![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello, Dekimasu, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --
Ynhockey (
Talk)
11:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, sorry, I had no idea about that template and I can't believe I didn't check to see that that link didn't point to the Japanese language! I'm working on changing them now. Any chance you could give me some pointers in using that template, I've never seen it before. Thanks. -- Timkovski 20:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for putting in the Imperial Japanese Navy links. I'm posting articles on a lot of WWII U.S. Navy ships, and I'm just learning about the appropriate links for U.S. stuff. I'm grateful for anything about the Japanese side. Lou Sander 19:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments and the edits! I am not an expert on Japan but I am writing a couple more articles with Japanese-American themes. I am sure they would benefit from a good critical reading.
By the way, I am a huge Tanizaki fan and I agree that the Tanizaki article should be expanded. I look forward to it. Actinman
If you have time, please check out League of Blood Incident. I am not an expert on Japanese history but I found a reference to the incident when I was researching Katsuma Dan. It seemed appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Let me know what you think. Actinman 03:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
You edited the talk page of a rejected, and therefore inactive, policy proposal. First, editing others' comments is widely frowned upon. Second, inactive policy pages are often on watchlists, in case anyone tries to revive discussion. Edits tend to confuse the record and make the discussion look active.
No great harm done, but I thought I would mention it. Robert A.West ( Talk) 16:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for fixing my profile XSpaceyx 22:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I left a question related to your recent edit on Talk:USS Haskell (APA-117)-- J Clear 01:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
If you could take a quick peek at this bio stub Totsuka Michitaro and if nothing else can you comment on the two spellings I found (see its Talk page)? Thanks.-- J Clear 01:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Just dropping a note, thanks for the disambiguation link repair on my profile. akuyume(Adam) 03:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi there how are you going? Apparently some contributors have edited the section you've tagged with the cleanup tag. Please see it, Tourism in Indonesia and tell us what you think. If you think it still need the tag, umm, please point which part of the section that needs major edit. Cheers, take care -- I mo eng 10:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Konnichiha, dekimasu-san.
Thanks for the heads-up on the copyright violation. The person who wrote the text and took the pictures on the website is very likely to be the author of the wikipedia page, and claims to have released the pictures into the public domain.
However, the external website has a copyright notice on it. Accordingly, the text is copyrighted. I've removed most of the content. Thanks for pointing it out. - Richardcavell 12:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
G'day from Australia, Thankx for fixing my link to Japan. Konichi wa?
Hi there, you marked Simon Woodroffe as being contradictory. Just passing by, but couldn't see where it was contradictory, and wondered if I was being dim? You didn't leave a comment on the talk page explaining it anyway. TheMoog 09:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Could you add a line to the description that says which episode you took the screen-cap from? Otherwise, that blasted orphanbot may tag it as unsourced. -- tjstrf 06:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I know, that link is tiny. I may be able to fix that, since I was able to at least improve it from the default (compare with Rurouni Kenshin). I disagree that it creates any POV issues, since this is the enwiki. If I'd left out Canada or something, that would be POV, but putting all the non-english non-original publishers in an extended list shouldn't be a problem and was the entire purpose of that field to start with. I didn't create that field, I simply made it not impossible to see. -- tjstrf 10:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, the size issue is fixed. At least for me, the text size is identical to the other infobox text. -- tjstrf 10:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I must go to bed now. Sorry, but you'll have to talk to me about this tomorrow. Hopefully it's only effecting you. -- tjstrf 10:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm 99% sure this is Nick, Eddie H.'s friend (no full names; I like staying anonymous on here, too). I was hanging out with you and Eddie in Kobe. If I'm wrong, please disregard.-- Nobunaga24 12:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes... it was an error when copy-paste fixing the huge number of double redirects we just created. Sometimes the page would redirect without me noticing and I'd edit the wrong one. Oops -- tjstrf 03:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I thought I had removed the subcategories as well, can you point me which ones are still alive? -- Drini 20:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the disambiguation link repair on my page. You missed all of the Russian -> Russian language ambiguous links though. ;) But thanks to you making me aware of the problem I fixed it now. お疲れ様でした~。 Truncated 12:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The book that revealed Sora's name came out in January 2006! [1]
Be glad it came out as soon as it did, I guess. Also, I expect VIZ to revise its newer printings of Bleach Vol. 1 soon. WhisperToMe 02:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
In fact, which volumes had "Kakei"? I'll check my bookstore and see if VIZ edited the printings. WhisperToMe 02:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
"VIZ isn't known for being good about things like that. Under what circumstances did the English manga and anime have to reveal his first name anyway, when the originals didn't? This after people were complimenting the dub on its respect for Japanese naming issues. Dekimasu 02:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)"
When a younger sibling addresses an older sibling in Japanese, he or she calls him or her "honorable older brother" or "honorable older sister" - I.E. Orihime called her brother "Brother" in the Japanese originals. VIZ did not want to have Orihime call her brother "brother" all the time, so VIZ had to make up a name for him. WhisperToMe 02:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I may have found your page based on your contributions or your link repair user box on your user page. If you are not a member, please consider including your name on the project page. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 22:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Dekimasu! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand ( talk • contribs • Bot) 20:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
What is it about the Highcliffe School wiki that is not notable? Electrology
Sorry for causing a back-up, didn't realise that some of the pages were doing that. How do you add these disambiguations and know which pages will need them? Ichi-o 12:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
You have recently vandalized the article STS-120. This is really not a good idea and could result in your being blocked. Hektor 11:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
– Clockwork Soul 04:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
AzaBot 16:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
AzaBot 03:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
AzaBot 01:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
AzaBot 01:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, just thought I'd point you in the direction of a new category I created: Category:Wikipedians in Osaka. Figured there might be enough Wikipedians living in Osaka to make it worthwhile. -- Brad Beattie (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted your edits to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 August 26. When doing disambiguation maintenance, you should not change links that intentionally point to a disambig page. You should also avoid changing archived deletion debates. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 13:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
How come you redirected elections in Higashi-osaka to the main page of the city. Other cities have separate pages for elections. Also the Higashi-osaka page looks clutterd with all thoose tables. -- Jonte-- 20:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I replied to your comment on my talk page. Thanks. Shimeru 07:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Great! I'm glad that she didn't make any damaging edits on JA Wikipedia. Has any action been taken against the account there? I really can't tell because the Japanese characters all come up as a box.-- E d ¿Cómo estás? 23:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
You removed some data from Henna gaijin as being copyvio: why, and where does this material come from then? The phrases seemed quite simple, so why not paraphrasing them instead? LHOON 10:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for pointing the mismatch in Japanese links that should have been Japanese People. From now on, I'll make sure to point to the correct page. -- Pygenot 10:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
As it clearly said at the relevant place on the relevant page -on which I have also left you a note - I have been working on this for the last 4 weeks, and it is very discourteous of you to cut in once the great majority of the work (103 links out of 109) has been done. Even on Wikipedia, famous for its rudeness, some basic standards of behaviour are necessary, and I see from your page that you are quite old enough to understand this. HeartofaDog 20:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that little edit on my userpage. ^_^ DrowningInRoyalty 01:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi! That one is tricky; I'm not even sure what is meant by the relevant sentence ("Although relativity implies that there is no true inertial frame..."). :-( I left a note on the article's talk page hoping that someone will clarify it. Thank you for the disambig advice, by the way! It's my first time trying my hand at it. HEL 12:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
I hereby confer upon you this Working Man's Barnstar to thank you for your tireless disambiguation work! Russ (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC) |
Hi there, I just wanted to point out that while the new picture may be of lesser quality, what's more important is that its licensing is not in question at all. The previous image had a highly dubious fair use justification and very vague sourcing. I think we shouldn't have to rely on dubiously sourced/fair use justified images, especially as we clearly have English-language Wikipedians in Japan. If you really object to the quality of the new picture, I suggest that we don't use either picture until a better image can be found. Bwithh
with your preference for traditional dress in mind:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Shinto_married_couple.jpg (could do with some cropping)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Shinto_wedding_shrine_tokyo.jpg (cropping needed)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Morioka_Kinder_3.JPG
Bwithh 04:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
http://flickr.com/photos/76162070@N00/39589492/ (good profiles but needs cropping especially to remove the face on the right)
http://flickr.com/photos/nandemo-ii/158581109/
http://flickr.com/photos/bnittoli/213176729/ (well... I thought we might want a modern/traditional fusion)
http://flickr.com/photos/geoff_leeming/27740478/
http://flickr.com/photos/taminator/304772947/ group shot (traditional and modern) with um, bonus gaijin (location is Vancouver however - but that doesnt matter for ethnicity template?)
http://flickr.com/photos/taminator/301744479/ group shot "japanese" (shinto temple in Vancouver?} interior with same family as above but without gaijin... I think this is one of my favourite ones - I like the way the younger couple is in traditional clothes and the older people are in modern clothes. I would crop above their hands though. Bwithh 05:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately,the photographer has not yet replied to my flicker email to him , and he has definitely been active on flicker (uploaded new photos) during the time. On the other hand, someone else has uploaded a public domain set of photos to the template, so it's all good Bwithh 05:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
Too busy to do dab page stuff at the moment, but may be ready soon. I notice you do TEFL, presumably in Japan. I'm a Taiwan TEFL'er currently in the US getting a PhD. Also your remarks on my talk page that began, "As an aside, I certainly agree with your idea..." sound like something I might say, but I don't remember saying them. :-) Where did I say that? Later, -- Ling.Nut 05:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The photographer who owns the flickr image has replied - he's interested. I am currently clarifying the licensing situation for him. We'll see how it goes Bwithh 06:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
You've been approved to use NPWatcher. Please give me any feature requests or bugs. I'm also happy to help if you have any problems running the program, or any questions :). Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if I've made a new release (or just add the main page ( here) to your watchlist). Finally, enjoy! M a rtinp23 14:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia, but I'm glad to find a project I can help with! I'm going to work on the "Spring" disambiguation page as much as I possibly can until they're all cleaned up. Kaiwynn 02:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I moved a recent comment that you had left on the Hinduism talk page to the Hindu Notice Board where it is more likely to be seen by all editors working on the Hinduism project. I hope you will not consider this rude. Thanks. Abecedare 04:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that translation. I really owe you one.-- Maison mere des rumeurs 05:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits to User:Sam ov the blue sand/Ace Combat X Fictional Aircraft they are greatly needed. Sam ov the blue sand 18:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for reviewing History of Sheffield. I have made the MoS changes that you requested—in my line of work we always put citations before punctuation, so it looks odd to me this way, but that's OK. Thanks again, — JeremyA 19:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
{{Hindu Links}}-- D-Boy 11:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi there,
As a user looking to Adopt with the Adopt-a-User program, there has been some ongoing developments that we would like to bring to your attention, as well as request help with the backlog at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user.
You should know that the way the adoption process works has changed slightly. To decrease workload at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user on offering adoption please change the {{Adoptme}} template to {{Adoptoffer}} on the user's user page, and this will add the user to Category:Wikipedians having been offered adoption. Users that have already been offered adoption can always have a second or third offer, but by separating out those users that have not had an adoption offer yet, it is hoped that no one will go lacking. Once adoption is complete please use the templates found here on the Adoptee's and your user page.
Also numerous Adopters have been adding their details to a list of users available for adopting, to offer a more personalised service and allow new users to browse through and pick their own Adopter. The quickest way to adopt though, is still to contact users at the Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user.
Furthermore a new Adopter's Area has been created where you can find useful resources and other Adopter's experiences. Please feel free to add any resources you have and if you know of any useful resources for new users / Adoptees then you can add them here.
So I hope you get adopting soon - and if you have any general questions or suggestions about the further development of Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User please bring them to our talk page. Cheers Lethaniol 15:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: J-ska, this is an inquiry for my own edification rather than a challenge to your edit. Can you refer me to the guidelines on this matter so I can know which from what in the future? To make communication easier, I'll just watch this page for now and you can answer me right here. Thanks. House of Scandal 12:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
No, that's cool; I understand and appreciate the help. I like adding audio and video links to my articles when possible. I see it as an extention of the "don't tell, show" philosophy. I will avoid linking to probable copyright violation stuff in the future. BTW, you may not have noticed that J-ska is listed at AfD right now. Give an opinion there if the spirit moves you. Thanks again for the guideline links. Have a good Sunday. House of Scandal 13:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Dekimasu, my apologies for the error on disambiguating Nomenclature. Thanks for setting me straight about correct procedure for disambiguation, and thanks also for fixing my changes to the disambiguation:Done section. Clicketyclack 12:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I've restored the talkpage of the deleted article and moved back to its parent article, as it was previously moved by you. Does all the current links to University of Wisconsin meant for University of Wisconsin-Madison? If so, then perhaps it may be a good idea to seek help from WP:DPL (or a bot if possible) to cleanup all the links from articles to point to University of Wisconsin-Madison directly. That may be tedious, but that should solve the problem once and for all. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we have a cencus on directing University of Wisconsin to UW-Madison. I've provided my comments on the University of Wisconsin talk page. Miaers 18:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you an administor? It is very unprofessional to move the page without any talk and no consideration of previous discussions. Miaers 01:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I appreciate your help in dealing with this situation. Unfortunately, Miaers has rarely ever listened to consensus on anything and prefers to argue with other editors. I see your latest comment on the talk-page, but would appreciate you checking back when you return as having an outside editor's opinion is helpful in this type of situation. Cheers, PaddyM 01:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I have asked for a deletion review of University of Wisconsin (disambiguation), at your suggestion. You might want to participate. -- Orange Mike 03:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I think if you still have further things to talk, it is better for us to do this through our talk pages. Miaers 19:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
This is to notify you that I am making an arbitration request concernining the University of Wisconsin redirect at [Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration]. Miaers 00:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
In addition to NPOV, no promoting and no academic boosterism, I think you also need to be civil. You are not supposed to make orders here. Miaers 17:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you previously heavily involved in the discussion on University of Wisconsin talk page. Your comments should be at the "Statement of previously involved editors" section not "Comments" section, which is for outside editors who didn't participated in the previous discussions. Miaers 15:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The comments section for requested comments are for outside editors. If you insist, it is no big deal. Miaers 21:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I was about three minutes behind you, I guess. But, I'm not convinced that the Japanese article is for the same guy. None of the songs are credited to him as 作詩家, which is what you would expect from a poet. Neier 07:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I've not been sure what to do about users blanking the page and whatnot, I've just reiterated Wikipedia policy over and over again. Any help you can offer expanding the article, including keeping it up-to-date and reliably sourced, is appreciated. Italiavivi 03:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Template:WikiProjectBanners has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- Ned Scott 08:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
No, not offended at all. I was just about to go and give him my reasoning myself when I saw your response, so I figured I'd explain to him why it was removed. ^^; Nique talk 14:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
もうかりまっか??if you have a problem with the images isn't it ethical first to talk to me before going anywhere? I agree that the first photo is the same one in her official site.And I obviously knew it.BUT you also have to understand that,the given site do not have any authority over the photo..Certainly not to my knowledge..In fact photo was given to me by one of my Japanese friends ,and he had no idea about the site !! Remember as a super model, thousands of her photos were taken by various cameramen and many of them are definitely not copyrighted.
And the other two were not copyrighted at all..They were taken by her fans..I will re add the photos and if you can prove that these are actually copy righted, please go ahead with your deletion..if not please let the photos stay,as a super model she deserve to have them in wikipedia.Plus, Japanese people are not big boasters.And to find citation to prove "she is one of the most successful ever" may be hard,as neither she nor anyone say that..But that's a fact.ask any girl in her late 20's or early 30's and hear what she says..She was probably the best known model at her generation,and with 梅宮 アンナ and RINKA probably the best ever produced by JJ. ほんならまたね -- Iwazaki 15:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
How come everytime I try to do some good on wikipedia. I always get crapped on. It doesn't matter if the songs were not singles. Look at the Beatles albums. Every song that is not a single has it's own page. So I guess you will have to propose those for deletion too. : ( User:wikiwonka12
(From User talk:Petri Krohn#Aino)
-- Petri Krohn 13:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
From User talk:Miaers, and copy-pasted here by User:Miaers: I came here to talk about the deletion review of the disambiguation page, but I noticed that you have a fair use image you uploaded on your user page. First, please note that it is never considered acceptable to display fair use images on your user page. I am also certain that this is a replaceable image and doesn't qualify under a fair use claim, but I don't want you to think that I am trying to attack your editing personally. Image:Chapman Hall.jpg should be listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, but you can remove it from the articles and ask to have it deleted yourself. Please let me know if you have any questions about this. Dekimasu 03:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not even in Wisconsin. I can't take the picture. More importantly, I don't think anyone can take a picture as beautiful as the one that is being used. Miaers 06:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I contacted the author of this photo, Allan Hong. He agreed to let me use this photo in Wikipedia. Could you please let me know what kind of license I should use for this image? Miaers 14:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
This is to let you know that there is no free replacement to the two UW-Milwaukee alumni photo I uploaded. There is nothing wrong with this There is no free replacement. There is nothing wrong with this {{promophoto}} tag. Please stop reverting. Miaers 20:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I have no apologies or retractions to issue with regard to those who have been attacking Miriam Shear and Talk:Miriam Shear whatsoever. User:Yisraelasper ought have been banned the second he engaged in repeat vandalism, including more advanced tactics like page-moving. Italiavivi 14:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I found your name on the list of users wishing to adopt other users and wondered how one would go about being adopted. Thanks for your time. Rurouniyuudai85 18:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
From User talk:Qxz, and copy-pasted here by User:Qxz: How about an ad related to Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links? It's been hit kind of hard lately (see the link numbers at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages maintenance) and would have the sort of widespread appeal you seem to be looking for. I love the ads, by the way... especially the one on edit summaries. Dekimasu 13:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Psyche.
Thank you very much, I like it. One suggestion is that it could probably stand to lose the notice image on the left since it's just taking up space and the notice is long enough that the image is obscured. But overall that's an excellent idea. -- tjstrf talk 06:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Kentaro's history is here.
