Hazhk: Instead of edit warring by reverting to your preferred version, you should be taking your concerns to the talk page of the article. You do not own the Japan article, and everything in it may not be your preferred content. That's why there are talk pages. Feel free to start a discussion now on Talk:Japan in order to gain consensus for what you are doing. If you continue reverting people to force your preferred version of the article, you may end up being blocked from editing. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

My pattern of editing does not constitute edit warring. I reverted once. -- Hazhk (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Hazhk: If someone reverts your edit and you revert it back, that is edit warring. You don't need to do it three times for it to be considered such. If your edit is reverted, you should start a discussion on the talk page of the article rather than trying to force your preference through. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Training at a BYU edit-a-thon?

I'm currently in the planning stages of an edit-a-thon event to be held at the BYU library on October 14th 1pm-8pm. Are you available and willing to make a training presentation sometime during the event? If you prefer to discuss it over e-mail, feel free to e-mail me. -Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): Replied via email. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Ban-ei article...

Those links were there as reference.. I was going to use them in later date. If you have any other suggestions to help me remove template from page (that was my point with them), please write to article's talk page. 85.76.140.167 (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Mikage disambiguation page

Hi Nihonjoe,

I think the fictional characters you are listing on the Mikage disambiguation page shouldn't be listed there. There are numerous people with the name Mikage, both real and fictional, mentioned in Wikipeida articles. I don't think it is a proper use of a disambiguation page to link to each page that happens to involve someone named Mikage. That would clutter up the page with relatively minor uses, most of which someone is unlikely to search for using just the term "Mikage" (as opposed to searching for "Aya Mikage" or whichever specific Mikage they are looking for). The page should be limited to things that either have their own article, or are likely to be searched for and primarily known as "Mikage" alone. I considered nominating the page for deletion since there aren't any articles on the English Wikipedia that are just called Mikage, but after looking at the Japanese disambiguation page, I thought it was reasonable that someone might search for one of the places just using the term "Mikage". I don't think the same is true for any of the numerous people or fictional characters named Mikage mentioned on Wikipedia, including the ones from Ayashi no Ceres. Calathan (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Calathan: Actually, listing main characters from shows like that is common. And for Japanese names, it is extremely common for a person to only be called by their surname. If you can find more people with the surname of "Mikage", feel free to add them. The purpose of disambiguation pages is to help people find the right page. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

While I do commonly see fictional characters listed like that on disambiguation pages, I do not think it is correct to do so. Basically, you are making an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS type of argument, but just because it is done often doesn't mean it is correct. The relevant sections of the guidelines are MOS:DABNAME and WP:NAMELIST, which both encourage only listing people on disambiguation pages for their given name or surname if they are commonly known by that name alone. While Japanese people are often addressed by their surname (with an honorific), that isn't the same thing as being known by one name. No one would ever refer to those Ayashi no Ceres characters as just "Mikage" and expect it to be understood who they were talking about. Calathan (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Calathan: Also, please stop edit warring to get your preferred version of the page. Your edit was reverted, so you should be discussing things and coming to a consensus before making any further changes like that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not believe I was edit warring. Reverting while giving an explanation is part of the normal WP:BRD behavior, which is generally encouraged behavior. It is basically the opposite of edit warring. I hadn't given an explanation why I removed the characters previously, so I assumed you had reverted because you didn't know why I removed them. I certainly wasn't planning to revert again if you didn't agree with my explanation. Please do not accuse people of edit warring when they are not doing so. Calathan (talk) 01:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Calathan: You misunderstand WP:BRD, then. The way it works is this: You make a Bold edit, someone Reverts it, you Discuss it on the talk page. It's really simple that way. If you revert it back after someone already reverted your edit, you are edit warring, whether you believe it or not. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I reverted you once, but again, that was because I hadn't given an explanation for my previous edit. There is no possible way you reverting me once, and then me reverting you back once with an explanation of why I had made the initial edit could be considered an edit war. You just want to accuse me of doing something wrong because I disagree with you, but someone merely disagreeing with you isn't edit warring. Calathan (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