-- 125.172.137.254 16:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Third-party's writing is here.
-- 125.172.137.254 17:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, the user is now blocked. (You might have received a faster response at administrators' intervention page, because I was busy editing a different article at the time.) - Mike Rosoft 09:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my recent RfA. I'm honored that you consider me one of your favorite editors. Here's hoping I can do some good with the new tools. Shimeru 15:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how do you get the information saying that she was born at 1977 instead of 1978. As far as all the DVD's and related materials I have, they concerned me that she is a product of 1978. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scorto ( talk • contribs) 08:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
You are damn right. I know that she celebrates her 30th birthday this year, however I still stick with the materials from her DVD....... I am disappointed about admitting both facts. She is 30 and born in 1978, that doesn't make sense. Thanks for correcting me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scorto ( talk • contribs) 19:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
I noticed that in your userboxes, you had (what appears to be) a homemade "Osaka-ben" language box. I'd actually be interested in having something for Kansai-ben on my own user page, and I thought that perhaps it might be worthwhile to create an actual set of usable Kansai-ben templates. There is no listing as-of-yet at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Non-ISO_Languages, but I don't think it'd be that hard to create such. If anything, the tricky part would be putting the message in-dialect and making it sound natural... -- Julian Grybowski 13:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Trampton has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Trampton 15:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
Please see Talk:Bleach (manga)#References formatting problems. I'd never paid attention to that part of the box before, but on reading it I've noticed that your proposed format for the manga citations cannot give us consistent and accurate page citations throughout our articles. -- tjstrf talk 01:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
About the changing of Japan. I do not approve of people editing my own page. As it makes my head mad and I nearly have a fit. But I don't mind people correcting me. Thanks for that. JoshuaMD 15:40 26th March 2007 (GMT)
I almost can't believe how far I'm going for such an insignificant article. Anyway, maybe, and just maybe, you want to read (and then feel remorse for doing it) my answer to your prod. Also, I'm still trying to understand what's that WP:SNOW you dislike. :o
Just a side note, I've noticed you must like Bleach... If, by any chance, you are not an anime fan, and you also hated basically all the Bount Arc, you should try Full Metal Alchemist and / or The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya. I envy you so much you're both learning japanese and living there. -- Caue ( T | C) 02:48, Thursday 2007- 03-29 ( UTC)
I hate when that happens, those damn starving browsers... On firefox I've even had a plugin where I could save a temporary file with a shortcut, just like I would do in a normal notepad, back when I used to use non- gmail browser text forms a lot. Maybe you should look into that kind of thing, since you do so many edits around here. It shouldn't be hard to find.
Anyway, yeah, redirecting to a "grouping" article sounds good. I'll take a look on it whenever I have the time. Maybe improving that japanese sound symbolism, maybe using another more relevant with the same grouping idea in mind, or maybe just moving it there as it is. Hopefully before those 4 days left.
I realised that it was a template just before I've answered it, but I don't like editing what I write too much. Specially not deleting (or losing). I choose pen over pencil. :P One reason I love wikipedia so much is not just the fact you can correct and clean up messed things, but you can also look at the mess (through history) and learn a lot from so many mistakes. I wouldn't mind any deletion at all if the article history was saved, i.e. basically setting a page to blank. It'd be just like deletion is really done on old disk partition techniques (which are the same used in domestic computers today), by the way.
About manga, I've never thought about it like that, although I used to read translated Ranma 1/2. I thought you'd say "I read manga because the story is better there", which is true most of the time, just like books are mostly better than movies. But I still prefer watching an animated story than reading it, for many reasons. Maybe I can catch the spoken language, just like I did with english... And maybe I can eventually learn the writing from games, closed captions and internet, again as I did with english. :o But I think that learning japanese would take me way more time than it already took me with english.
And don't worry, you don't look blunt to me. Specially after I realized how different PROD is from AfD. Plus, I still would like to discuss over all the fuss around deletion with ya.
-- Caue ( T | C) 18:14, Thursday 2007- 03-29 ( UTC)
Hmm, I knew I've heard dekimasu somewhere before... It was from that (any) little j-girl joyfully screaming when she finished something. And now I wonder why you chose that codename! :P -- Caue ( T | C) 19:05, Thursday 2007- 03-29 ( UTC)
At Talk:State university (disambiguation)#Survey - in opposition to the move you say I know we've had this discussion before. Did you have any particular discussion(s) in mind? Which? Andrewa 00:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Replied. - Neier 07:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Aha: "(removing sentence fragment that appears to have been added in error)". Thanks for fixing that. It's the text of my edit summary, and I must have dropped it carelessly into the article also. – Noetica♬♩ Talk 08:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Note from Dekimasu: This was my original message to User:Radiant!, brought over here so that the discussion causing the nomination will be in one place: You recently closed a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 27#Category:Singaporean executions that resulted in the move of Category:Japanese executions to Category:People executed by Japan. I don't dispute the close or the applicability of the debate to Singapore, but a lot of the people in the category about Japan were executed "in Japan" (by warring factions) rather than "by Japan", as an action of the Japanese government. I was considering initiating another move request, but I thought I would ask for your thoughts first. Dekimasu 06:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hm, that's an interesting complication that I was unaware of. But wouldn't "executions in Japan" also include people executed by, say, China or the US, as long as the execution took place in Japan? >Radiant< 09:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Please note that the bot's language ordering in Bleach (manga) is actually widely accepted and also used by most other bots. There was a straw poll about it a while ago and the result was about 50/50. Basically the bot ordered the languages by their native name, which is easier to navigate for reader (and harder for editors, but you learn after a while). Some notable languages which are not as their appear are Hebrew (Ivrit), Japanese (Nihongo), Chinese (Zhongwen), Korean (Hangugeo) and Finnish (Suomi). -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 08:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Belated kudos for your very funny WP:POINT comment at Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive/Removed/Archive2#Godwin's Law. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont ‹(-¿-)› 14:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Answered on my page. Cheers. MadMaxDog 04:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
[French]
Bonjour, je prend contact avec vous afin d'éclaicir un article de traduction en japonnais. Au départ, j'avais créé un article avec les caractère
エリック・モングレン, mais les wikipédiens on décidés que cela devait s'écrire
エリック・モングレイン à la place, étant donnée que Erik n'avait pas de site officiel en japonnais pour déterminer quelle façon écrire son nom. Je suis Webmaster de Erik Mongrain, pour faire les
pages en japonnais, le traducteur a épellé Erik Mongrain エリック・モングレン. Le problème que je rencontre c'est qu'il y a deux façon d'écrire son nom en japonnais et je me demandais quel était le bon pour que je puisse écrire son site officiel de la bonne façon (et l'article wikipedia)...
Ma question est : lequel parmi ces deux appellations vous choisieriez pour le nom officiel de Erik Mongrain en japonnais??
Merci à l'avance pour votre aide. Passez une bonne journée! -- Antaya 00:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for reminding me; I suppose I missed that. I created a redirect for the name, and will be more carefull in the future.-- 十 八 04:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the conclusions, because of the "first major contributor" rule. However, the stub Counterinsurgency operations predated Counter-insurgency and was eventually merged into it. Does it make sense to have a rule like this? I mean, once the first person has chosen the spelling of counterinsurgency, wouldn't it make sense for everybody to follow that lead rather than discount it because it appeared in a stub? Of course, what I am advocating would involve rewriting the relevant guideline. Joeldl 04:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu, I've noticed your work at WP:RM and elsewhere, and I would like to ask for your help. Recently, User:Mackan filed a sockpuppet case at WP:SSP relating to edit warring going on at Joji Obara, Lucie Blackman, Asahi Shimbun and elsewhere. Basically, Mackan alleges that the 2ch forums are being used to recruit new users to edit those pages to reflect a certain viewpoint; if true, this would be a violation of Wikipedia's policies against sockpuppets, specifically WP:MEAT. Mackan has provided evidence of this at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vml132f and on my talk page at User talk:Akhilleus#Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets.2FVml132f. Unfortunately, I can't read a single character of Japanese, so I am unable to evaluate these charges fully. I would be extremely grateful if you could either take a look at Mackan's allegations and take a look at the forums he links to, to provide a perspective independent of the dispute, or put me in touch with an administrator who is fluent in Japanese. Thanks very much, and sorry to bother you. --Akhilleus ( talk) 04:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu, thanks a bunch for looking into this. If possible, I'd much appreciate if you could, ASAP, save the 2channel thread onto your hard drive, as the thread will become unaccessible when it reaches a 1000 comments (it's currently on 975). I've saved it onto mine but I'm afraid I could be accused of tampering with the files, if it's only me. Again, thanks a lot. Mackan 08:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I know you have shown an interest in the debate as to whether Emergency should be an article or a dab page. I have now created an article which I believe would be suitable for the 'Emergency' page, with everything else to be moved out to a separate disambiguation page. My suggested article is here (in my name space), and the debate as to whether this will be suitable is on the Talk:emergency page. I would appreciate you input! Owain.davies 07:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I see I'm not the only one who's been holding off on a nomination until Bleach made GA. (I personally don't want to run until after I graduate, which is in less than 3 weeks.)
You belittle your own work there, by the way. I may be good at figuring out how to fulfill arbitrary criteria and referencing things to death, but you're honestly a much better writer. Without your help, we'd still be languishing at B if for no other reason than that everything will be put in the passive voice by me.
Have fun with your new wikipe-mop! :) -- tjstrf talk 08:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I have made a proposal to amend the guidelines at WP:MOS. The proposal is in keeping with the spirit of those guidelines, but will hopefully lead to a technical improvement. Comment is welcome at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Joeldl 14:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Template:Active Wiki Fixup Projects, one of us is missing something not sure who, probably me. As I read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and readers' date preferences it tells me that linked dates should display in the readers preference. The default value in preferences is no preference, so when you use the format YYYY-MM-DD it displays in that format for anyone who has not set their preferences which would also include anyone not logged in. Due to cross ocean habits 2007-05-08 could also be read as 2007-08-05, when you include a named month it eliminates the ambiguity, 2007 May 08 is clearly the same as May 08, 2007. I should have not removed the wiki links when I changed the format. I think that would have met both of our concerns, but when I changed the format the links where red, so for some reason I removed the brackets. Unless you have other concerns I will redo them tomorrow. Jeepday ( talk) 04:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi. The instructions for Template:Active Wiki Fixup Projects state, with good reason, Note: If adding or relisting an item, please add it to the *top* of the list,. I'd be interested in knowing why in this edit you decided to move geotagging to the bottom of the list. Please let me know. -- Tagishsimon (talk)
Hi there. My uncontroversial request for a move for Call for Help (TV series) is totally uncontroversial. I'm just trying to clean things up, and furthermore, the double redirects are in preparation for the move, not the other way around. It appears that you are just griefing me, as this is the second time you've pulled a simple move requests of mine. Is that true? I made a solid case as to why this should be uncontroversial, can you expand on what your objections are? Do I need the original objector to take his/her statement back? — Wikibarista 05:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
When Cingular Wireless was legally renamed AT&T Mobility in January, a user moved the page to "AT&T Mobility". Since Wikipedia rules generally stated (according to the talk page) that when things are known as one thing, the page should be the generally known name, even if the legal name differs. As a result, the discussion ended and everyone seemed happy for a month. Then, AT&T started dropping the "Cingular is now the new AT&T" logo from its advertising in newspapers, simply using "AT&T", and a user chose to move the page to AT&T WirelessLLC, then AT&T Wireless LLC. This raised a red flag with me, at which I then requested the page be moved to its correct place, AT&T Mobility, which is currently a redirect page created when Cingular was legally renamed. In the course of the 4 days since I requested the move, a user decided to move the page to another inappropriate titie, AT&T Mobility L.LC and then AT&T Mobility L.L.C., its current place. As I requested before, and you commented on, the page should be at AT&T Mobility, since most company articles here use the title the company is commonly known as, not including "Inc." or "LLC", etc.; in this case, "AT&T Mobility". KansasCity 20:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see my recent comment in WP:RM.... procedure has not been followed here. Also User:Naruto134 and User:K00bine seem to be largely collaborating in the move-warring, in many Godzilla-related articles: an RFCU is in order if the decision is close. I think a lot of trouble can be spared if Naruto134 / K00bine can produce some kind of a source, but unfortunately they have refused and have resorted to personal attacks.
In any case, "King Seesar" seems to be a more acceptable alternative than "King Caesar", because it's also rumoured to be trademarked by Toho, and especially because it romanizes into the Japanese name "キングシーサー".-- Endroit 19:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain how you arrived at your views on the "primary" Enfield and why you think structuring a disambiguation page by "prevalence" is preferable (in terms of clarity for the reader) to alphabetical order? We don't start our telephone directories with the "Smiths" because they are the most common. There would lie chaos! ( Sarah777 23:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC))
Not really. There are about 450 Wiki links to Enfield, New Hampshire compared to 230 to Enfield in London. Google returns roughly the same number of hits for both (1.2 v 1.3 million) and the Enfield Gun gets a half as many as either. Also, a suburban area within a city is not as notable as a separate town by the same name. So I think there is no primary "Enfield" - if you type in Enfield you should get straight to the disambiguation page as 80% of queries will be for pages other than the London Enfield. ( Sarah777 01:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC))
Congratulations, you are now an administrator - with unanimous support! If you haven't already, now is the time look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Warofdreams talk 16:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks; I put it up for DRV, but if that fails, I will rewrite. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Would you please look at this version of the Britain dab page? I thought it was better, but didn't want to argue when it was (mostly) reverted. I can see you do a lot of work on dab pages, so I thought I'd ask.
Congratulations on becoming an Administrator. -- Steven J. Anderson 01:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Dekimasu,
Well done on being sysopped. I know you'll do a good job. I have seen much of your work on Japan-related articles. I have quite an interest in Japan myself, and have been there twice. - Richard Cavell 13:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I put it up for WP:RM last night. What will happen about that as well as the people i've informed? Simply south 09:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
(3 revisions restored: move was reverted, but history wasn't restored):
Hello. I notice you have done some work with disambiguation pages. There is a discussion on Talk:ALF_(disambiguation)#And_again that could benefit from your expert advice. Thank you. — Viriditas | Talk 08:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I posted about User:Sparkzilla and his undeclared CoI over at the CoI noticeboard [5]. Unfortunately, there hasn't been that much response from the admin's (except fro MangoJuice), so I was hoping maybe you could take a look at it. Heatedissuepuppet 12:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I am concerned about the conduct of this user. He has reverted several disambiguation fixes [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] by Catneven. I'm about to re-revert them myself but want to give a heads-up to an admin since the user has a rather colorful history and is currently the subject of an RfC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven J. Anderson ( talk • contribs)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of titles with "Darker" in them — Gaff ταλκ 18:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello there! I got your name from the Disambig page, and I was wondering if you could assist me in something. I've been working on Groningen and there is one weird link that I can't seem to fix. It affects about 15 pages, so far. It's in the footer of these pages (example: Marquis of Namur) under Lordship of Groningen. I'm sure it should be Groningen (province) but after searching Wikipedia, I can't find how to edit this footer. Do you know how? Sorry to trouble you over something so small, but I wasn't sure who to ask. Thanks in advance! -- Cabiria 20:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
"Cannon" serves both as the singular and plural of the noun, although the plural "cannons" can also be used." I don't know if it makes me stupid to not have known that.... or.... well, in any case, sorry for giving you more work because of my deficient English. gren グレン 07:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Dekimasu, I am responding to your comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Dokdo:
Thanks for your comments. I'm happy to help, but it can be a lot of work at times. Don't worry, if I do retire (which is not outside the realm of possibility) I will leave behind the programs I use. -- Russ (talk) 10:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 04:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Apologies for my overzealous refactoring in the discussion section for the article "JLPT". I'd like to come to a consensus that perhaps everything before the heading "Clean Up" can be archived or deleted. (I took a quick look at WP:Archive and it looks like an investigation topic in it's own right - when I've got a spare hour I'll try and figure it out ;-)) spurrymoses 13:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks! That makes a lot more sense then what I was doing. I was wondering what exactly I needed to do on that page. -- Milton 02:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to talk with Dekimasu.In English,cool and sophisticated argument will be expected.By the way,my favorite is Chopin.Not only in wikipedia,but also in virtual piano and violin play,his masterpieces should be researched! Naotyan 01:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
You thought this was dormant, at least for a week or so? Me too. Seems we were wrong. As ever, your cool and sophisticated input would be welcome! -- Hoary 12:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you explain your revert to me, please? No sense edit-warring on the matter; if you can explain your reasoning to my satisfaction, we are good. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 11:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
No, it didn't bother me, I think we just disagree which part of DAB the page relates to better. It isn't something that's unresolvable, or that we have to edit-war over. There's enuff clownage going on there with that. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 11:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we should discuss the matter here - far too many people seeking blood in the water on the page to let anything constructive happen. I replied ont he page, but we can continue the discussion here, to save time and static. Sound good? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I think most of the disruptive stuff is out of the way, at least for now. You shouldn't feel nervous about someone jumping down your throat. At least, I won't. I agree witht he chancges Slim made as well; she took the time to explain why she thought the edit made the DAB better, which I rather appreciated. Anyway, all seems well in the page, so if you think there's something nifty to contribute, please do so. You are an interesting person, interesting viewpoints are always good to have in a discussion. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
It is indeed very heartening that you have decided to undo, whatsoever I did in many months. If wikipedia encourages people like you who without sufficient experience go about demolishing the efforts of other serious editors, I can foresee that very soon it will be limited to the small present ( a small mansion in Japan) you claim you have gifted to Wikipedia. Hallenrm 04:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, thanks for fixing that :-) My monobook.js clearly needs fixing :-( Cheers, Tangotango ( talk) 09:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I saw your changes to "Empire of Japan" on U.S. Navy warships, so in the future I will follow your lead on any other ships that need that phraseology. Wikited 18:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of the article was so it could hold the large amount of information while the main article had it summarized in a few paragraphs. Work on the summarisazing has begun slowly. Currently I am not working on the article but UH and the others are. Could you please contact them at Talk:Sivaji: The Boss or on their respective talk pages. I have reverted your edit.