You're reading far too much into my comments. I don't want to accuse you of edit warring. Rather, I'm simply pointing out that what you did was edit warring. You're welcome to not do anything with the information, but your interpretation of WP:BRD is wrong. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I my replies were getting a little heated there. To put things a different way, if you removed some content that you thought went against guidelines (without giving a good explanation why), and someone reverted that, would you remove the content again while explaining the reasons why it didn't belong, or would you leave the content that went against the guidelines in place? I think you would probably remove it one more time while explaining why the content didn't belong. I think most experienced Wikipedia editors would remove the content again in that situation, and I think they would consider that perfectly appropriate editing. After all, once you've given an explanation of why it doesn't belong, your hope is that the person who added it back in will agree that it doesn't belong. I think that what I did isn't against the behavioral policies, and instead is the way most experienced editors would act. I certainly didn't mean to imply that you were accusing me of edit warring out of spite or anything like that, but I just felt like your judgment was a little clouded by the fact that you were the person being reverted, and that if you saw the same behavior in any other circumstances you would have thought it was fine. Maybe that isn't the case, and you would have felt my actions were inappropriate even if they didn't involve you. However, I feel strongly that what I did couldn't be consider edit warring under the edit warring policy (a single revert, or perhaps two if you consider the removal of content in my initial edit to be a "revert", cannot possibly be repeatedly overriding someone else's contributions), and I feel strongly that most experienced editors wouldn't consider a single revert with an explanation to be edit warring. If you still disagree and think what I did was edit warring, then I just don't think we will ever agree on what edit warring is, and it is probably futile to continue this conversation. Calathan (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I would have taken things to the talk page. That's my general practice. Regarding edit warring, I think you're splitting hairs to not classify it as edit warring (even it's only the first step into edit warring territory). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Precious

Japan, Japan

Thank you for quality contributions to Japan and its portal, for a colourful and clear presentation of your contributions, for your service as admin and bureaucrat, for uploading your images and "listening to all kinds of music (really, almost every kind out there)" and boxing "rather emphasises its diversity", for support, - repeating from 3 June 2009: you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

re UFAA

Hi Nihonjoe, Your reply & my report's disappeared so I figured I'd reply here,
I wasn't sure on how to really deal with the issue and I thought it was best I made a report and take it from there, It happens alot at UFAA where someone will tag a report as "discussing with user" and then after a few days it's forgotten with so I was trying to get it sorted there and then instead of it all being forgotten about,
Despite my rather bad reply I wasn't having a go at that admin nor was I gunning for the editor to be blocked (infact I wasn't even looking for any admin action!),
So I apologize if it seemed like I was giving the admin a hard time, It honestly wasn't my intention at all, I just wanted it to really be dealt with there and then but I guess the COI message was that answer,
Anyway I just wanted to apologize, Happy editing, –Davey2010^Talk 21:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

No problem. It's hard to determine tone using only text. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

True but in all fairness I should've worded it in a much better way, Anyway all in the past lol, Anyway thanks & Happy editing :), –Davey2010^Talk 23:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Larry Correia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spellbound. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Dog of Flanders

I'm not sure how your logic applies here. The article itself was deleted and merged with the article it is redirecting from. Wouldn't it make more sense to give it a link when and if someone actually makes the article? Otherwise we could litter Wikipedia with self-linking redirects of articles we 'hope' one day might be created. --Tarage (talk) 23:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Tarage: Your edit summary didn't state you were removing links to a deleted article. Please be more specific when doing that in the future, and feel free to change it back. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Japanese Wikivoyage

Please see: ja:Wikipedia:Help_for_Non-Japanese_Speakers#Japanese_Wikivoyage, thanks Acer (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Ban-ei

(Decided to use my account I registered back in 2014 for article about Hiroshima landslides.)

I decided to took drastic measures to stop everyone referring ban-ei as breed instead sport.. Thanks for being saving my skin.

I'll do go through language links instead, something I shoul've done at first place. ※〶 05:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Nihonjoe. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Nihonjoe/Linda Hunter Adams

Per your request, I have userfied this article. The consensus was to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Hunter Adams so if you decide to not pursue it, you may simply delete. If you do improve it, I trust your judgement as to when and whether or not it is ready for mainspace. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Thanks. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

New newsletter for Notifications

Hello

You are subscribing to the Notifications newsletter on English Wikipedia.

That newsletter is now replaced by the monthly and multilingual Collaboration team newsletter, which will include information and updates concerning Notifications but also concerning Flow and Edit Review Improvements.

Please subscribe!

All the best, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

HistoryofBangladesh

Reg this, I'm not the blocker, I just removed talk page access. This is just the latest in a long set of socks that were created to circumvent the topic ban on the original account. —SpacemanSpiff 21:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: Sorry, I just looked at his contribs page, which had you as the last one issuing a block. Regardless, 'crats can't and won't do anything regarding this issue. Thanks. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Sk8erPrince

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

I have referred them to ANI over personal attacks made to an ip. As you had already discussed with them about AGF and such I thought best to notify you.SephyTheThird (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

RFD

Hi Nihonjoe, Sorry to bother you but as you were the last one to edit MickMacNee tp could you add {{subst:RFDNote|Uk driving license}} –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color: blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color: orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]^{[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color: navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]} ~~~~~ to his talkpage for me please? (All of my sig & timestamp is there so it would just need pasting),
As pointless as it is I'd rather it went on record he was atleast notified that was all,
Anyway thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 01:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Done. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh brilliant thank you :), Sorry I hadn't even realized you replied otherwise I would've replied sooner, Anyway thanks again. –Davey2010^Talk 19:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Capeta

With the exception of CN India, Capeta isn't licensed or broadcast anywhere in English speaking countries, nor can 4Kids license it as they're now a subsidary of Konami for Yu-Gi-Oh! and their name is now 4K Media.

And if it was broadcast in the English speaking world, I'd have some memory of watching it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3395:850:fc87:36ee:6491:c087 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure you haven't watched absolutely everything ever broadcast in the English speaking world. That would be impossible. Please stop vandalising the page. You don't have any evidence for what you're doing, so stop or you will be blocked. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Ni hao!

Hi Nihonjoe! Thanks for the orientation to Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earhart22 (talk • contribs) 1:08, 14 October 2016‎ (UTC)

That's Chinese, but Konnichiha. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

new at this

Hi. Wordsworthfan (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wordsworthfan: Greetings! I hope you enjoy editing here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't edit anything

i didn't edit anything from your tinker bell series i don't like being accused thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.99.9 (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Someone using your IP address did. If it wasn't you, then you are sharing the IP address. Feel free to create your own account so you don't have to see messages like that in the future. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 11:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Sk8erprince

Not satisfied with taking a break from AFD's after the criticism given over his last ones, Sk8erprince is once again testing the limits of neutrality in AFD's. This time by renominating an article a whole two days after it closed due to a lack of input. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takaya Hashi (2nd nomination) How are we supposed to assume good faith with such a blatant disrespect for the system? SephyTheThird (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

November editing meet-up?

I'm thinking of holding an edit-a-thon this month (November), but this time for a group of interested, local editors. We could work on some Japan pages as part of Asian month. I know November can be a busy month--would you be interested in participating? What days/times work best for you? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): I'll have to look at things and see when it will work. After Thanksgiving would probably work best, though. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

None of the other users I've asked about have expressed interest, so I'll back-burner holding another edit-a-thon for now. Maybe next year! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): Sounds good. There's a science fiction symposium in February, so maybe do an edit-a-thon in conjunction with that? There are plenty of science fiction, fantasy, and horror authors who are LDS, so that could be a theme? Might bring in people who might not otherwise notice it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

that sounds like a fantastic outreach opportunity! I'll see what my supervisor says. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Decided to ask before acting, but I did it improperly.