Thank you,
Good Evening Dekimasu!
Thanks for your help in correcting any errors for the article: Taisei Gakuen.
Would you mind helping me expand the Japanese version of the Auckland Grammar School article? - based on the English article. Just 3-5 extra lines would be sufficient enough. Please.
Yours Sincerely -- Per Angusta, 09:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC) (I had only learnt Japanese for two years at Auckland Grammar so my Japanese is only at a very basic level).
You may find this helpful about the following proposal that was copied from WP:RM: Intellectual giftedness → Giftedness. The user MrsMacMan is an abusive sockpuppet of User:Jessica Liao and a longtime disruptor of education related articles. You may safely close or even delete anything she has initiated at Wikipedia. -- Fire Star 火星 02:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
To discredit a myth is not the same thing as spreading a myth. At WIKI we must approach subjects to document facts and sometimes that means discrediting LIES. For example, to say that some still BELIEVE that there were Weapons of mass destruction is NOT the same thing as SAYING that there were Weapons of Mass destruction. The first step in debunking Junk Science, Lies, and Rumors is to confront the factual head on. Thanks again! P.S. Your contributions are impressive. Cr8tiv 20:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Bank of Manchukuo#Requested move, which you have joined, has been denied due to a dispute on where it should be moved. Hence, I have started a thread, Talk:Bank of Manchukuo#The name still has to be discussed to gather some consensus for where should it be moved-- since we all agree the current name is wrong. You are welcomed to join in the discussion. -- Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 14:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi.
I noticed you switched the page I created to the western style of given name family name. That's fine and dandy; thank you.
I am trying to do some internal links for tha page, specifically for Kitamori's intellectual fathers, Tanabe Hajime, and Nishida Kitaro. Both of their pages have family name given name. Should they be changed, too, or what's the deal? Thanks
Uac1530 04:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused as to what happened with Taito Corporation. If nobody opposed the move, why was it not moved? I could have changed the dab page, but a disambiguation page is not needed with only two articles and a dablink at the top of one article. This is why I proposed the move. "Corporation" is not necessary in the title of a company article, unless as a qualifier. So the point of the move was to move Taito Corporation over the disambiguation page (which is more of a trivia page), nobody opposed it, so why didn't it happen? ~ JohnnyMrNinja { talk} 02:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for closing the discussion about the requested move for Angband. That was the first time I'd seen a requested move discussion take place on a WikiProject talk page rather than an article talk page. I still think an article talk page would have been better, with notices on both of the other talk pages, but it worked out OK in the end. Thanks again. Carcharoth 09:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I've processed the July 16 database dump and the results are at User:RussBot/DPL, in case you want to start a new series at WP:DPL. -- Russ (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting that out. Now the project has a name I can actually promote to the people most likely to contribute to it. :-) GreenReaper 14:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the inadvertent !vote mess over there. It's one of the XfDish processes I don't spend much time in at all. I thought I was being helpful. :-) — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the move. Just to clarify, did you mean included in the article [11]? The Evil Spartan 19:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like to close the old move request for Taito Corporation → Taito. The request has been open for 11 days without much discussion except between you and JohnnyMrNinja. Are you willing to let things stand as they are now? I have no personal opinion on the matter—I would just like to close the old discussion. ● DanMS • Talk 05:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind closing the move request for 4′33″ → 4'33"? I probably should not close it because I participated in the discussion. ● DanMS • Talk 00:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I closed the move request for Eisack → Isarco ( discussion) because no consensus had been reached after 12 days. Almost immediately I had a request to reopen the debate. (See my talk page.) I told the requester that I would reopen the move request discussion if a couple of other admins agreed that it should be reopened. Do you agree the debate should be opened again? ● DanMS • Talk 01:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
What is to be done with talk pages like this one, which was created when I moved Twitches Too! to Twitches Too? Since it was newly created by the move and has no history (and seems useless anyway), should I (1) delete it, or (2) just remove the redirect? I appreciate the assistance you have given me with these page-moving tasks and I hope I am not asking too many questions. I am learning a little more every day. ● DanMS • Talk 01:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I notice you fixed the Jam redirect; that was fine, thanks, but please take care in such cases to ensure that the destination article handles the redirect via a disambiguation line. Anyone typing in jam would have been thrown to " Fruit preserves" without having access to other meanings of the word. Fourohfour 20:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Domo arigato! -- Orange Mike 03:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Re: the notability tag on the Socialist Canarian Party, I think that its incorrect to compare votes for individuals and political parties when judging notability criteria. Most probably the party only contested in a single municipality, and it should be ruled out that the party might have had members outside of that municipality. Moreover the party is registered with the Spanish authorities, and it is advisable that persons going through those registers might consult wikipedia for information about the parties listed. -- Soman 08:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, El on ka 05:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I see that you wrote on the picture of Voldemort in the article of the same name, that the movie was not yet in a screenshot capable medium. But then obviously, the screenshot was not taken from the film itself, but the official theatrical trailer. I then suggest that you remove the Fair Use-review, but I agree with you that it should be of a lower resolution plus a rationale for the picture captured from the trailer. Wikiburger 17:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your work merging my controversy article to the main article. That is really where it belongs. Steve Dufour 13:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward
Luk suh 04:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Would you be interested in help expanding a series of Anime related articles? I need help from a Japanese speaking person to add material from Japanese sources.
For now my focus is mostly for the articles on Oh My Goddess! (ああっ女神さまっ, Aa! Megami-sama!). More specifically articles on the featured list " List of Oh My Goddess episodes". I want to start with the article You're a Goddess?.
A concern was raised that the articles in question did not have adequate out of universe material such as information on the production or information on the cultural references such as the reception it received. Information on ratings, awards a particular episode received would also be a helpful addition.
If you could help perfect just one of the articles, I could use it as a metric for future reference. Of course I would more than welcome any additional help as well.
-- Cat chi? 18:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Could use your help here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_Brothers_101_Ranch The original author seems to insist on her original (and incomplete) version. All the additions that I have offered have been deleted. All were from legitimate sources. Check the history. Also, this article should be included in Wikipedia Oklahoma. Thanks:
jcm
Hello. I saw you were volunteering to translate from Japanese. Can you help me evaluate Image:Fake of nanking.jpg and the book it's from, 情報戦「慰安婦・南京」の真実 [12] to determine how reliable a source it is, and of course to translate what the picture says? It's being used as a source in the IfD to prove that the images Image:Trimedfilm battleofchina.jpg and Image:The Buttle of the China2.jpg are not original research. Thanks, nadav ( talk) 22:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I (and maybe User:Stemonitis) would appreciate your comment at User_talk:Stemonitis#British_Raj_move_request_decision on a move request of British Raj. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 18:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi: thanks for asking that question. Unfortunately, I will only be available to answer it properly this afternoon (or, alternatively, around 6 hrs from now). I hope this is okay, and I just wanted to let you know that I had noticed it. Cheers -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 21:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Why was Bengaluru moved back to Bangalore? There was one more vote to keep it at Bengaluru. Reginmund 17:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Your close of the move discussion appears to have been guided solely by procedural nitty-gritties. In doing so, you've literally with a single wave of your hand invalidated a very long and detailed discussion of the move. This, you've done by pointing to an older discussion that is older by almost a year! It is also an insult to all the editors who took part in the extended polling in good faith. Now that you've corrected a wiki-legal anamoly with your hasty and imo, ill advised close of the discussion, do you expect us to open another poll to now 'discuss' moving it back to "Bengaluru"? (My reading of WP:BURO is that this is precisely the kind of bureaucracy that is to be avoided on wikipedia). I request that you read the discussions first, make amendments to your closing remarks and move the article back to Bengaluru (for reasons detailed in the poll discussions and this thread which has come up following your baffling close of the discussion on procedural grounds.
And no, I do not think there is anything 'controversial' about moving it to Bengaluru. If you think there is, please point out what the controversy is. Just because there is a detailed and lengthy discussion, doesnt mean there is controversy. Until now, you havent said anything about the merits of the arguments at all! You've only pointed out procedural details and not much else. Sarvagnya 22:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Sarvagnya 22:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Dekimasu, please reconsider your move and change Bangalore back to Bengaluru. Thanks. Kanchanamala 09:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey Dekimasu, I saw how wonderfully you handled the Lake Heavens RM - I think that you have a very broad & open mind & you are perfectly fitting to be an admin. Could you handle dispute & handle it with neutrality? I personally don't care what the result is as long as you do it. Thanks a lot. ( Wikimachine 22:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC))
![]() |
The Barnstar of Peace | |
This is no bribery but I checked all of your discussion archive & you got only 1 barnstar! Well, there's no written rule that says you've got to have more than, but I'm so impressed with how you dealt the Lake Heavens stuff that I took time to pick an award - which reminded me, the sign of peace that you have on top of your discussion page. Gl. Wikimachine 22:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC) |
Thanks for moving the page (I was the one who suggested it). User:Wmpearl, the page creator, has reverted your edits with no explanation. I think you did the right thing with the move. Would reverting his edits back be appropriate, or discussing on his talk page? Since he gave no indication for his decision (and probably just has a mild case of WP:OWN) I think reverting with an explanation for why on his talk page would be appropriate. What do you think? All the best, ~ Eliz 81 (C) 22:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Dekimasu. The arbitration case in which you commented to has opened. Please provide evidences on the evidence page for the Arbitrators to consider. You may also want to utilize the workshop page for suggestions.
For the Arbitration Committee,
-
Penwhale |
Blast him /
Follow his steps
21:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The first is just WRONG. It violates all the Rules of Style, and is not the way the title is actually written - in pracice. So I'm going to revert your error. We should not re-inforce people's mistakes! Do you understand me?
Contesting proposed deletions: The way to do it is not with a reversion, but with the following Wiki Tag: {{hangon}}. Best, -- Ludvikus 14:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Dekimasu -- You know, I hope, that some of us are doing a major revision of the Manga article. We've been working on it for a month or so, posting lots of notices and invitations on the Manga and Manga/Anime project talk pages. We're working in small steps, adding new sections and removing old ones if there is no objection on the talk pages. You can see the material we're working on now on User Talk: Timothy Perper/Sandbox5.
Fairly soon, we are going to starting on the subsection dealing with the history of manga before World War 2. The draft material we're accumulating has a fair amount of Japanese language material in it, contributed and translated -- thank you, thank you -- by Japanese Wiki editor Kasuga. Much of the material deals with history from the late 1800s (Meiji) up through the 1930s.
Can we ask your assistance with this material? Not merely to confirm the translations, but also to help edit the translation for smoothness. We very much want to keep as much of this material as we can, both out of respect for Kasuga and because we feel it adds substantively to the article.
If you're willing -- and I hope you are -- can you leave a note either here or on the User Talk: Timothy Perper/Sandbox5 page?
Timothy Perper 17:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi.
Rich Farmbrough, 12:59 2 October 2007 (GMT).
i noticed your opposition to renaming the econ prize, and thought you would be interested in knowing that there's another attempt to thwart the will of the community by subterfuge. you might want to check it out and share your views.-- emerson7 16:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I know you're very busy but if you could spare some time, could you please answer my questions at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Page move after no consensus? I don't know any other user who has this as their speciality area. Thanks! –panda 01:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thank you for the canvassing note, i honestly didn't realise there were specific prohibitions against it. i've reverted those i could find regarding another matter. with regard to agf, for weeks i actually believed panda was making good faith efforts until i discovered and understood his tactics at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Page move after no consensus. at some point, it just has to be called. either way, i take your admonitions to heart. cheers. -- emerson7 15:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
emerson7 has been harassing me since I made a change to the Nobel Prize in Chemistry page due to a comment by an anon on its talk page [15] [16]. A quick look at my talk page, emerson7's talk page, Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#Country of record, and Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#RFC: Country – ambiguous or not shows his uncivil comments to me. I don't know if these are enough violations to file a case at WP:WQA or if its even worthwhile. But in the mean time, he has been (1) removing good faith edits by new editors [17] [18], accusing one of them of level 3 vandalism on their first offense [19] and possibly driving away these editors from the project ( Special:Contributions/Pavlina2.0, Special:Contributions/Dwolgel), (2) blaming the script for his reverts, such as "i pushed the wrong button before i could enter explanatory text." [20] or "sometimes the script get confused" [21] and (3) feigning ignorance such as "i'm afraid i don't know what you are referencing" [22] [23] to reverts he did several times [24] [25] [26] [27]. If this person still doesn't know how to use the scripts after having used them for over 6 months, can WP not allow them to use the scripts? He has been warned that using rollbacks in content disputes is not acceptable [28] [29] but continues to do it anyway, such as during his edit war with me [30] [31]. emerson7 also has a tendency to use the blanket edit summary "copyediting" or "cleanup" when he does include an edit summary. These don't say anything and are about as useful as not adding an edit summary. Sometimes, they're simply misleading, not necessarily incorrect. But I don't know if that actually violates any WP policy.
Should this case go to WP:WQA or some other venue? It's mostly a lot of small violations to different (newer) users and nothing that I can see as being any single serious violation. –panda 15:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
If you didn't already check:
Please check the histories of the editors you choose to defend and accuse before doing so!
...And if you've taken the time to read this far, thank you for your patience in actually reading my frustrations with the system. :)
–panda 00:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Re: your closing comments to Talk:Nobel Prize in Economics#Requested move, a rewording may be appropriate. Note: I'm not challenging your decision, but I do think your comments need additional clarification.
Re: Nobel Prize in Economics, Nobel Prize, and User:Vision Thing
–panda 17:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Comments about your closing comments to the RFC? –panda 03:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)
Reword your closing statement to the RM then if you now understand that "stable" can be thrown out. If you wanted to avoid this entire discussion, you could have simply said that the RM is from the current title instead of stating that it is from the "established" title, which you then further defined to be the "stable" title, both of which haven't been shown to be true in this case. –panda 03:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu. I guess we need some help on the Talk: Nobel Prize page. I'm going to stay away from the page for a while, since I've completely lost patience with –panda. But I would appreciate it if you could take a look at what is going on there, and give us some advice. I'm asking you since I know that –panda respects you, since he has previously sought out your opinion. Thanks. -- Anthon.Eff 02:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
While you're at it, could you please take a look at the Nobel Prize page? At 17:34, 9 October 2007 User:Vision Thing did a complete revert of 17 edits (made by several different editors) [48] for unexplained reasons. Asking him why he reverted 17 edits on his talk page hasn't generated much of a response. He has selectively replaced some of the text and very few of the references, including reintroducing references that did not support the statements they referred to. I may also ask another admin for comments on this as I know you're very busy and this has already taken up a lot of your time. –panda 18:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
i don't know exactly what the procedure is, so i was wondering if you could assist with the discussion at Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry regarding bringing a close to the polling that has gone on for the better part of a month. -- emerson7 15:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Samulili, you stated that you were striking your oppose !vote, however I believe you may have inadvertently left yourself in the list which will still count as an oppose. I have fixed the formatting based on what I believe is your intent. Please revert my edit if I misunderstood. Ronnotel 13:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks できます, for your participation in my Editor review. Your feedback has been very helpful in my recent edits. Once again, Thanks! -- Hirohisat 紅葉 07:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu. Would you mind taking a look at the move request at Kayqubad I and its associated pages? Many editors have posted opinions, and we would appreciate your disinterested perspective on whether it is time to wrap things up. Thanks. Aramgar 22:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you move this page for us?
Thanks, WikiDon 17:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Oops, you got it slightly wrong: "It has been proposed below that Kilian Ignac Dientzenhofer be renamed and moved to Kilian Ignaz Dientzenhofer." [49] You deleted (07:37, 19 October 2007 Dekimasu (Talk | contribs) deleted "Kilian Ignaz Dientzenhofer" (deletion to make way for page move)) to make way, but then moved to Kilian Ignac Dientzenhofer, though. -- Matthead discuß! O 05:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Venetian Ceruse was the first title, then it was moved to Venetian ceruse without discussion, it is not possible to MOVE everything back once an article has been created unless the editor is an administrator. As you are an administrator, please MOVE everything back to the original article Venetian Ceruse as this is the correct capitalization, thank you. Chessy999 06:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I see what you mean. Unfortunately, we can't assume that everyone who links to legendarium in the future will be talking about the Tolkien term. What is needed is for a bot to go through the 1000+ Tolkien articles that link to legendarium, and change the links to point to Tolkien's legendarium. Then it should be OK to change legendarium to redirect to legendary (disambiguation). Would that work? Carcharoth 14:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Dekimasu, I'm out of town, with a really bad web connection and probably no connection for the next few days. I've been frustrated by User:Nitsirk's POV edits on some of the education articles (for example, Nitsirk believes there are no disadvantages to mainstreaming any disabled student into a regular classroom except lack of money), and with the Talk:Grade retention proposal, I'm starting to suspect a sockpuppeteer. There are precious few edits by Nitsirk's supporters. Could you possibly look into whether User:Yasdnil and User:Refinnej are coming from the same place? It's the fairly distinctive language patterns that make me curious. Looking at Talk:Alternative high school, where Yasdnil proposes moving (well, merging) an article that Nitsirk has edited heavily might also be worthwhile. I'm sorry that I can't manage to deal with this myself, but I'm not even sure that my link will stay up long enough to leave you this note. Thanks for considering it, WhatamIdoing 22:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Mine was not all opinion. Grade retention is too restrictive! It doesn't include students in college and beyond. Repeater is better because it is the more general term. I told my friends to sign on wikipedia to support me. Why can't I do that? Just as long as they agree with me. I know it's not a ballot. They gave reasons for why they chose support. How much do they need to put down? And I did removed your comment because it was in the wrong place. I placed it under the discussion part. -- Nitsirk 11:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
How come you oppose the title? Grade retention is horrible. I gave you the reasons and you still oppose. How come grade retention is better? It's too restrictive. -- Nitsirk 11:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Please respond to me! I know you are on. -- Nitsirk 11:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
What's taking you so long to respond? I don't have all day. -- Nitsirk 11:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree 100% that the user in question is a sockpuppet of Jessica Liao. The editing pattern and prose patterns are identical. Blocked. Thanks for the heads up! -- Bradeos Graphon 16:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Yep, that seems to be Jessica Liao all right, same spread of articles, same patterns, even the three little periods she uses to punctuate...her edit summaries. Blocked. Cheers! -- Bradeos Graphon ( talk) 14:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a moment to advise me on the next step in the proposal to move Dub? I suggested it thinking it would not be controversial (silly me), and it was contested. You moved the discussion to Talk: Dub, where it has continued, but I'm not sure how to decide whether I can re-request a move. I seem to have solid support from at least one other editor, who has included some basis for his position. The rest of the responses are opinions about the meaning of the word which those particular editors are most familiar with, which isn't really the same as a good reason for or against a move. I'm still a bit of a newbie as far as procedures go, and I appreciate the tone and level of your contributions, so I thought you could help me figure out how to determine consensus. Thanks! SlackerMom 15:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu, I've noticed your name in the disamb w/ links project removing links to disam pages. I've been doing this also, lately, but I really screwed one up and I'm hoping you can go in as admin and rollback my mistakes. I inadvertently redirected Orlando to Orlando 9disambiguation), meaning of course to type Orlando (disambiguation). I've royally screwed this up and it gets worse every time I try to repair my mistakes. I'm getting dizzy. Any help you can offer is of course much appreciated. Keeper | 76 17:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I have clarified my wordings on question 5 of my RfA. Please read my clarifications to see if you wish to switch your stance. Thank you. OhanaUnited Talk page 18:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Dekimasu. I was going to close the move discussion at Talk:Estonian pirates, but found myself deeply divided on whether to close as a no consensus or as a move, since the arguments and sources provided by the move side seem to be sound. You're an experienced "move-closer" as well so I decided to ask you and another admin a second opinion. So, if you can spare the time, could you please have a look and tell me how do you think you would you close this one? Thank you. Hús ö nd 04:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for voting at my RfA. Unfortunately, the result stands at 51 support, 21 oppose and 7 neutral which means that I did not succeed. As many expressed their appreciation of my works in featured portals during my RfA, I will fill up the vacuum position of director in featured portal candidates to maintain the standards of featured contents in addition to my active role in Good articles. Have a great day. OhanaUnited Talk page 04:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The most recent edit to this article contains vandalism. Would you mind removing that? Just64helpin ( talk) 13:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to you at Talk:Jallianwala Bagh massacre and I appreciate your thought put into RMs. Please comment if you care at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves where I posted your comments.
Also, based on your interest in Japan, do you have a comment on this?
— AjaxSmack 07:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Why did you change the article title? There wasn't a vote, merely an inconclusive discussion. Colin4C ( talk) 12:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Please, see my post on the Balti talk page and explain yourself. Thank you. Moldopodo ( talk) 20:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo
User:Neelix pointed out that it was the Japanese thing that prompted you to tagged the page with {{
NPOV}}
. I fixed it already and please share your thoughts on the talk page to have a better collaboration. P.S. It's my first try to have a good article nominee. Thank you. --
βritandβeyonce (
talk•
contribs)
03:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm looking for a techie who can reboot this project (i.e. generate a new set of lists from the latest database dump showing templates which contain redlinks). Can you do this? Cheers! bd2412 T 03:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Hiya. Annoymous Dissidents comment at talk just got me worried - I'm not disagreeing with you at all, I think the point you've raised is really valuable, and I'm just trying to thrash it through! Cheers. Pedro : Chat 09:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
No, somebody just hijacked the shortcut. Hiding T 15:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, now completed the move task, feel free to close the move discussion. Willirennen ( talk) 01:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for fixing the On the Origin of Species page. I am the one who originally started the request for the name correction. Now I want ask you if it is the right time to take the dispute tag off Nur Ali Elahi. It has been on it for a very long time and most of the users agree the name should remain "Nur Ali Elahi".-- Persianhistory2008 ( talk) 10:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that but everytime I try to move it it tells me it is a protected page and I can't. How do I get it unprotected. Butch-cassidy ( talk) 20:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu. Per your suggestion, I posted my rationale for having Doug Parker link to the Doug Parker disabmiguation page, rather than to the airline exec's article. Thanks for looking at it. - Anirvan ( talk) 06:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I will put up Fall (disambig) for WP:RM so we can discuss this. Talk:Fall (disambiguation)#Requested move. Simply south ( talk) 12:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear Sir,
I was wondering if you would be interested in helping with a dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_allegation_of_child_sexual_abuse The section in question is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_allegation_of_child_sexual_abuse#False_allegations_of_sexual_abuse_in_childhood We need someone neutral that is well versed in wikipedia policies. If you aren't able to, would you be able to suggest someone else. Abuse truth ( talk) 02:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
You wrote " The result was no consensus to move the page to James D. Watson", but i think you meant to write there is no consensus to move the page to James Watson. I was going to change it but thought it might be better if you do it. David D. (Talk) 15:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey Dekimasu, There is a rather interesting discussion going on here. I think that your opinion might be helpful in reaching a consensus/compromise. Cheers — Cronholm 144 20:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
You are right, I should have mentioned this to Husond. If anyone had asked, I would have said he would notice; after all, both the talk page and WP:RM are presumably on his watch list.
As you can see, he has indeed noticed, and speedy closed the new discussion. I am non-trivially annoyed at this, and have brought it up at WP:ANI#User:Husond. Admins are supposed to implement consensus, not interfere with it being reached. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
---|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. If you decide to use mine (or someone else's) I suggest you give a history link to a specific version like Cacharoth did. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you. |
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s, "B"s and "C" having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "D"s, "E"s and "F"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) ++ Lar: t/ c 18:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
In the past you took part in a discussion about the name of the emperors of Japan. This discussion has just opened again (once again!). You are free to express your opinion here. Thanks Švitrigaila ( talk) 16:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your participation in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate that landed on WP:100, but ultimately was deemed a successful declaration of consensus, and I am now an admin. I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, carefully double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools, with my main goals being to help out with various backlogs. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. :) I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. Have a good new year, -- El on ka 00:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I've posted a reply to your comments at my RfA. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ( Converse) 23:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Deki. Sorry to bother you at your user page, but, the whole debate over it has now become toxic. Agreement seems to be heading towards Iassy-Kishinev Offensive or Jassy or Yassy. (With Iassy being the previous name before an undiscussed move, Jassy-Kishinev Offensive receiving the most google book hits and yassy being the ISO-9 standard transliteration, I believe). The only reason I take the unusual step of asking you to come in and close down the discussion is that now we have people forking off the article ( Yassy-Kishinev Offensive Operation) and the talk page has descended into what I can only call a farce. There has not been meaningful discussion for a few days now. Narson ( talk) 02:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
My request for adminship was successful at 64/1/2! Many thanks for your participation and I will endeavor to meet your expectations. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ( Converse) 09:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Could use your help here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_Brothers_101_Ranch
The original author seems to insist on her original (and incomplete) version.
All the additions that I have offered have been deleted. All were from legitimate sources. Check the history.
Also, this article should be included in Wikipedia Oklahoma.
Thanks:
jcm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcmcapital ( talk • contribs) 01:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
On January 15, User:Espoo moved the article Spiritualism to Spiritualism (religious movement). The move had not been discussed, and at least three of us who have contributed heavily to the article ( User:Anthon.Eff, User:Nihil novi, and User:Tom Butler) have objected to the move. Unfortunately, User:Espoo has edited the article Spiritualism, putting in a few dictionary definitions that he thought important. Now, all of the hundreds of links in other articles to Spiritualism go to a stub, and the reader has no way of knowing that the link was intended to go to the original Spiritualism article.
The Spiritualism article (now Spiritualism (religious movement)) had just completed a GA review when User:Espoo did the move, and now all of the energy that should have been spent on meeting the reviewer's suggestions has been dissipated on the talk page.
User:Espoo has one supporter, User:Lucyintheskywithdada. Both have some history (we all do, I guess, but for what it is worth here is something about them). She is User:Lwachowski, an indefinitely blocked user, under another name. Her earlier problems are documented here. I find myself unable to communicate with her. User:Espoo has a history of doing moves without notice. On December 13, he moved the article Spiritism to Kardecist spiritism, without any discussion. Editors were able to move it back, because Spiritism contained only a redirect. Our problem is more complicated, because Spiritualism has been converted to a stub.
I was very much impressed at your calm and objectivity in dealing with the fight over renaming Nobel prize in economics. So you came to mind as the person who could perhaps help us out here. -- Anthon.Eff ( talk) 17:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu,
Whenever you have time, could you take a look at my comment regarding downloading CorHomo?
Thanks, Adrian J. Hunter( talk• contribs) 14:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC) ps. watashi mo dekimasu yo! :-)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Astro Empires. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Butch-cassidy ( talk) 23:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yo you might want to check your userpage on the Japanese Wikipedia once in a while. There'd been vandalism there since December. - SpuriousQ ( talk) 01:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Your close of the English Defense move request was a bad mistake. Not only did you go against the clear consensus on the page, but your reasoning is fatally flawed. First, there are eight supports (counting the editor who requested the move) against two opposes. Calling this "in dispute" is bizarre—only a unanimous response in favor of the move would satisfy the bar you've set. Second, your goal of reducing the amount of time spent over discussing the naming of the page will not be met by a bad "no consensus" close. If the page were moved the discussion would be over forever. By not moving the page, you ensure that this will come up again. I have to say I'm really disappointed in what seems to me to be very poor judgment on this. Quale ( talk) 05:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Please note that on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves, I suggested re-adding a move request to WP:RM about the move of Lake of Gruyère/ Lac de la Gruyère in one way or the other.
The text you pasted on Talk:Lake of Gruyère ( [57]) doesn't make much sense there and confuses things further, as Rarelibra already kept deleting part of the discussion ( diff) and a question of mine there ( diff). Maybe you could repair that for me.
Obviously, I can't prevent rarelibra from posting the same stuff everywhere, but it shouldn't mean that my text has to be moved along. -- User:Docu
Thanks for the tip about Soho — I added that and mentioned the other similar moves at each RM section. — AjaxSmack 01:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd appreciate a comment to the reply I left. Thanks! PC78 ( talk) 15:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you closed the move of Lake Chiem to Chiemsee, and that Lake IJssel has been correctly moved to IJsselmeer pe WP:UE. Taking into account the arguments there, at WT:RM#Lakes and User_talk:Neil/Archive_23#Lake_names could you have a look at the similar moves here? These moves were made in good faith, but (with the exception of Lake of Gruyère) do not at all represent English-language use (see evidence at Talk:Chiemsee) and were completely undiscussed and unsourced. I feel a return to the status quo ante is the most appropriate given the large number of articles and the contentiousness if the moves. Knepflerle ( talk) 11:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
How precisely is this a no consensus? The "reply" merely points out a policy under which I am claiming this qualified as an exception! Relata refero ( talk) 13:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Dekimasu, thank you for taking part in
my RfB. As you may know, it was
not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight.
I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community.
I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :)
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to
call me out. ~
Riana ⁂
13:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Dekimasu. I know my RfB is well finished, but I wondered if I could ask if you could elaborate on your oppose on my RfB. My RfA was a year ago yesterday - I didn't comment much regarding the copyright violations because it was an honest mistake, but a very legitimate concern and felt it best I didn't defend myself and instead allowed people to comment solely with a negative outlook. I did make a statement on my RfA talk page stating that I'd fixed all the problems and that I would happily look at anything else. I certainly wasn't hiding away because it was going to pass - there were a number of times I was about to withdraw because I felt the opposes were strong and I shouldn't be an admin, but I decided to carry on and not offer an explanation, quite simply because there wasn't one - I thought before my rfa I was helping the project. Now, down to business - I just wondered exactly how you felt that would effect my ability to be a bureaucrat? It was long in the past, and when I was actually still new on the project - I have evolved a hell of a lot from that point in time and am very different from my RfA. I was a little puzzled why something that happened when I was relatively new on Wikipedia, and that happened a long time ago would affect how I would perform bureaucrat tasks when they had very little relevance to the tools. I look forward to your response, take care, Ryan Postlethwaite 03:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. - J Greb ( talk) 22:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that a page I deemed useful and informative, Silent protagonist had been deleted after an AfD I missed. According to WP:WMD, if one wants to put a copy of the deleted article into their own User: namespace, they should contact an administrator to retrieve a copy. So I'm asking you. :) Thank you for your response in advance. -- Bisqwit ( talk) 11:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi Dekimasu/Archive1! Thank you for your
support in my RfA (87/3/3).
|
Please take a look at what is going on with the article on Bangalore. I guess you'll remember the Bangalore/Bengaluru business from a few months ago. It has surfaced again. On March 9, someone suggested that the article should be moved to "Bengaluru" (which was perfectly alright, in itself, of course). On March 31 someone else agreed, a relative handful of supporters piled on and before 24 hours had passed the page was moved to "Bengaluru". Then a further edit to the redirecting "Bangalore" page rendered the move irreversible by ordinary editors.
Given the long-running controversy over this, I think the page-move did not get proper discussion this time around, and was executed without what anyone could reasonably suppose was consensus. Please restore the page to "Bangalore". --
Lonewolf BC (
talk)
17:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, what made you edit the Paul Hastings law firm web page? curzon@cominganarchyy.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curzon ( talk • contribs) 04:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Doing my nightly rounds through WP:RM and came across something I'd appreciate your input on. Once again, a request to move CFL (disambiguation) → CFL has come along, and as you closed the last request last July, I thought you might have more of a background for this one (granted, one of many move requests you've participated in, but who knows). Thanks! JPG-GR ( talk) 06:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Why did you close this as no move? There was no opposition to the move; one comment from an IP providing no reasons doesn't count.
Your closing summary said 'sex not ambiguous', which is absurd - the word 'sex' most often refers to sexual behavior in modern English. The way, the truth, and the light ( talk) 08:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for resolving the flags of Gibraltar issue, could I ask you to have a look at the six pages which were renamed from 'Gibraltar' to 'Gibraltarian'
Where a similar argument applies to elections and referenda.
They comprise
which are wrong
uses the correct wording (see official poster on page)
-- Gibnews ( talk) 20:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
If you will notice, in my FIRST revert of your changes to the media section, I noted that it had been done per a talk page discussion. You are the one who continued reverting instead of going to the discussion that had already agreed that the List of Bleach media was inappropriate and needed to be merged back in properly per the MoS. Please stop changing the media section, which is now in a more proper format per the MoS and the consensus of the project as to how that section should be formatted. If you disagree with its contents, please just join the discussion instead of continuing to undo the start of much needed work on the article. AnmaFinotera ( talk) 07:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm just writing to you to request your help and assistance in referencing the Japanese Music Charts. Through out alot of popular english songs I have viewed I have noticed that they have been noted as performing well in Japan and have also read that the Japanese music market it very big. But in saying this every song I have seen has not got a Japanese chart position in the charts box. So if you are into music and willing to try and provide information on the Japanese Music Charts it would be greatly appreciated so then wikipedia users can start adding the Japanese chart positions into the chart boxes for popular songs. TeePee-20.7 ( talk) 04:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed that you had added the clean-up tag on this article, and with good reason too. I have now removed the primary text and have put in descriptions and references. I have also removed the clean-up tag. Hoping this is fine. Prashanthns ( talk) 12:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'm dropping you a line because you were previously interested in this topic - please see [ [63]]. Thanks DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered ( talk) 19:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of that WP:RM. Aille ( talk) 17:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu! You handled the previous discussions on the title name for the Seljuk sultan. I drafted a third move request in Talk:Kayqubad I, in small letters for the moment, before putting forward the actual request. I will be pleased if you could take a look and comment on the argumentation and the wording if and as you may judge appropriate. Regards. Cretanforever ( talk) 02:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in on the RFA--I will do everything I can to uphold the policies of this site, and try to make it a better place. All the comments, questions, and in particular the opposes I plan to work on and learn from, so that I can hopefully always do the right thing with the huge trust given to me. rootology ( C)( T) 08:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | ![]() |
See your meta talk page. Prodego talk 02:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Just a note to say that I fully agree with your closure of the RM. The creation of the disambig page solved the problem. Mjroots ( talk) 12:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, We've had a request to allow AWB to use your tool for list building purposes. Is it possible for you to provide an API/xml output for the results. A parameter like &format=xml or similar would be great.
Thanks!
— Ree dy 18:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:NALBUMS is in regard to album articles, not their mention in other articles, nor does it really cover serial type works. If it were a ordinary soundtrack, its mention would be fine, however as it is part of a series, just as with the manga volumes and DVD releases, we generally stayed that "As of X, Y have been released" without saying "and Z will be released in a month". The only time we generally note future release dates is in an actual table/list rather than summary prose. Your changing the MoS like this reads a bit snarky and was an inappropriate change. If you disagreed with the removal, a discussion on the article talk page would have been a much more appropriate place to voice this. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 02:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I notice that you are listed on: Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles.
I am requesting 6 articles which were deleted then redirected to be userfied, :):
From: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 15
Can you please move all 6 pages to my userspace, with the history intact (I am interested in who created the article, and when).
I really appreciate it. You are probably wondering why I ask. Well, I have spent my weekend on a graph found here: User:Ikip/AfD on average day. I am interested in what type of user gets their page deleted, etc....November 15 is just a day pulled out of a hat by another user.