I've updated article about Namie, Fukushima to reflect my concerns. ※〶 21:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Fruitmince: I reverted the edit because it was not in proper English. Please discuss on Talk: Namie, Fukushima the changes you wish to make to Namie, Fukushima so that others can help with the wording and deciding what references to include. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Heritage Internet Technologies logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Heritage Internet Technologies logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Nihonjoe.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

November 17

What is the problem with me adding to November 17? I did not break any rules as far as I am aware. Can you help me understand what I did wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FancyTurtle (talk • contribs) 01:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@FancyTurtle: To quote Wikipedia:Days of the year#Holidays and observances (which is linked at the top of the edit screen when you edit November 17), "Holidays and observances, if notable enough for inclusion, should be the subject of a Wikipedia article (or in the case of religious feasts, mentioned in a linked article)." The entry you added did not have a link at all. Everything included must have a link. Please be sure to read the notices at the top of the edit page. They contain information such as what I just quoted to you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Anime afd's

You need to calm down and take a step back, Sk8erPrince. You are obviously far too invested in these AfDs if you explode over something like this. Please take this to the article talk page if you want to discuss things. Your reaction is definitely a good indication you need to back off a bit. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Unfortunately I seem to be making the same rant these days in certain afd's so I was looking for a neutral opinion from an experienced editor. What are your feelings towards new AFD's the day after the previous one closes - especially when the original was a no concensus after 3 weeks? The guideline is open to interpretation as it invites relistings but doesn't make clear if that should be a new afd or just the week long "refresh" as it were. I can't view ska8terprince's constant renoms with good faith and currently find myself repeating my objections, which is not really healthy for discussion. It also ends up as a discussion over the word of the law vs the nature of the law and not about the article itself. What are your thoughts? I'll let it lie in future if necessary but I need to know if i'm wasting my time. SephyTheThird (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@SephyTheThird: I would let it alone for a couple months (at least). Many people do not look kindly on immediately renominating it. In the meantime, you could perhaps try to improve the article. You would have a stronger argument if you try for a couple months and are unable to finad anything then. Which article is it? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm seeking to stop these renominations. this is the article in question. I have nothing against deletion, but I take issue with the quick reposting. Having made a rather uncharacteristic post to that renom I will be avoiding the discussion. It's not very agf. SephyTheThird (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

You're seeking to stop these renoms, but you're not going to do anything to improve the article(s) in question? That's just delaying the inevitable outcome of them being deleted, to be honest. Also, a clear consensus is all I need - keep or delete, I will accept the outcome. But no consensus means that a new AFD is necessary. Sephy, what you've said might have been valid IF I renomed an article that has been closed as "keep" within just a day or two. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@SephyTheThird: I speedy closed that one. There's no valid reason to renom that soon. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPASR, people. That means that I could put an article back on a new AFD as soon as the first AFD closes. That's a Wikipedia guideline, and I'm not making things up. By speedy closing my AFD, does that mean you are going AGAINST a Wikipedia guideline? What's the point of WP:NPASR anyway, if you won't let me speedy renominate? Also, it is important to note that nobody has bothered to improve the article ever since my first AFD. Why do you think that is? It's because the subject non-notable, so any amount of research you do isn't going to save it, anyway. Joe, you are just delaying the process. I would love to have a 3rd AFD to settle the dispute, but I think we should have another admins pitch in their opinions regarding the matter as well, especially Roy, whom shall be mentioned below.

I also think it's ridiculous of you to call my renominations "disruptive" when it is a fact that:

1) I do not renominate articles that have been closed as "keep" within just a day (I do admit that I've renominated articles that have been closed as "keep" more than 8 years ago). I strongly disagree that it is considered to be disruptive to renominate an article for deletion when it is closed as "no consensus", even more so when it it closed WITH WP:NPASR.