Thanks :) Ikip ( talk) 01:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
It seems that several of the pages you put under "Done" still have many incoming links, especially the ones you did on Feb.3. See for instance Special:WhatLinksHere/Clerval. Can you have a look? Perhaps some of these should be moved back to To Do. Thanks for your work, -- KarlFrei ( talk) 10:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Dear Dekimasu,
I saw what you wrote in Tú y yo article history. It's not an unique case, but I think it deserves special attention for all the articles involved.
According to Spanish Royal Academy's Orthography rules, only the first element goes with initial upper case in every artistical work (book, musical piece, magazine, film, song, etc.)
I also commented it on the Wikipedia Music Project talk page, twice, but never and nobody has given me an answer. I think, although artists may not be aware of the official spelling rules, in an encyclopedia we must keep them in the correct form.
Regards, -- El Mexicano ( talk) 20:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Dekimasu, I had my post deleted for what was called "blatant advertisement," which was not my intention at all. How can I change it to a legitimate wikipedia entry? What can I include and what should I omit? Thanks! Rebecca —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebes74 ( talk • contribs) 15:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I thought your speedy deletion of the page was uncalled for. We don't have a policy when it comes to curling articles, and since I am the main contributor when it comes to curling, I've sort of come up with guidelines when it comes to notability. The curler in question is a member of the World Curling Tour, which I would definitely ascertain as a top level in the sport, however it's not really a significant accomplishment per se. Going to the provincial championship certainly is, considering curling's popularity in Canada. I would liken Gardiner as an equivalent to perhaps an lower NHL player, in terms of significance for the sport. I hope this has helped. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Queens_College&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.21.50 ( talk • contribs)
You recently deleted the article Methionylglutaminylarginyl...serine citing G4 as the reason. The deletion logs show only your deletion and none about a listing on AFD or a discussion for deletion. Is it possible that this was deleted in error? If not can you put up the deletion log?-- Ted-m ( talk) 00:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
hmm... well, I was going by http://www.google.com/search?q=Lini+Simmons&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official which gives 0 results related to the subject. However, you are correct that it's not an obvious hoax (I read what it said incorrectly). My apologies for deleting it. Thingg ⊕ ⊗ 04:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, it's pretty obvious to me, considering the notices and warning on the creators talk page, that this is a non-notable advertisement of a business. I have no issues with the decline of the speedy but have now put it up for a prod deletion instead. Thanks fr33k man -s- 05:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu. Now I'm interested in your name. Dekimasu sounds "Yes we can!".
Aside from this, look revision history of Tokugawa Ieyasu, the article was vandalised countless times by multiple unknown IPs. Please semi-protect Tokugawa Ieyasu.-- Bukubku ( talk) 08:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
... for catching my mistake. I tagged a few redirects for speedy deletion. Due to the non-Latin characters the author used they looked like no context / vandalism to me. The titles were rendered as "???" on my screen. I'm glad you figured out what was really happening and that you removed my tags.
SIS
22:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Concerning the Amur (disambiguation) page, no issues with what you did, except the writer, as many users look for people by their last name. speednat ( talk) 07:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, well done! Johnbod ( talk) 04:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed you created/restored the redirect from South Korean to South Korea, and placed the dablink on South Korea. I'm just wondering if you could clarify the rationale for that? Personally I don't really care one way or the other, but some people have been warring over it (removing the dablink from South Korea, and having South Korean be a disambiguation page) with the rationale that that is how other such pages work (like North Korean, Chinese, British, and what have you)...would it be better to do that, or was there a good reason for setting it up the way it is now?
Thanks, rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 05:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out if this http://journal.mycom.co.jp/column/ebook/077/ is a personal blog or if it is a review of The Manzai Comics from a respected publication. I can't tell who wrote the article and/or if he/she is a staff member of the website. Do you know if this website is a reviewer or if its something else? WhisperToMe ( talk) 07:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Japan#Is_this_a_column_from_a_respected_publication.2C_or_is_this_a_personal_blog.3F Mantokun looked at that link, and he says it is from "MYCOM Journal" of Mainichi Communications, which is an established company. He can't tell if the writer, On Ichii was a staff or a freelance. But if Mycom published it, would this make it an RS? Would this help satisfy the requirement for notability? WhisperToMe ( talk) 13:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Slakr's Slam Dunk Award For maintaining awesome cool, being completely professional, showing excellent judgment, and basically scoring a slam dunk (in my eyes) while dealing with a hot-tempered user on User talk:Amyseekuif, I hereby award you your very own slam dunk. Use it wisely. Don't waste it on schoolyard pickup games: save it for that game-winning, send-'em-packing moment. :P Heh, anyway, keep up the great work, and cheers =) -- slakr\ talk / 12:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC) |
Well, the situation was rectified on the same day with no harm done, so it's really not that big of a deal at this point. As for the questions, I do not think they are at all combative. I am happy to answer any questions regarding WP:RUSSIA's activities—they are a part of the collaborative process, so there is no need to apologize. I will post a reply to WT:DPL later today. Cheers,—
Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (
yo?); 15:11, February 27, 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Feel free to borrow the blimp :) It is still in mint condition.—
Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (
yo?); 15:11, February 27, 2009 (UTC)
Kindly explain your edits to this template a little further, so that I can understand the basis for the "de-link" of names of chakras from the articles. Thanks. VasuVR ( talk, contribs) 16:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
I've noticed your edits on pages relating to the sport of
Sumo. We encourage you to join
WikiProject Sumo where we are working to expand, improve, and standardize all articles related to sumo on Wikipedia. If you would like more information on what needs to be done, please visit the project page. If you have any questions, please feel free join the discussion on our talk page |
XinJeisan ( talk) 21:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB ( talk) 17:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu! Unfortunately I don't have much knowledge on the subject, and don't have sources on it either. The Hebrew Wikipedia doesn't have such an article. Basically the most prominent modern Hebrew poet by far was Haim Nahman Bialik. Other major figures include Shaul Tchernihovsky, Avraham Shlonsky, Natan Alterman, Rachel (poet), Leah Goldberg, Uri Tzvi Greenberg, etc. More recent poets include Natan Yonatan and Natan Zach. I can give you a translation of the Hebrew section for modern poetry from the Hebrew poetry article if you wish, and possibly write a short stub to that effect later, although it's better if some sources are found first. Cheers, Ynhockey ( Talk) 01:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The modern Hebrew poetry was pioneered by Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, and it was developed by the Haskalah movements, that saw poetry as the most quality genre for Hebrew writing. The first Haskalah poet, who heavily influenced the later poets, was Naphtali Hirz Wessely, at the end of the 18th Century, and after him came Shalom HaCohen, Max Letteris, Abraham Dob Bär Lebensohn, his son Micah Joseph, Judah Leib Gordon and others. The Haskalah poetry was greatly influenced by the contemporary European poetry, as well as the poetry of the previous ages, especially Biblical poetry, but was not able to make significant innovations. It was mostly a didactic form of poetry, and dealt with the world, the public, and the contemporary trends, and did not cater to the individual or the soul. In the age after the Haskalah, the prominent poets were Hovevei Zion, including for example Naftali Herz Imber, who wrote HaTikva.
The revolution of Hebrew poetry was ushered in the last decade of the 19th Century by Haim Nahman Bialik and Shaul Tchernihovsky. They let go of the genre principles that were widely accepted at their time, and began writing personal poems, about the human being and the soul. In the national revival period, many arose as the literary heirs to Bialik, in various genres. In the 1920s and 30s, the weight of the Hebrew poetry moved from Europe to the Land of Israel. Women became prominent poets ( Yokheved Bat Miryam, Esther Ra'av, Rachel and others), and an expressionist genre developed (especially Uri Zvi Greenberg and David Fogel). In the 1930s and 40s, a neo-symbolic style emerged as well, in Avraham Shlonsky, then Natan Alterman, and then the Palmach age. In the 1950s, the "State of Israel age" was active and rebelled against the style of Shlonsky and Alterman, with the poets Natan Zakh, David Avidan, Yehuda Amihai and Dalya Ravikovich. Along with these, there was a line of religious poets, such as Yosef Zvi Rimon, Zelda, and the religious generation of the end of the 20th Century.
Thanks for taking those NA's out - appreciated - Satu Suro 05:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I was surprised to see you closed Talk:Little Englander#Move? as "no consensus"; my reading of the debate seems to suggest there was a reasonable consensus in favour of no move. Shouldn't the closing comment reflect this, per the recently closed Talk:Michael Van Patrick#Requested move for example? -- Rogerb67 ( talk) 11:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
As a heads up, I have restored this article. If you have kids and live in the US, you would know that this is a very high profile award. I've also added references to third-party sources to establish the notability. じゃあね~ howcheng { chat} 17:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
CheckUser has confirmed that User:Academiic (and User:Deskaheed, as it turns out) are the most recent socks for Jessica Liao. The case is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jessica Liao. You were the last admin to block one of her socks; if you get this message in the next few days, perhaps you'd like to consider these two new ones, as well. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 06:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
— harej ( talk) 20:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I saw this when going through the RM backlog; as an admin, you don't need to place the speedy tag before deleting it.-- Aervanath ( talk) 13:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know exactly WHY you would go about deleting my entries on both Outer Space Entertainment AND about founder Jay Luciano. This seems to be the work of someone with disregard towards Hip-Hop and the Hip-Hop community, and that is not a valid reason for deletion. A mass of people have requested more information about the label, and Google reports the name being searched in the month of April over 100'000 times. If you sir, do not find that of substantial reason enough to restore the page, i can only see the reason fitting to be a lack of knowledge towards the subject and a strong distaste for Hip-Hop and it's community. Outer Space is becoming a strong force in the music industry, and your deletion of the page will only cause an uproar on wikipedia by fans such as myself. I've noticed you have made many contributions to wikipedia, which you deserve outstanding credit for but as far as your dismissal of Outer Space Entertainment and it's accomplishments is insulting to the many fans across North America and Europe. Please inform us what other than your obvious distaste of rap music and it's pioneers would cause you take such disrespectful actions. If you ever visited South Florida (Miami and it's surroundings), you would be familiarized with Outer Space and Luciano's work on the radio. For an Independent record label founded by one person to receive mainstream success in under a year is far from not being important and worthy of an article.
Sincerly, Benjamin Chase -New York, NY Jayluciano ( talk) 15:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, at Talk:No_Nonsense#Move.3F, I have a small doubt about one sentence. A simple "yes" or "no" would suffice. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 18:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Re: the recent discussion to move the article from Shirley Temple to Shirley Temple Black, seven people opposed or strongly opposed the proposal, while only two supported it, yet you determined "the result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page." Can you explain why you feel there was "no consensus" when seven out of nine opinions supported keeping the article as is? Thank you! LiteraryMaven ( talk • contrib) 18:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I reverted your move of Tropical Storm Nicholas (2003), as, in general, all non-retired storms should have the year disambiguation per project standards. Regards, – Juliancolton | Talk 02:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
You recently denied my request for a-7 on Quaternary Recovery, and given the facts at the time I think you made the right decision. Since then, I decided to help fix it. The article has taken an interesting turn, as you can see from the talk page. I'd like to mentor the new user into a future contributor to Wikipedia. But I may need some help. Would you be willing to lend a helping hand? Or am I just a silly optimist?-- Work permit ( talk) 04:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to request a temporary review. Could you please send me the deleted articles? I intended to add them to another wiki today. Also, I added these pages to provide context for the CDP Server page and include R1Soft on the list of proprietary Backup software. I feel like the description of company and product was very objective, no words like "affordable" or other promotional words were used. Was it the brief history section?
Just trying to understand so I can learn how to create a more accepted and useful page.
Looking forward to your response
Jenlynne ( talk) 15:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this is my first article so this explanation has been helpful. Thanks! Jenlynne ( talk) 16:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that your routine move makes a bad situation worse. Please reverse it and help fix the growing mess.
Before it was even over, Dbachmann violated the severally-declared snow Keep consensus of a "Christian cult" AfD. Here's my full explanation: [64] [65]
Dbachmann has a personal POV objection to the article's notable, consensed title (not the first time: "...no consensus to support move"). He misused his tools to force implemention of his POV (not the first time: WP:RFAR/Dbachmann: "Dbachmann is reminded to avoid using his administrative tools in editorial disputes in which he is personally involved...").
Please restore the classic article's currently unconsensed title to the consensus title "Christian cult" as approved by AfD Keep, then restore the "Christian cult" article to its original referenced condition [66] before Dbachmann overlayed it with unreferenced text (disguised by heavy wikilinking) – by transfering his overlay text [67] to a stub with the title "Christian new religious movements". (Please reply here if desired) Milo 16:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I do not have any "pov" in this, and I resent the passing implication that I do. It is beyond me what my "pov" is even supposed to be. My involvement here is entirely dedicated to WP:NAME. The primary meaning of the string "Christian cult" is Christian religious ceremony. The low-brow meaning of "cult" as "zomg evil psycho-sect" has notability, but it cannot be treated as the primary meaning and needs to be properly disambiguated, and needs to be classified under Category:Pejoratives just like our Nigger article. Wikipedia doesn't call religious movements "cults" any more than it calls people "niggers", it simply reports quotable sources that call something a "cult". -- dab (𒁳) 07:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
"...a user with whom I have never interacted before..." Dbachmann/dab has a faulty memory. Here is a list of seven posts in which we collectively interacted well prior to the Christian cult AfD, 23 May 2009:
I am really not that interested, but I would like to see one reliable source that refers to Kanye West as "Kanye" apart from his mother. I work in the music industry and I have never heard of anyone refer to him as plain "Kanye". Disambiguation seems more appropriate given that in it is a popular/common name in at least one region of the world. We don't have other common names go straight to an individual - try Mark, Peter or John, or more relevantly, even Madonna. Mfield ( Oi!) 21:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu,
We understand that you deleted the article we set up about Donna Meistrich. The reason given was: (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject).
Donna is the co-creator of an up-coming television show called Tacky People. They currently run teasers on their website. She practices various art forms professionally and has worked with the biggest names in Hollywood. These facts are mentioned in the article to highlight her significance. As part our marketing campaign for the launch of the new show, we set up Donna's Wikipedia entry. It is our opinion that Donna is at least as significant as some of the other people with bios on wikipedia. In all fairness, we request you to reconsider deleting her article.
Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolfalmao ( talk • contribs) 05:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Two editors expressed their concerns with the notability of the article, including User:Magnius, who suggested that it be deleted. I reviewed this deletion request and did not find a significant claim of notability. Wikipedia:Notability shows our basic standards for inclusion. In general, an article should show that the topic has been covered to a significant extent in reliable, third-party sources. The major claim made by the article which you submitted is that Ms. Meistrich is one of the creators of a program that has yet to be aired. This makes it unlikely that such sources are readily available at this time. You can try to write another article that contained such sources if they are available to you. However, I would advise against that as well, because you have implied that the article was related to a marketing campaign, which indicates that you may have a conflict of interest as pertains to the article in question. It is certainly possible that when the show airs, a Wikipedia editor may find the subject to be notable and write an article on it.
I have another suggestion as well. You inserted many, many external links into the article. At first glance, they might have been seen as attempts at citation; however, you were in actuality only inserting external links to the things themselves. For example, you said that Ms. Meistrich has worked with Harley Davidson. Adding an external link to the Harley Davidson website does not help us verify that statement. Unsourced statements are strongly discouraged by our policy on biographies of living people. Other links appeared designed to drive traffic to the "Tacky People" site, which is strongly discouraged if you are involved with the program, and can even be considered spam. Dekimasu よ! 13:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for pitching in at Judicial Review. However, the changes you're making are conflicting with the goals we set out on the discussion page at Judicial Review. We decided to create independent pages for each country, and I'm in the process of doing that now. If you'd like to propose an alternative, please mention it at the discussion page. thanks. Agradman ( talk) 03:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I saw this. If there's no objections to the move, then just go ahead and do it. If there's no other participation in the discussion, it likely means that no one else cares, so you can treat it as uncontroversial. Cheers, -- Aervanath ( talk) 17:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
While you are correct about the team still being active (I didn't read the article just looked at the IBL's website and they were gone), they no longer compete in the International Basketball League. Generally, when teams drop out of the IBL, they have gone defunct and I could've sworn I had read that somewhere. According to the article, they are now playing exhibition games, so I'm not sure what "league" to give them on the Nevada Sports template. Shootmaster 44 ( talk) 04:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
As much as I respect your judgment, I think you made a mistake with WB. I find it hard to believe that an Indian cable channel is the primary topic for this title; Warner Brothers alone is certainly a more common usage, and there are many others. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 10:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, if you google its old name: International Commission of Agricultural Engineering, you will be able to establish its Notability: http://www.google.com/search?q=international+commission+of+agricultural+engineering&hl=zh-CN&lr=&start=10&sa=N regards, -- Jhjlj ( talk) 21:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jessica Liao again. I'm hoping to get this pair into the "checkuser confirmed" category. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm attempting to verify your statement. Could you fix the link to "negotiate blocks or bans, represent [its members] at arbitration, and support [them] in content issues"? This not something I remember or ever endorsed though it may have come up somewhere. Regards and thanks. -- Klein zach 09:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm just wondering. You deleted the article for not following A7... But Madness Script is neither a person, organization or Web content? It's a programming language so I'm just wondering how it falls under that criteria? I would agree that it ain't very known and there is only one source (the creators web page) for mscript which makes it unreliable since it's only one source. But isn't the given criteria wrong?
My friend worked hard to make that article ^^
Sorry for not writing with my account. Lost my old email so can't restore password :P Send your response to groogy@groogy.se Thx!
Sincerely, Groogy.
See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#British peerage No. 4 Baronets, the form Sir Wiliam Robertson, 1st Baronet is acceptable when disambiguation is required. David Underdown ( talk) 15:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I saw the kana for 'YO' in your signature and thought I'd just click on it to see what would happen . . .
I'm a computer programmer, and I've written software in Java (and Javascript) to transliterate between romaji and kana (and back). (I'm also the guy who initially programmed the {{ age}} template which is used in tens of thousands of Wikipedia biographical articles.) -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 15:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, please see my comments about this topic at WT:Disambiguation#Primary_topic_uber_alles. I think we have lost the definition of "Primary Topic." (John User:Jwy talk) 16:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
If you have any interest in the matter, please read my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese cultural artifacts controversy (2nd nomination), and then go ahead and look at the all-new version of Japanese cultural artifacts controversy. I would like to know if this radical change might change some minds. Un sch ool 03:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't suppose that you've noticed Special:Contributions/Alchaenist? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your action. I fully support your reversal of the recent move. Would you also please delete the redirect created in the move back, i.e., delete Peer-to-peer (network architecture), as this classification is not proper, P2P is a distributed application architecture and not a network architecture, P2P can be implemented on many different network architectures in the common sense of the term network architecture. Kbrose ( talk) 18:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Why did you delete the articles? It had references so therefore it can be improved. Is it possible that we can paraphrase it rather copy from word to word? I have seen articles where editors have copied it word to word but provided references to it. -- Alchaenist ( talk) 01:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll just keep this short....thank you for using my idea of editing release dates and putting it into their own cause it shows that some people here are appreciating my work....thank you. :) 69.125.30.234 ( talk) 17:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the reverting! I thought I already did it and thought that I did not hit the save button. Again sorry for the work.-- Stone ( talk) 04:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Village School (Great Neck, New York) (2nd nomination). Thank you. Alchaenist ( talk) 22:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
You changed the 'Doru' page from a disambiguation page (pointing to 2 items - to a Romanian name and to 'Dory spear') to a indirection pointing only to 'Dory spear'.
Two problems:
1) There's absolutely no relation between 'Dory spear' and 'Doru', and you enforced this mistake. Check update at 18:50, 14 April 2008 by T.elias13. Please provide a link between 'Doru' and 'Dory spear' or remove the 'Doru'->'Dory spear' indirection.
2) 'Doru' does mean something: it's a Romanian name. Check just one reference
here. That's exactly the association that you cut out. Why?
Doruuu
Hi there. I've been away for a couple of months and was surprised to come back and find that you closed a 3rd move request for this article by invoking WP:NPOV, claiming that the original title was not netural. (Have you have not seen the articles on Judaization of the Galilee or Judaization?). Anyway, I searched for evidence from reliable sources attesting to the non-neutrality of this particular phrase, but could not find anything on the talk page or in the larger virtual arena. Would you mind explaining which scholarly sources informed your decision? Thanks. Tiamut talk 11:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah sorry, in a lot of cases the names were of small towns with articles barely a paragraph long, I can see that was a mistake in the case of Takamatsu though. Even so, it's bound to be the name of other people. Would it be worth posting a disambiguation note in italics at the top of Takamatsu, or if we find enough people, creating a Takamatsu (name) or something to direct to instead? I did notice that Smith does mention in the second line a Smith (surname) and List of people with surname Smith. I would have done that except at the moment I don't know any other Takamatsus so I figure list projects get started that way as more people get discovered. There is also Smith#Fiction. My main focus tends to be on redirecting the names of fictional characters, but a lot of times the creators of certain series might be more notable than some of the minor characters in those series so I thought I should try to include them too. But yeah, for major populace centres it does make sense to only have a small mention of people with the name, as opposed to the smaller towns. Tyciol ( talk) 18:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Someday, I'm going to guess wrong, but Special:Contributions/Legihatp should be on your mind. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
You have reverted the Rigsdag article, which I recently turned into a disambiguation page. Perhaps the format I chose is not right, it might need a rewrite, perhaps I should have placed a hatnote on the Rigsdagen article to an article called Rigsdag (disambiguation). What do you think, perhaps you have suggestions for improvement? Talk/ ♥фĩłдωəß♥\ Work 15:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
User:Dekimasu/Archive1 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand this statement. What would be the "primary topic" in this context, if not the "subway like things most commonly called 'metro'"? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 12:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing my mess up there. I meant to do it myself but got distracted and then forgot about it. -- User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 09:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. While I understand your reversion of my edit to Disambiguation (disambiguation), I'd like to discuss it. I do know that general practice is to keep from categorizing DAB pages, but this does seem like a special case. The page is, by its very nature, an excellent example of self-reference and (non-mathematical) recursion; not acknowledging this fact is arguably a disservice to the reader. Aside from the fact that DAB pages usually aren't categorized, what's the argument against leaving this categorization on the page? Thanks. Cakedamber ( talk) 17:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted a see-also link to
Disambiguation (disambiguation), and discussed why in some detail at
User_talk:Cakedamber#WP refs in WP articles, including quotation of the preceding section that is parent to this subsection.
--
Jerzy•
t
06:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I understand she was not miss nepal winner but she was miss nepal asia pacific and it's a title for a runner up so plz return that page plz thanxz ( FatDuy ( talk) 22:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)).
I share your concern for the need for Dab-bypassing work, and trust you will regard my reversion (of a new user) at Template:Incoming links as being friendly to your goals. I'm going to start a temporary substitute Cat (unless you accomplish that during my breakfast- and rock-gym-slab-climb break) without worrying much about getting the title or parent Cat right -- to serve the purpose that IMO the Dab-CU Cat is (at least superficially, but perhaps deeply) unsuitable for: it seems to me that "cleanup" has always meant, everywhere on en:WP, "fixing a page by changing its content" while the new template is about something that has always AFAIK been a separate issue, fixing the widely dispersed misuses of a given Dab. (But i think there's no need to see the change of Cat as prejudicing against an adequately discussed future decision that, after all, the earlier choice was the right one.) Pending discussion, IMO
all are problems needing addressing before including the Cat on the IMO desirable template.
--
Jerzy•
t
19:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
|
The Wikilink Barnstar | |
Without your contributions I wouldn't know what to edit. J04n( talk page) 09:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC) |
The novelty you reverted at Japanese people has corollaries -- see
This problem is likely to be recurring. -- Tenmei ( talk) 13:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
You blocked this user, now operating under the sockpuppet "Yakuza Libra"-please block the sock as well. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) ( talk) 18:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I've started a discussion on the above link. I thought I'd let you know as you tagged it for clean-up and have done a lot of work on it. Thanks, and keep up the good work! Boleyn2 ( talk) 20:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
What changes to Informatics do you suggest in order to make it better comply with the Manual of Style? Regards, — Ruud 19:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, first of all, thanks for closing this; rarely have I seen so many contributions to such an obviously one-sided issue. My question is, in closing that discussion, did you have to exercise an administrative tool, or could anyone with sense have done the same thing? Un sch ool 04:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
2009 in television probably should be expanded into an article but not "like all the other years". Instead what was done here should be the model for the other years. See Talk:2009 in American television. JIMp talk· cont 14:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Why do you insist on removing information which relates to a japanese language test?!
If you are seeking further clarification on the validity of the examination or its content i suggest you contact the Vice President at the Japan Testing Association - Miyoko Kawasaki (kawasaki@goukaku.ne.jp)
LICMU ( talk) 11:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Why did you remove the disambiguation page I created at Off Road? Those three computer games are all commonly known as "Off Road" to fans. People who type that into WP looking for information on the games will now be left confused. 2fort5r ( talk) 12:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, why do you think the two articles should be merged? They are different colleges, formally independent, with separate administration and always listed separately, neither is a "branch" of the other. (Also, why did you remove the external links?) Regards, Shreevatsa ( talk) 14:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
As part of my regular wikignoming, I removed almost 70 internal links from the rather short article William McKie. And I removed the overlinked template. Please have a look to see if you agree with that assessment. If you happen to disagree, I'd appreciate it if you would remove those internal links you consider superfluous, rather than just tag the article again. Thank you, Debresser ( talk) 20:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. I'll go particularly careful with allthose AfDs, PRODs and CSDs. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Greetings. I stopped talking to dbachman, because his mind is already made up. I wanted to explain to u my revert and hope to keep our contact civil. First I want to let you know that the article is not wiki sync. I do use sources that talk specifically about African Empires. This is not an article based solely on the combination of two definitions. I believe that is dbachman's main argument; however, I think things have simply gotten too personal between us for any light to shine through. I also have an issue with a merger (which was rejected via talk page months ago by someone who I think was relatively neutral to the debate) is that the African Empires page existed before the pre-colonial African kingdoms page. not to mention, a kingdom is not an empire. The Mali Empire is pretty obviously not a kingdom. I think you would agree. There are sources for these statements within the page. I was going to go thru and source every single polity, but I realized that only dbachman was making that demand and I don't edit on his behalf. I believe that people should contribute or get out of the way. i know that is rather frank, but that is my honest opinion. Please contact me via my discussion page so we can discuss this further. Best Wishes. Scott Free ( talk) 16:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, i have seen you use popups when sorting out disam links, i was wondering could you please explain to me how? Ive tried several times in recent days adding different text to the monobook, and just now i copied the text from your page (sorry lol), but i still do not see where or how to use it to alter where the link directs to? Hope you can help thanks. BritishWatcher ( talk) 17:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu, if a user searches brocade it takes three page browsing to get brocade communications system. and one page browsing to brocade fabric. If there is an index page user can select the page which he wants and could get both pages in two page browsing.And also he could save the time without browsing unnecessary page. pls search Myway or RT everything gives an index page,so pls dont say that disambiguation in one page is the standard.-- naveenpf ( talk) 01:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi i am telling about search results of Brocade Communication Systems.If i search for brocade i need to browse three pages.so can u revert back-- naveenpf ( talk) 14:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I have a feeling that page will need an RfC. I will be drawing up a request to restrict many of them from the page. I have posted tons of links about uses of Persian Empire in multiple books that 100% contradicts their claims. I have posted up evidence from Farsi itself and what the words mean in Farsi, and they have no defense against it. I have posted up how we have organized pages on Wiki and they have no clue. They make a claim and I point out the absurdity both on Wiki and in the sources. There is no way that these individuals actually care about the page but mostly just want to troll. The ANI ended telling them to back off from the page for a few days and what do they do? Keep on spewing the same nonsense. Sigh. Ottava Rima ( talk) 15:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
(Har har har.) I believe that Pragmatic, at least, must be disambiguated: many incoming links to pragmatic are intended to refer to Pragmatics, example: see Pragmatic language impairment.
I find it a little problematic that many people link pragmatic and are referring to "doing what is practical at the temporary expense of idealism", but are instead brought to a page about a philosophy that is likely unknown to the person or unrelated to the act described in their use of pragmatic.
Also, I just unearthed Pragmaticism, which itself is apparently considered a form of pragmatism; apparently "pragmatic" and "pragmatist" can be used to describe adherents to this branch. What to do? Whatever404 ( talk) 14:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
In case you wish to comment. Regards SilkTork * YES! 10:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for sending me a message! I've messed up, Powerlifting is a different sport than Olympic weightlifting. The Olympic weightlifting article refers to the sport that is in the Olympics but even not when it is in the Olympics context, it should be called Weightlifting (sport), but that doesn't excuse my mistake. I'm going to go back and fix everything. J04n( talk page) 11:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Please see further comment at talk:Sheep dog. Regards, Richard New Forest ( talk) 19:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, thank you for offering to nominate me to be an admin. I never put much thought into requesting adminship, but why not? Throw my name in and we'll see what happens. Although I'm not sure how I will answer "What admin work do you intend to take part in? "
Secondly, it looks the the issue with Computed tomography is all set, it was redirected to X-ray computed tomography. J04n( talk page) 12:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Re "moved The Tomorrow People (TV series) to The Tomorrow People: contesting move; TV series appears to be the primary topic": I guess the principle here is that any TV show, video game, album, etc. trumps any serious work of literature in terms of "notability". Thanks for enlightening me. So, I recommend that Homer's Odyssey (The Simpsons) replace Odyssey as the primary. Do you agree? No? Why not? GHJmover ( talk) 07:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi;
I am Daniel Arnaldo Roman, on june you deleted the wiki info i have assuming it was a copyright infringement. Well I am not doing that as I am the owner of the information, and i was the one who created both pages, Wiki and Saatchi. Can you please reconsider?
Best Beheriter ( talk) 15:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Daniel Roman
Hi Dekimasu. I moved the current 'Rowing' page to 'Rowing (disambiguation)' a while back. My idea was to keep the disambiguation page there and move 'rowing (sport)' to 'rowing', with a link at the top to the disambig page, as this is the main usage of the word (google the word 'rowing' and you will have to scroll though a few hundred pages of search results before you find something that doesn't relate to the sport). It seems an admin is needed to make these changes, so perhaps you could have a look at it?-- The Spith ( talk) 22:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
It was certainly an interesting week! Absolutely no need for you to be sorry, I want to thank you again for the nomination and the kind words you wrote about me. I still enjoy the editing that I do and will continue to do so. J04n( talk page) 02:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
You restored the National Socialism page to its original slot, but made several notable, unfortunate mistakes:
Apparently you thought that a generalistic topic article such as one about an ideology did not need disambiguation. That was indeed the root of why I moved it, and why I created the disambiguation in the first place. That you did not understand why we disambiguate terms, was your 6th error.
What I want from you now is to make every attempt at recovering the material I wrote for the disambiguation page, and then add it to National Socialism (disambiguation). Thanks for your compliance - Stevertigo ( wlog | talk | edits) 23:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello Dekimasu. I'm a Wikipedia contributor from Macedonia, and I am a great fun of the Zatoichi saga. In two of the movies I have seen so far I met a very sweet actress called Miwi Takada. I looked her name in the internet, but there was literary nothing about her, not even a photo of her, although she stared in several of Japan's most celebrated movie classics. That's why I decided to create the Miwa Takada article, and wrote all i knew about her. I also made two screenshots of her from the Zatoichi movies. Dear Dekimasu, could you please find something about her in Japanese, and add it to the article, or give me some additional info about her directly to me, because, I am about to became her fan :) Regards from Macedonia. -- Revizionist ( talk) 19:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi - my bot should produce the monthly disambig list update tomorrow at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/October 2009; probably shortly after the daily update of The Daily Disambig pages (as long as nothing goes wrong with the Toolserver between now and then). However, the main WP:DPL page needs to be edited manually to replace the September list with the October one, and I will be unable to do this tomorrow because I will be traveling. If you could keep an eye out and replace the list at the appropriate time, it would be a great help. Thanks. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 13:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I want to thank you for making the changes to World Domination. I have tried for the last two days to make it like you have while not tearing at the editors on the talk page. Keep an eye on it, The Protocols of Zion won't stay off for long :/ - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I only work with gomezbuster and hunter2727. There are a few other people at work that get on here every now and then but I can't tell you all their screen names. In any case, we work for a relatively large company and I only know who the guy is. I had heard of gomez's prank or whatever. It started with an office joke or something but obviously got out of hand. Another one of our friends is pretty mad that gomez caused everyone to get blocked. I only know his real name and not his screen name. He edits grammatical errors on here. In any case, my contributions have been mostly Minor League/Appy League baseball contributions. I used to work for the Kingsport Mets and fixed a few things there and added links to the page. Thank you for your time! Tshelton30 ( talk) 03:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I made it pretty clear on AN/I, which PennySeven has obviously been tracking, that it was their continued disruptive editing on AN/I that caused me to block. You might want to review that and either grant the unblock or modify your decline reason. Sorry for any confusion.... -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 12:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for helping me out with this mess. Is there any way the Sandor Clegane account could be unblocked as I had informed about the ArbCom about it when I registered it?-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 14:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
As you participated in the recent
Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two
requests for comment that relate to the use of
SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the
SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (
talk)
08:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about the unblock. I didn't think I was being "bitey" since it was a simple username block, but in any event, it's taken care of. Thanks again. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 01:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Greetings. I note you have unblocked this user. I have no issue with this, however I think that the following information may need to be stored away, as you may not have seen it. The Checkuser page for DrBat : [71] lists a suspect editing of the article Juggernaut - [72], which was confirmed as being DrBat here [73]. Note that this edit comes after already being blocked for sockpuppetry. The editor has also taken a shot across my bow here: [74], at the Talk page for the same article, after being unblocked.
For your consideration.
Asgardian ( talk) 05:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Given we only "exist" here as code and data and the other people are never seen, it is reasonable to ask the question if the behaviour continues to defy explanation (I know of one administrator who also asked the question of someone). How it is asked should probably be the focus. In this case, there was no rudeness. I am simply trying to get to the bottom of this and understand why an editor continues to defy logic and the argument presented and reverts back to an inferior version. The sudden appearance by this person and possible obsession with the article suggests it is one of the three scenarios I presented. The failure to acknowledge the case presented to them and the fact that another editor supports the revamped version is very telling.
For your consideration. Asgardian ( talk) 01:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtful participation in the thread at Talk:Order of Culture#Requested Move. I'm especially delighted by the phrase "preemptive disambiguation" because it manages to distill what I've struggled unsuccessfully to express for more than a year.
Caspian blue's response suggests that you managed to hit the nail on the head. In this, perhaps, you achieved more than you could have intended; but there you have it. -- Tenmei ( talk) 02:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Am I missing something? Where is the disambiguation? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I have sent you an e-mail. -- Tenmei ( talk) 18:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
J04n(
talk page) is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Xmas,
Eid,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hannukah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.