2) There has been absolutely no progress on asserting the subject's notability during the first or second AFDs. According to Kobe from my other renomination, he has stated two very valid points:

I) There was no attempt at improvement during the three weeks that the first AFD was running. If improvement was ever going to happen, that would've been the most active time.

II) To quote WP:SPEEDYCLOSE in full, it says Frivolous or vexatious nominations ... includes re-nominating the same page with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected ..." An AFD closed as no consensus due to almost zero participation is not a "strong rejection" of the nominator's arguments.

In other words, thanks to Kobe, I was able to delete the article in the end. WP:NPASR exists for a reason, and I have not violated any guidelines in speedy renominating articles closed as "no consensus". In Nanaho's case, it would seem that it's similar to that of Takaya too, where no improvements have been made in three weeks, nor assertions of notability.

3) Another renomination I did had speedy keep votes too, but they were IGNORED. The admin Roy decided to delete the article at the end of the AFD because it's more important to determine whether or not the article meets Wikipedia's guidelines. And on the subject of Takaya, AFD 1 wasn't even closed as WP:NPASR. ALL my of my other AFDs that were closed as "no consensus" however, were also closed with WP:NPASR.

---

The truth of the matter is, if there is absolutely nothing you could have done to save an article (mind you, I HAVE done my research before nominating), I beseech you not to stand in my way as an obstacle by delaying the inevitable outcome. I need to clarify this: If any of my AFDs are closed as "keep" with strong, valid arguments, I will not renominate it for deletion. "No consensus" means a new discussion is necessary, especially if the previous AFD barely had any participation. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I think what it comes down to is that you intentionally or not are getting on the nerves of a lot of editors here. Please keep in mind WP:POINT, it is perfectly fine to want to delete an article you feel should be deleted, but it crosses the line when you demand things out of editors by going through the AfD process again. There is also WP:TENDENTIOUS editing that may come into play, again with the demands and belittling you have done. I don't know where this is all going, but something needs to end now as editors have had way too many straws broken so please understand this Prince. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:POINT does not apply to me. I follow guidelines to the letter, as proven from my recent AFDs. I don't use them to prove a point (and even if I do, that is not a problem as long as I'm not attempting to change any existing guidelines) I use them just as they are intended to be used. Neither does WP:TENDENTIOUS. You're saying I'm biased? Really? On all my recent AFDs, I've posted any limited significant roles I've managed to dig up for the subject, before proceeding to explain why I think the subject is non-notable. That is merely just an opening statement; nothing biased about that. How about you stay away from AFDs if you don't like the way I do things? Honestly, you (and some others) are repeatedly getting offended over my valid demands. Also doesn't help that you haven't read the guidelines properly, as stated by Kobe. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

It isn't the process, it is your attitude and the bridges that have been burnt. Guidelines and policies exist for behavioral issues as well. I am trying to tell you that this isn't leading to anywhere good. if I were you I would hold back on the AfDs or try to make amends with editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Deal with it. You're not 5. If you can't be helpful in my AFDs, don't participate. Simple as that. Different people have different ways of doing things. I'm not violating any guidelines, and that's a FACT. I'm not going to hold back on the AFDs if those articles are going to be deleted in the end, anyway. I don't appreciate delaying the process, and I also don't appreciate that a number of you insisting the article be kept so that "improvements could be made" on a non-notable subject, when there is BLATANTLY nothing you could have done to assert the subject's notability. You're also completely disregarding the usage of WP:NPASR, and I'm not pleased with that. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Counterarguments on Sephy's points:

"Once again this is a renomination of an afd that has been closed for one day as no consensus. Given that the nominator continues to relist such afd's despite objections"

You have already been proven wrong on that regard by Kobe. Relisting an AFD that ended as no consensus is NOT an objection/rejection. To quote Kobe and WP:SPEEDYCLOSE: To quote WP:SPEEDYCLOSE in full, it says Frivolous or vexatious nominations ... includes re-nominating the same page with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected ..." An AFD closed as no consensus due to almost zero participation is not a "strong rejection" of the nominator's arguments.

---

"as well as being quite forceful with demands that we must have a consensus"

There is nothing wrong with wanting a consensus. You're just upset because you'd rather keep a poorly written article, or an article that blatantly doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements.

"rather than allow time for improvement"

Yet you and other editors on the keep camp have done next to NOTHING in asserting the subjects' notability. Therefore, your argument is invalid. Just admit that you can't find reliable sources to help improve the article, instead of accusing me for not allowing you to improve it. Delaying the inevitable result is an obstruction of the AFD process. So if anyone's being disruptive, it's you.

"I struggle to assume good faith with such a listing."

And I couldn't care less. Stay off of my AFDs if you don't want to be helpful. You have already been proven wrong on your arguments in Takaya's second AFD, so stop getting offended due to your lack of knowledge regarding the AFD guidelines.

"However as the nominator got his way on one article and had it deleted after displaying obvious bias towards his desired outcome this appears to be validating his approach."

Comes to show you that you aren't always right. Maybe you should get off of your high horse. I could state how I don't want Article A or Article B to stay on the encyclopedia with valid reasoning. I'm free to do that. And as long as I have people that agree with me, your weak reasoning isn't going to have any weight on the overall AFD. Do try to remember that you and Knowledge's arguments were ignored. Also doesn't change the fact that a subject is either notable or non-notable, and as participants of an AFD, we have to determine that.

"A line needs to be drawn to prevent these trivial relistings"

Did I just hear you right? "Trivial" relistings? If they're so trivial, then why are you fussing over it? In which case, it's not trivial, then.

"and the demands of an editor who has continues to show poor judgement"

Pray tell, how many articles have you deleted by yourself? I have 26, so far. I'm sure that's proof of my poor judgement. I'm suuuuuure.

"The continued lack of respect for completed procedure is not helpful to the A&M project or Wikipedia in general."

Lack of respect, you say? I'm pretty confident that I don't even give a dang about existing guidelines, then. But I do. I followed WP:NPASR to the letter. You're saying that I'm not following the procedures. But that guideline exists. And I'm following it to the bone. So let me direct the arrow back at you - YOU'RE the one that's not being procedural here, Sephy.

"Sufficient time should be allowed to pass before a new afd and a day, or even a month is not really sufficient."

Sure, if the article has been closed as "keep", but no improvements have been made to it in years. Some of the articles I've nominated for deletion have not been improved at all during the 3 weeks of the AFD process. You keep telling me that I should give you time to improve it, but none of you have bothered to do so. So it's not that I'm not giving time to improve it, you're just wanting to stand in my way because you don't like the way I do things. Again, WP:NPASR is in place, so what you're saying up to this point is completely invalid.

"Edit: The guideline does not prohibit relisting and even suggests it, but this is up for interpretation, after all it was already relisted twice within the previous afd and therefore ran for several weeks."

WP:NPASR means speedy renomination is allowed. It is like speedy keep. So with that guideline in place, why are you still obstructing in my way?

"Either way, the justification for nomination is because the nominator is not happy with the outcome, which as a reason for renomination is not a convincing one."

Yeah, bear in mind that there was barely any discussion in the first place, so that it ended as "no consensus" as a result. You're telling me that I should be satisfied when the notability of a subject has yet to be ascertained? You either keep the article, or delete it. There's no in between. And if you can't find good sources to assert a subject's notability, don't stand in way to delay the inevitable outcome. It's irritating. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I beseech you to not avoid the subject at hand, Joe.