Hello User,
don't you think, that such redirect to the German political party is more too focused on the German point of view? You can see that abbreviation has many meanings and redirecting it to the German political party would wrong many non-German users. If you revert it to the version, in which SPD redirects to the German political party, it would be then fine for me, ok. Just wanted to let you think about it and consider also the non-German users. -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 ( talk) 00:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I've been working to bring additional useful info to the SEPTA articles (particularly the Market-Frankfort line), and noted in the recent revision history that someone added an external link to a Google map image of the line; but also saw that it was quickly removed as being spam. Looking at the link itself via the diff page, it looks like a perfectly reasonable addition to the article, and i can't understand why it was marked as spam in the first place. Granted, the user that added it seemed to have issues with consensus building and personal attacks; but the intent was still Good Faith. I'm not suggesting any kind of removal of their ban (that's not my fight, they can earn it themselves if they're interested); but i would support the re-addition of the google map link. I would like to put it back; but i'm not going to stick my nose out to add good data if the only thing it will get me is a cauliflower schnoz. Would you consider taking a look at the link itself and allow me to add it back to the MFSL page? If not, would you be willing to discuss your reasoning why? Hiroe ( talk) 21:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Greetings. I was hoping for some advice regarding DrBat, who you cautioned and unblocked after some sockpuppetry ( [75]). His editing behaviour hasn't really improved any, as I've tried to speak with him regarding the blind reversions without comment ( [76]), as have others ( [77]). There is currently a small dispute at Juggernaut which I've tried to resolve ( [78]), but given his response ( [79]) I don't know. What could you advise? Regards Asgardian ( talk) 07:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Why did you change Monoculturalism to redirect to the opposition subsection? LokiClock ( talk) 09:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Nice of you to notice. Talk to you soon. J04n( talk page) 21:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Dekimasu, this is a message from an
automated bot to inform you that the page you created,
International Hockey League (disambiguation), has been marked for
speedy deletion by
User:Dolovis. This has been done because the page is a recently created article that that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic (see
CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add "{{
hangon}}
" to the page text, and edit the
talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at
User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see
User talk:Dolovis. Thanks, -
SDPatrolBot II (
talk) on behalf of
Dolovis (
talk ·
contribs)
21:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I have started a conversation regarding a block of an ISP for low income users that was initiated two and a half years ago and was recently lifted. You were one of the people that helped review the initial block or helped review it when it was lifted. I am cordially inviting you to join in the conversation.
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Two and a half year block of ISP for low-income users
Thank you very much for you thoughtful consideration. -
Hydroxonium (
talk |
contribs)
03:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_influence_on_Japanese_culture
I dont think this page is necessary on a separate page. I would be grateful if you can look at this and decide.The information too, on this page is at best, dubious.
Best regards,
Lumber —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.47.79 ( talk) 12:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
J04n(
talk page) is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Xmas,
Eid,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Balloon}} to your friends' talk pages.
There has been a major revision of the the
Service Awards: the edit requirements for the higher levels have been greatly reduced, to make them reasonably attainable.
Because of this, your Service Award level has been changed, and you are now eligible for a higher level. I have taken the liberty of updating your award on your user page.
Herostratus ( talk) 18:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear Dekimasu,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name
HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar -- Jaobar ( talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlopeck ( talk • contribs) 23:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_5#Template:Incoming_links for the discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The reason the CBS Records page is a DAB page is because the most famous CBS Records is not the current one which was founded in 2006, CBS Records (2006). The entities which were formerly known as CBS Records now go by other names which are Columbia Records for the record label and Sony Music Entertainment for the record company. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 19:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry but can I please request revert this close or move to Shout (Idoling song) there are 7 out of 8 support for adding the name of the band (whether as (Idoling song) or (Idoling song), we don't need 3 RMs to make such a simple move when 7 out of 8 support it. I simply made a mistake in not also deleting the !!! from the template when I corrected it according to Cuchullain's request. In ictu oculi ( talk) 09:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, you participated in a previous move request regarding Crimea and Ukraine, so I thought you might be interested in this new request that is intended to address objections to the previous one. Cheers. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Dekimasu, I would like to take this moment and thank you for taking part in my RfA that happened a while ago. Although it didn't turn out as I had planned, I certainly appreciated all the comments and suggestions given by you and other people. I will learn from all of them and will hopefully run again someday when I'm fully ready. Thank you. TheGeneralUser ( talk) 13:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I mistakenly voted "oppose" without realizing that it's a movie, not a person. "Chitram!" is more accurate than "Chitram", and I didn't notice comparison between Chitram and Vichitram. Can you undo closure and then relist please (using {{ subst:relisting}}), so I can change my vote to "support"? -- George Ho ( talk) 17:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I assume you know of a quick and easy way to migrate all of the links for the English Durham that currently go to Durham to its new location following today's move? Bob talk 13:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
When you make moves like that one, please remember to add the necessary mechanism to enable readers to find the dab page. I've added hatnote at Artificiality in this case. Pam D 07:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Sex Tape (film). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Steel1943 ( talk) 01:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey, would you consider relisting instead of closing the discussion at Talk:Port Authority Trans-Hudson? I meant to make a comment that I'm pretty sure negates the one oppose argument (and the other per him argument) but never got around to it. Thought it would make more sense to include it there rather than have to start a new discussion.-- Yaksar (let's chat) 07:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu,
I have left a response on the talk page for the MoS. Gryffindor ( talk) 09:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu, I'm slightly confused by the recent Nagano moves.
From what I see, before September 2014, Nagano was a redirect to Nagano, Nagano. My reasoning:
So my timeline:
Is there something I'm missing (e.g. some logs that are only visible to admins)? Because judging by logs & hatnote, the stable version is to have "Nagano" redirect to "Nagano, Nagano". If we're reverting to 'stable' version while discussion is taking place (btw, where is this discussion?), shouldn't be go to that version? If the consensus is to have "Nagano" be the disambiguation page, then as Wbm1058 stated, all the links have to be edited before the move.
Thanks, Kirin13 ( talk) 01:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello - just wondering how you justified the move here. Where is the consensus in a 5-3 !vote, where several of the supporters offered no policy justification? (E.g., "Obvious" is not a policy justification, especially when other participants have invoked policy.) Thanks. Dohn joe ( talk) 15:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
|
Thanks for closing out the RM discussion and moving the page. Glad that's over with. Appreciate it. SW3 5DL ( talk) 00:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC) |
How is the move discussion different from Talk:Love You like a Love Song#Requested move? -- George Ho ( talk) 01:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
No consensus to move? Why? I provided so many reasons that the title of this article should change. But you just said the opinions of IP editors acting in good faith are welcome. If it is really like this please show me one of the valuable opinions that these IPs have provided in that discussion. Keivan.f Talk 09:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
At Talk:Jiwa Financials the {{ spa}} was causing problems at RM? Widefox; talk 22:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Dekimasu, when you moved Somme (disambiguation) to Somme, why did you not take responsibility for (a) fixing the first link on the disambiguation page, which is now a circular link and prevents readers from finding one of the most prominent articles on a topic associated with this title; (b) fixing the redirect from Somme (département); and (c) fixing incoming links to the disambiguation page? You have been doing this a long time, and you should not need to be reminded of these things. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 10:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
DO you want to reconsider your "supervote" in this instance, please? -- Richhoncho ( talk) 08:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I now have time to set out my stall.
Firstly, I assume neither of us dispute that WP:SONGDAB (quoted below) is a quideline. If it is a guideline then the compulsion intended by "When necessary" must mean something outside the scope of songs - and it does. It means if there is another article, then disambiguation should occur by using only "(band)", "(album)", or "(song)" This is fully in agreement with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. For you to read "when necessary" in the terms you did is quite incorrect.
When necessary, disambiguation should be done using "(band)", "(album)", or "(song)" (such as Queen (band) or H.M.S. Donovan (album)). As per WP:Disambiguation disambiguate by article content, not just by titles; for example, even though there is no article Hurricane, the redirect Hurricane should not be replaced with Hurricane (song) or Hurricane (album).
Then there is the second para of the guideline, that suggests, quite unequivocably, that suggests that music titles are rarely "primary topic" and notability is changes from year to year and decade to decade.
Use further disambiguation only when needed (for example X (American band), X (Australian band)). Unless multiple albums (or songs) of the same name exist, they do not need to be disambiguated any further. For example, Down to Earth (Ozzy Osbourne album) is fine, because there are many other albums named Down to Earth, but H.M.S. Donovan (Donovan album) is unnecessary. Disambiguate albums and songs by artist and not by year unless the artist has released multiple albums (or songs) with the same name. When a track is not strictly a song (in other words a composition without lyrics, or an instrumental that is not a cover of a song), disambiguation should be done using "(composition)" or "(instrumental)".
Next we need to analyse the voting and close. Firstly there are 3 !votes for and 3 !votes against (as confirmied by somebody supporting). That is a clear case of "no consensus." I don't see any argument in those votes that should have swayed the close either way.
Then we come to the close, not only have you ignored the !voting pattern, but have added a new comment to close in favour of a move. Your close reads:
The result of the move request was: move the pages, per the discussion below. I'd note that WP:SONGDAB does not state that songs need to be disambiguated every time songs with identical titles exist, or that we are unable to determine a primary topic for a search request involving song titles; song titles need only be disambiguated when necessary--that is, when there is no primary topic. Our determinations of notability for inclusion are general, but we need not treat all articles as equally vital targets of a given encyclopedic search term. The discussion of evidence here indicates that this article can be taken as the primary topic for the title.
So what is wrong with your close? :-
Now will you reconsider?
-- Richhoncho ( talk) 08:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Now I have a little time to respond. So you want to mention WP:AT, so let's look at part of that policy:-
This page explains in detail the considerations, or naming conventions, on which choices of article title are based. It is supplemented by other more specific guidelines (see the box to the right), which should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view.
Included in those supplementary naming conventions is WP:NCM, of which WP:SONGDAB is a part of. Are you following me? Do you accept that WP:NCM is supported by a policy?
Next you are relying on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which reads (and the bold is entirely mine for emphasis):-
Although a word, name or phrase may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is the primary topic. This is the topic to which the term should lead, serving as the title of (or a redirect to) the relevant article. If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or should redirect to a disambiguation page on which more than one term is disambiguated). The primary topic might be a broad-concept article, as mentioned above.
There is no single criterion for defining a primary topic. However, there are two major aspects that are commonly discussed in connection with primary topics:
- A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
- A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.
It's lucky I don't have to type much - the policies and guidelines actually support me, because there is absolutely no compunction to have a "primary topic" and as I have oft repeated, Primarytopic is perfect for presidents and capitals of countries but not for commercial titles.
So finally we come back to your close, I have never seen anybody else close on 3/3 using the nomination as casting vote, bearing in mind you added new arguments to the close, the close was improper and unrequited. Of course if you had been honest and actually !voted the result would possibly have been the same as has happened, but you circumvented that to enforce you point of view. I cannot any integrity.
Next time I see you misquote songdab I shall point out the error of your ways - again. Cheers.-- Richhoncho ( talk) 08:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Since you have participated in at least one Requested Move or Move Review discussion, either as participant or closer, regarding the title of the article currently at Sarah Jane Brown, you are being notified that there is another discussion about that going on now, at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested move #10. We hope we can finally achieve consensus among all participating about which title best meets policy and guidelines, and is not too objectionable. -- В²C ☎ 17:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
You put a lot of effort into the fairly thankless job of dealing with move discussions, and I think that deserves some recognition. Yaksar (let's chat) 23:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC) |
Hey there,
I was curious why you decided on "relist" rather than close given that I almost put the page up under noncontroversial moves in the first place. Ogress smash! 09:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey Dekimasu. Thanks for the move to the above article, appreciate it :) doktorb words deeds 16:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
"Mike Dalton" is one of Mattias Clement's ring names; so is "Tyler Breeze". Why no consensus to either birth name or another ring name? I'm sure that "Mike Dalton" is not a commonly-used name. -- George Ho ( talk) 00:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu, I'm not sure if you saw, but my request was to postpone the closing of the polls by ten days so that all contributors to the Star Wars pages could see them. An editor who was not aware of the polls just replied to my message after they were closed. While i do not engage in canvassing, I did however inform the editors who brought up the issues of the film titles of the polls (see Talk:The Empire Strikes Back and Talk:Return of the Jedi), because it is very clear what their viewpoint is on the issue. But because they were not aware of the polls, I do think it did not include all viewpoints.
And again if you look at the two talk pages already linked, they are dominated by multiple users bringing up the same issue. Had they been aware of the polls, the consensus would have been very different. What I propose is the polls be opened for a few more days. If not then I am proposing a poll at least one month long as a lot of editors are not active on wiki on a daily basis. I myself do not have the time to contribute more than a few times a month.
Lastly I wish to inform you that these films were never re-released as their episode titles as the articles state. These are misleading claims and have not a single supporting source. Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes back was released as such first in theaters in 1980 and the same for Episode VI: Return of the Jedi in 1983.
Not a single source has been provided to support these baseless fan-made claims, which is not compliant with wiki-policies. Regards-- Nadirali نادرالی ( talk) 22:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Hallo Dekimasu,
you moved the goat breed Swedish Landrace to Swedish Landrace goat. That is is a very uncommons name. It is not used in reliable sources [80]. If we use it, we do establish it. May I suggest to use parenthetical disambiguation instead and move it to Swedish Landrace (goat)? -- PigeonIP ( talk) 23:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Can you please explain why you moved this article from Libyan Civil War to 2011 Libyan Civil War? This is an extremely objectionable format, and was not the one proposed. Libyan Civil War of 2011 is the correct format, mimicking Egyptian Revolution of 2011. The "year first" format is only used for WP:NDESC titles, not for proper nouns. It was agreed previously at the various move discussions on that page that "Libyan Civil War" was a proper noun. Given that this is true, the "year first" format is entirely unacceptable. I had the page unwatched, but having now caught this, I can't believe how absurd it is. The proposer was right in requesting the "of" title. Now we have a mess, that fails our title criteria and standard English language usage. As far as 2014 Libyan Civil War is concerned, that article's title should not be capitalised, as it is not a proper noun. It should be at "2014 Libyan civil war", because the name "2014 Libyan Civil War" is not a proper noun used by the media. RGloucester — ☎ 04:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any guideline or policy applying here. RGloucester you've thrown around a lot of irrelevant policy links to support your argument that seems to boil down to "I don't like it". It's a stronger argument to say that other articles in this topic area are using the "name first" format, but that's not really an error in his closure, just something that should have been brought up at the RM. I don't think this issue is important enough to spend another RM on. It's purely cosmetic. Gigs ( talk) 20:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Why are you closing an active thread in which four editors support moving the page, and two oppose the move, citing 'no consensus'? Rob984 ( talk) 17:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
If you are to lazy to read a discussion properly then do not move pages. The consensus was obviously to move the page to Church of the Dominican Monastery (Sighişoara) which I will be doing now. Darkness Shines ( talk) 19:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Hallo, if you move a page like Roses, please remember to add a {{ redirect}} hatnote so that readers wanting senses other than the primary topic can get to the appropriate dab page in one click. Thanks. Pam D 23:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
for spending a whole four minutes considering this. Sammy D III ( talk) 17:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm over here because I cannot count all those colons. Thank you for forgiving my first rudeness.
I do disagree with the name change, but that's not my point. My problem is I don't think that there was enough discussion to change anything. I don't know the rules, I think peer review looks like the hot setup. Friday is seven days, I think I can post then and then just sit back and watch. Thank you. Sammy D III ( talk) 21:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Dekimasu. On reflection I'm not sure that your speedy close of the requested move discussion at Talk:Irish Republic was correct. Irish Republic is a history article, concerning a revolutionary state between 1919 and 1922. The Arbcom case was concerned only with the naming of the current state known as "Ireland" or "The Republic of Ireland", or of the island of Ireland. Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy if this latest silly RM stayed closed, but if the initiator wants to pursue it, I'd prefer he did it on the article talk page than on WT:IECOLL, because it would be setting a precedent to bring discussions to IECOLL that it was never meant for. Scolaire ( talk) 23:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi. You marked this page as not meeting the DAB style. I'm looking at it and the main issue I see is that refs shouldn't be cited on a DAB. Could you reply here, or even better post on the talk page for that article, any other issues that you see? Several of us are working on cleaning up this page and we can try to address it. Thanks.-- Karinpower ( talk) 06:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu, Your recent behavior in concluding the result of the List of Ukrainian rulers article has been a blatant disrespect of wikipedia conventions. The result of the move discussion on the talk page was an overwhelming "Oppose" based on the votes and AT MOST "No Consensus". You had no right to move the page based on the results of the discussion or to close the discussion as a "Move". You are disregarding wikipedia policy with your decision and it appears that you have arbitrated this discussion based on your own personal opinion, because you believed that the page should be moved. This is a conflict of interest, as you should have voiced your concerns in the voting, rather than engaging in WP:ACTIVISM and WP:ADMINABUSE. Please undo this dubious edit. -- Bogu Slav 18:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey, why do you think this should redirect to just one genre when there are 4 other significant ones that share the title? Is there evidence of this term being commonly associated with alternative rock? I myself typed it in looking for a general article on alternative styles. Links to everything related (rather than a single genre) are the next best thing.---- MA SHAUN IX 19:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Midway International Airport. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Sammy D III ( talk) 19:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I am posting this here to keep it away from the peer review, please do whatever you want with it. I think I have insulted you far more than I meant to. I don’t want to get you, and will of course apologize if your move is supported.
I have never felt that you have had any bias toward the airport, or any grudge against me. If anyone thinks that, they are wrong. Quality vs. quantity and defensive, that’s it.
If the form I used is insulting, I apologize. I have no idea what “WP:RMCI” is, the other one did not seem right. I have no idea where the list is, or why I want to be on it.
“Questionable closings appear…actions” is insulting, isn’t it? It was meant seriously, and not that you were not familiar with a procedure, rather as a shortcut to more peer review. It was also not intended to affect the review itself. You are correct that it was your talk page. I do seriously apologize for embarrassing you in front of your friends, I was an ass.
I’m not looking for any reply other than possibly an acknowledgement. I don’t think I have posted anything here that affects the peer review, this is personal. I am sorry if I have made this too ugly. I do still think your closing stunk, though. Sammy D III ( talk) 20:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello. What exactly is the meaning of this edit of yours?: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:List_of_French_classical_composers_(chronological)&curid=38022135&diff=633574069&oldid=633010150 Classicalfan626 ( talk) 21:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello Dekimasu. I have closed the proposed Cheryl Cole ---> Cheryl (musician) move at Talk:Cheryl Cole which had been open for a week. The problem was that the supporters were actually preferring something else -- Cheryl (singer) -- which was not proposed. So the consensus was for oppose the proposal. Moriori ( talk) 22:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC).