I'm very calm, and I have not exploded. First and foremost, I'm not doing AFDs to gain some sort of recognition, nor am I doing it to gain friends. Therefore, I don't need the approval of other editors that can't be bothered to read the guidelines properly. Also, I just wanted to know for what grounds are you denying an existing guideline, WP:NPASR? That guideline, as far as concerned, could be applied to an article that has recently been closed as "no consensus", granting me the right to speedy renom. It's not about a single article, Joe. It's about articles that are closed as no consensus with WP:NPASR in general. Hence I'm not taking the discussion to Nanaho's talk page, I'm doing it here as I feel like you're avoiding a valid concern. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sk8erPrince: Who is avoiding the subject? I merely told you to take it to the discussion page for the article (where I commented, even). And NPASR does not apply anymore since the original discussion was closed as "no consensus" (meaning "no consensus to delete"). Relisting the article was done on October 30 and November 8. This is what the "relisting" part of NPASR is talking about. MBisanz then chose to follow another part of NPASR and close as "no consensus". Your obsession with deleting this article has become disruptive, and you need to back off for a couple months. Then, if no one is able to find any sources, feel free to nominate it again. If you are unable to control your urges to renominate before then, I will consider you to be a disruptive editor and further actions may be necessary. Please stop now. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 November 20. —Cryptic 01:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Sorry for all of the "drama" that has unfolded, part of being a crat though right? Hang in there, and thanks for your edits as a whole to Wikipedia! =) Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Since it's Asian month...

Since it's Asian month, do you by chance take ja:wiki translation requests? ;) --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Right now, I don't have the time to do them within a reasonable timeframe. Sorry. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

No problem, I know how that is. Thanks for getting back with me!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

This is in regards to Sk8erPrince, seeing I mentioned your edit summaries comment if you would like here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sk8erPrince not using edit summaries when nominating articles for deletion Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		100,000 edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100,000 edits on the English Wikipedia. The Wikipedia community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

You can add this template to your user page:

This user has earned the
100,000 Edits Award.

—MRD2014 (Happy Thanksgiving!) 16:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! (though I actually have quite a few more than 100,000 edits, taking into account all the deleted edits I've accumulated over the last 10+ years) ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Worldtomorrowgta

Not sure if you've noticed, but they are now editing as an IP (they admit it) 198.223.226.236 (talk · contribs) Doug Weller talk 19:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Handled. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

a promotional username (Verizon cellular phone IP address 198.223.226.236). Nothing more or less. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

My cellular phone IP address IS NOT a "promotional username" - to block it was wrong. Wikipedia rules allow edits from unregistered users. I'd rather you apologize and go on your way, then to respond with vitriol. Dollyparton7 (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)dollyparton7

@Dollyparton7: When did I write that? Please provide a diff. What I did write was this:

I'm sorry for the confusion, but your IP address (68.112.80.243) is not currently blocked (nor has it ever been blocked)...As for the block of Worldtomorrowgta, that was simply a username block for having a promotional username. Nothing more or less.

Please do not manipulate and misquote my words to try to prove a point. If you do that again, you will be blocked for disruptive editing. (@Doug Weller: Just FYI.) ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dollyparton: While we are happy with users editing with no account, once they get an account we expect them to use it. Using both an account and an IP address to edit the same or related articles isn't a good idea. Doug Weller talk 19:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Doug, ....a promotional username (Verizon cellular phone IP address 198.223.226.236). Nothing more or less. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

A friends cellular phone IP address IS NOT a "promotional username" - to block it was wrong. Wikipedia rules allow edits from unregistered users. (Can you block every unregistered user who may make an edit you don't personally like?) Most Wikipedia editors LOVE to play TRUMP card, blocking users for the power and fun of it, who holds a different opinion on any given subject matter, or doe not share the same values. Instead I'd rather you apologize and go on your way, then to respond with vitriol. Dollyparton7 (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)dollyparton7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dollyparton7 (talk • contribs) Nobody "misquoted" you anywhere, Mr. Weller. We have SEVERAL different producers. We do not all share the same USERNAME. ".....If you do that again (misquote you?), you will be blocked for disruptive editing." And, stop grasping at straws to misuse your power to block, with no good reason. Threating to block someone who doesn't share your personal beliefs, is you being disruptive. For well over 4 years, a show title card photo has tried to be added to this article which offends so many like yourself, and the offended parties have overreached with every available objection to block the upload, even when the uploaded photo is identical to any other given Wikipedia photo upload, using the exact same parameters used at ANY Wikipedia television show title card. Still, The World Tomorrow (radio and television) title card gets rejected, and marked for speedy deletion. It is not the title card, or how it is uploaded being challenged, it IS the show's content those of you camping out at the article and its talk page take issue with. If this isn't the case, leave it alone, allow the photo to be inserted into the article like so many hundreds of similar half hour sitcom Wikipedia articles - AND remove the permanent protection template so that edits and fresh updates can be made to the article. As it stands, only those handful of aforementioned super editors who have camped out watching this article and its content for nearly 4 years - have the authority to make changes and updates. These so called super editors would like to delete the article from Wikipedia entirely, if they could do so. Our experiences lead us to concur with many newcomers who super editors, (long time users) quickly jump all over, threaten, block and OFFEND - "bully" into leaving the playground. Do any of you want to prove you are unbiased? Insert the photo upload into the article as the shows title card, and remove the permanent protection template. Wikipedia has been begging for donations in recent days to remain fluid. Perhaps it's demise is well deserved, for some of the aforementioned poor behavior of it's users, and imminent. ----dollyparton7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dollyparton7 (talk • contribs)

@Dollyparton7: You are very obviously misunderstanding something here. Whether that is due to ignorance or malice, I can't say since I can't read your mind. And again, you misquoted me. I never said the IP address was "a promotional username". If you pay attention to what I wrote, I stated that Worldtomorrowgta was a promotional username. If you can't grasp that simple fact (look below, and you can see my original post), then I don't know that editing is for you. We require a modicum of English comprehension to be able to edit on the English Wikipedia, yet you have shown repeatedly that you either cannot or will not understand clearly worded statements and questions. I suggest taking a step back, taking a deep breath, and perhaps doing something else for a while. (@Doug Weller: FYI.) ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, Doug Weller is not me. You seem to be mixing our comments up (in addition to the other mixups described above). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

So nice of a Japanese to dictate how to speak and comprehend English, to an American born United States citizen. I suggest you take your own advice, and quickly apply it to yourself. I know Doug Weller is not you, but he chimed in with you then threated to block me. Your smears and insults - deserve blocking -- you are all so quick to bully newcomers its no wonder Wikipedia is failing. ----dollyparton7

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Comments on someone's supposed nationality as an argument? Ironical since all 3 of us are American born United States citizens. @Dollyparton7: you say "We do not all share the same USERNAME." So how many of you do share the same username? Doug Weller talk 21:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Illegal unwarranted block of my IP cell phone address

Reverse the illegal block. I am Earl Timmons. I am 84 years old. I was user worldtomorrowgta, and was forced to change my username to dollyparton7 due to an accusation my previous name was too closely associated with some subject matter. You falsely blocked me and falsely labeled me user Garnerted, falsely accusing me of block evasion and sock puppetry. 68.112.80.243 (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC) DollyParton7

@68.112.80.243: I'm sorry for the confusion, but your IP address (68.112.80.243) is not currently blocked (nor has it ever been blocked). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

As for the block of Worldtomorrowgta, that was simply a username block for having a promotional username. Nothing more or less. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

My Verizon Cell phone IP that WAS and still IS blocked - IP address 198.223.226.236, is still currently blocked. The other IP you referenced is to our office desktop computer ---- dollyparton7

You'll just need to wait for the block to expire. There was nothing "illegal" about the block, but plenty that was warranted. Try to play within the rules. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

ANI discussion re: Legal threats by Dollyparton7

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Legal threats by Dollyparton7. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)