Why not vote instead? Well, you relisted the discussion, but everyone picked "support" except just one. -- George Ho ( talk) 23:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to burden you with another like/Like issue, but I just noticed that you're the last one that processed a technical request, and I have one for you that's basically a technical request, but is a bit more complicated. Someone did an ugly copy/paste move of Moves like Jagger to Moves Like Jagger on 18 October. This is contrary to the last RM discussion for that page, and should be reverted on that basis as well as due to being an improper method of moving the page. I tried to contact the admin that closed that prior discussion ( Jenks24), but they seem to be on a Wikibreak, so I'm coming to you. The article and the Talk page are now at different places, and some edit history has accumulated since the move. Please see:
Can you please take a look?
— BarrelProof ( talk) 05:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
The Feral pig page is largely nonsensical, as it's contents relate to a terminology used in North America. Will you be editing this page so that it properly reflects its new title? Obscurasky ( talk) 10:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I see you created the redirect at Lachancea kluyveri (which may be gone by the time you read this, overwritten by a move). Any comment on Talk:Saccharomyces kluyveri#Requested move? Andrewa ( talk) 14:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, interestingly one of the moves you reverted was of a town which was used as User:Gobustan name by a previous NovaSkola sock. I have put in an SPI for a Checkuser. In ictu oculi ( talk) 22:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi- if you're going to create a dab page, could you go ahead and do it (and correct any incoming links)? Right now, we we have "Raining Men (song)" redirecting to "Raining Men (Rihanna song)", which is a little silly. J Milburn ( talk) 20:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey, could you please move Anti-Armenianism in Azerbaijan to Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan as proposed in the talk page? -- Երևանցի talk 01:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
It is interesting that you use the term constructive. I'm not sure noting that he moved 8 times in his early career is constructive , especially since it isn't accurate. I would think his early career up to and including high school would be relevant and infinitely more constructive. If you remove my contribution, then I suggest you remove what is currently there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huskerdad4404 ( talk • contribs)
Hi, I think that this move debate needs a bit longer before closing. Please see the talk page. Btljs ( talk) 14:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Why did you say, when closing the RM, "Also note that 2014 coalition intervention in Syria is likely to be too imprecise to garner support." The first two responses given by the first two editors to the thread were in agreement. Please retract your comment at Talk:American-led_intervention_in_Syria. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Regarding your closure of the RM on Talk:Kick Six. The user who started the RM actually moved the page 1 minute after they started the move request. — dain omite 08:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I have noticed that you responded to my requested move of Sledgehammer (song) to Sledgehammer (Peter Gabriel song). Thank you very much!! You're a big help!! Paul Badillo ( talk) 04:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Although I opposed the move I was surprised it was closed after only two comments over the week. Do you not think it should have been relisted to allow other editors to contribute? Zarcadia ( talk) 20:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Requested. Thank you!-- SISCON ( talk) 07:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. After going through the whole process of the Requested Move for the Coliseum–Oakland International Airport line article, Salv007, the same user who moved the page originally with no discussion, just moved it again without discussion. As this was done immediately after a Requested Move process, can anything be done about this? I'd prefer that an Administrator handle this (and have any discussions with Salv007 that might be appropriate. Thanks in advance. -- IJBall ( talk) 05:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
It is obvious now that there was no rape. Thus it should be "2014 Alleged Badaun gang rape". I don't think there is anyone questioning the move.
Since there was no rape, there is very little interest in in the discussion regarding the earlier proposed move. But feel free to take you time. Malaiya ( talk) 22:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Your change to Mudslide in Japan as a redirect, in effect deletes the article I have improved. You may be correct in saying that Mudslide in Japan should not be a topic, or it should be a subtopic in another article. However, I think that decision needs to be made by a community discussion, perhaps by a Merge discussion or an AfD, and not by the update you made. My concern is with process, not the final decision at this time. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 17:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Were you supposed to move-protect or fully protect the article? -- George Ho ( talk) 05:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
You must comment about one of your recent closes. -- George Ho ( talk) 06:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
You forgot to rename the former. In regards to the latter, must I prove myself as not a sockpuppet, or are my comments enough already? -- George Ho ( talk) 00:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I invite you to the ongoing discussion regarding the matter that you and I were involved in. To access, you can hyperlink and preview on the edit page. -- George Ho ( talk) 09:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I see that you seem to be online. Please see the note I just left at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#The bot's not working. — BarrelProof ( talk) 07:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
As a closer of many move discussions, perhaps you'd care to look into Talk:Cabinet of France, which is a mire. RGloucester — ☎ 22:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me jumping in, as a total nonexpert in political matters, but one utterly baffled by these bizarre discussions. I mean, the government of Austria, France, wherever, is surely called the government. I'm somewhat hazy on what the cabinet is, but "cabinet meeting" sounds awfully familiar, as the senior ministers and suchlike getting together in No. 10. So when someone from Belgium says "In British English 'government' means 'cabinet'", I can't even parse it. What language is this 'cabinet' word in that we use 'government' to refer to it? American English must be somewhere at the root of the confusion, but how, exactly? Even if you think all of these people are wrong, can you explain how they are confused? (WP can be depressing, occasionally) Imaginatorium ( talk) 18:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Is it really, though? That sounds pretty subjective to me—the sound doesn't actually change, so such a wording could be misleading. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I was wondering if you can offer me some help. I was wondering if the page Tahitian and Hawaiian (they are both currently redirects) actually violated any policies. I see similar example for American, Scandinavian and Danish and I expanded Tahitian myself in the past base on those and the Hawaiian disambiguation pages. Thank you for any help you may be able to provide.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 21:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it, and not a disambiguation page.
I am sorry, Dekimasu, i still dont know enough about wikipedia, but i am learning every day more. I didnt know to add multiple request, and i still dont know how to move Category:Peja to Category:Peć. I tried to add RM, but that does not work. And just then renamed the category in articles, but some strange editor reverted several of those. Can you PLEASE just help me with that category, how that can be renamed? Can you add that also please into request? -- Ąnαșταη ( ταlκ) 22:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Greenbelt Station. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.
Dekimasu this editor is vandalising and ruin the article without discussion or reaching consensus the article is still dispute. here.Respect Lindi29 ( talk) 14:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for starting this discussion again. I hadn't enough time to continue this discussion with you but my problem is not solved yet. Previously, you said that: "It is also better not simply to cite sources that use the term the way you like, but to show evidence that other sources use it that way as well". Actually I didn't show the sources that use the term the way I like, they show the way she was known in history. And if you look at those Google results for "Mihrişah Sultan" you see almost all of them are referring to mother of Sultan Selim III, who is the person that I was trying to move her page. And sources distinguish between these women by using their full name, "Mihrişah Sultan" and "Emine Mihrişah Sultan". The second one's name has its "Emine" with it most of the time. So can I give a move request again in the future and will it be successful? Keivan.f Talk 14:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Welcome back! Steel1943 ( talk) 05:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC) |
Given your prior assistance with Talk:Japanese destroyer Harusame (1935), I wonder whether you might be able to help with Talk:Kirin Company, Limited. I think that article needs to be both renamed and forked. — BarrelProof ( talk) 19:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the edit today. I also noticed you made some pretty good points back in December that the user in question then went ahead and flagrantly ignored. There's a discussion about this and other abuses on ANI at the moment, in case you want to have your say. I pinged you and the others whose consensus he has been walking roughshod over a few times already, but most of those are not particularly active ( one somewhat troublingly so...), and your contribution seems to have been treated with particular dismissiveness, so I don't think I'm violating WP:CANVAS by sending you a specific message about this discussion.
Or maybe you decided not to revert back because you came around to his side and you really believe he was not "a devout Buddhist" but rather "a member of the Kokuchukai"?
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Dekimasu. I've made all transclusions of Template:Infobox cabinet point to Template:Infobox cabinet members, so this move can now be performed. Alakzi ( talk) 23:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
D, if you recall, just before your December time off you closed an RM that caused a lot of grief, which I'm still trying to resolve, to the consternation of many. I've got myself being accused of bad judgement, bad processes, and worse, which may be fair, at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Page_moves_of_DC_Metro_stations.. However this comes out, it leaves us with how to fix the mess that was caused by an RM nom changing the proposal from lowercase station to uppercase Station before you came along and closed it. Only 1 responder suggested uppercase; the rest supported the original proposal, as far as I can tell. Yes they moved to uppercase, and for various reasons getting this fixed has been impossible. So, I ask you to just agree that this is what happened, that you were unaware of it, and that it probably ought to be fixed since people were intending to support WP:USSTATION, which says to use lowercase. Dicklyon ( talk) 00:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Now at move review: Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 April#2015 April. Your comments could help resolve this mess. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of " Just Like Heaven", a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII 11:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi there,
I wanted to see if you were still an active Wikipedia editor and to invite you to discuss the renaming of the article Evidence of common descent. See: Talk:Evidence_of_common_descent#Article_Title and Talk:Evidence_of_common_descent#Requested_move_5_March_2016.
Cheers! A. Z. Colvin • Talk 01:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Dekimasu. 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:
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. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
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. 01:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
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) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu.
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) 13:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Dekimasu. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect North Korean. Since you had some involvement with the North Korean redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 04:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect South Korean. Since you had some involvement with the South Korean redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 04:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Information Radio is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information Radio until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat ( talk) 23:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.
13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Articles that you have been involved in editing— Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity—have been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Nessie ( talk) 15:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello Dekimasu,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Dersim Massacre for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
Sulfurboy ( talk) 05:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.
The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.
To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.
We really appreciate your input!
Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.
For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative ( talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Dekimasu. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Libyan Civil War (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libyan Civil War (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 20:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Natchez. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Bneu2013 ( talk) 05:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the RM you recently closed at Talk:United States presidential election in Connecticut, 1788–89 § Requested move 29 January 2018, shouldn't the pages have been moved to "... 1788–1789" rather than "...1788–89"? I believe there was unanimous consensus on that (apart from the nominator who didn't comment either way, as their first and to-date only edit was to make the nomination in the first place). 142.161.81.20 ( talk) 21:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
If you guarantee that you will unblock me and will block the administrator who blocks me, then I will withdraw the Move Review and open a new Requested Move. I do not want to be blocked. New2018Year ( talk) 22:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't have strong feeling for Trump or politics but I have strong feelings when there is a denial of due process. The Snow Close was manipulation and denial of due process to all of Wikipedia. New2018Year ( talk) 22:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, if you have a minute, would you please be able to explain why the move discussion was closed, even though none of the people who opposed it addressed any of my 2 points? I'm still just trying to understand how things work in Wikipedia. From you closing it, it seems to me that people can oppose something but then fail to address the reasons, and then it doesn't get done. My understanding of how Wikipedia works is that it's not a democracy, but a system when the merit of rationales is weighed. But this seems to disprove it. You can reply here, I've put this on my watchlist. Thanks very much! Dr. Vogel ( talk) 02:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, could you point me to the "discussion" you mentioned in this edit summary? Thanks - theWOLFchild 18:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I see it's been changed again. You going to get on that? - theWOLFchild 18:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
You will notice that User:23h112e has again trashed the list of school shootings article that you recently commented on Hmains ( talk) 01:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu. Would you mind moving Hiroshi Kobayashi (shōgi, born 1962) back as well until the whole shogi naming thing is resolved? I don't think page protection is needed, but this was one of the pages referred to at Talk:Shogi#Shōgi that was moved as a result of the name change. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
It appears you closed the RfC at Deadline Hollywood after only a week and just three comments, one of them neutral. RfCs generally last 30 days in order to generate a large number of comments and consensus. I believe this was closed remarkably early with nearly no one given an opportunity to comment. I would ask that the RfC be reopened and re-listed, since this appears to have been rushed through improperly.-- Tenebrae ( talk) 04:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I think it would have been better to relist this for a further period rather than close it as no consensus in a situation where there were two clear supports, one tentative oppose and one sitting on the fence. Shadow007 ( talk) 14:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu. Thanks for moving AAA Championships to its correct title. Any chance you can also move British Championships in Athletics to the now vacated British Athletics Championships? That is the official name of this competition [82] and was only placed at its current title for technical reasons. Thanks. SFB 22:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
With respect to your recent close of the United Kingdom general election, January 1910 requested move, can you please considering relisting the RM for wider input from the community? I should have given a more detailed rationale in the RM; not only does the article title fail WP:PRECISE, it gives the impression that the election only occurred in January. The proposed title perfectly qualified WP:CRITERIA. Moreover, it is worth pointing out that there are over 2,460 results for "January to February 1910" etc. and "election" in Google Books. Besides, it's not as if the proposal was to rename the article to United Kingdom general election, February 1910. Yet by the nature of the oppose arguments, it almost seems as if they misinterpreted the RM. Thanks.-- Neve~ selbert 19:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I made the edit notice for a specific purpose, and by all measures, it's been quite useful in that purpose. I have, for several weeks now, actually, been asking anyone who mentioned my edit notice for specific feedback on it. I even publicly asked for commentary in that ANI thread. I was -before this all started- and remain always willing to work with other editors. What I've always been stridently (and even rudely, I'll be the first to admit) opposed to is pointless accusations, endless litigation, and self-righteous recriminations about behavioral issues. In fact, the main purpose (and effect) of my edit notice was to cut down on the amount of that going on at my talk. I edit in highly controversial areas, and as a result (and as anyone else who focuses on pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, religion and culture wars will agree) it's extremely common for editors who are new to WP or new to the subject area to take the sorts of disagreements that go on there very personally. It's understandable, really, as beliefs regarding these things can be very dear to an editor's heart. I used to get 4-5 accusations a week of being a bully, a shill, a pseudoskeptic and more because I declined to implement an edit request or explained to some editor why their edit violated our policies. I would frequently be dragged to ANI after reverting these accusations, with much the same complaints the editor I reported made about me. Those ANI cases would, invariably, be quickly dismissed. But they got tiresome, real fast.
As a result, I made that edit notice. In the months it's been up, I've only been reported at ANI twice (again: complaint dismissed both times for being obviously baseless), and I've encountered a shockingly decreased number of such complaints at my talk. On top of that, only about 2% of all the editors who've commented at my talk page said anything negative about the edit notice. About the same percentage said something positive about it. The vast majority never mentioned it. When it was deleted today, the immediate result was a thread full of recriminations, pointless litigation and bad faith accusations immediately appearing on my talk page. If anything, the events of today have gone a long way to convincing me of the utility -if not the appropriateness- of that particular edit notice.
Yet for all of that: nobody really made even the slightest effort to discuss the edit notice. They merely put me on blast for making it. So far, your comment at that thread was quite literally the only productive comment I've gotten. So thank you for that. I've told Bbb23 that I would replace it with one lacking the middle finger, and possibly lacking the cursing, as well. I will bear your comment in mind as I create a replacement edit notice. And if you have any further productive commentary on it (even if it's criticism), then you are more than welcome to do so.
tldr; You were -quite literally- the only person to offer a productive critique of my edit notice and I both appreciate it greatly, and will take it to heart. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
A move request regarding Deadline.com / Deadline Hollywood, an article you have edited, is taking place at Talk:Deadline Hollywood#Requested move 11 March 2018. It is scheduled to end in seven days.-- Tenebrae ( talk) 19:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Dekimasu. I was wondering if you could lessen the protection on Yuki Hayashi (composer) so that his fans can add more info. If not, is there any way you can insert the info for me? Or if that's not a possibility, can you allow me to edit and if there's anything that doesn't look right, you can let me know? Thanks!-- Ghostory ( talk) 19:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for splitting this out. Now it would be nice to make that into a article that is comprehensible to someone who isn't a specialist.... -- Macrakis ( talk) 18:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello Dekimasu. Would you please start a new move discussion to replace the one you closed while we were still discussing it? 28bytes ( talk) 19:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, just a heads-up that you forgot to add a hatnote to the Startup company page after you redirected Startup there. I am sure this is just an unintentional mistake, though do be careful in the future. Thanks! feminist ( talk) 12:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the move requests! I put both of them up for RM (and not RMTR) because I wasn't sure if there would be any discussion on them. Natg 19 ( talk) 06:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar |
Thanks for moving Chattagram to Chittagong P32929 ( talk) 11:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC) |
Not sure on how this needs to be organised, but perhaps take a look nonetheless: see here KVDP ( talk) 11:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
ok, thanks. Did the request. KVDP ( talk) 13:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Just as an FYI, you don't need to move technical requests to the contested area. If you think it will be controversial, you can just start the discussion unilaterally by hitting the discuss button. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, hope you don't mind a question about this edit [83], removing the 90% font size from horse racing results. What is the issue with accesibility with the reduced font size? I have edited a few horse race articles today and made the same change, taking out the 90% - am happy to carry on doing that as each article comes up for its 2018 update but I'm interested in what the actual problem is. All the best. -- Bcp67 ( talk) 20:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
1. Why did you reject the move since the new journal has a new title and needs to have the English part as a bi-lingual journal. The founding editor of the old journal (Jacques Taminiaux) is still the founding editor of the new one. The Secretary of the old journal (Danielle Lories) is a co-editor of the new one. 2. Do you suggest I create a new entry with the new name of the journal? Gerard Ghislain ( talk) 02:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For closing the particularly difficult case of Requested mass move of TV specials Ribbet32 ( talk) 20:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC) |
Hello! Thanks for moving the MBTA pages! However, I'm wondering why you moved Watertown Yard (MBTA station) to Watertown Yard (MBTA) instead of just Watertown Yard. Thanks! – Daybeers ( talk) 06:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Please can you review again for me how you concluded that this discussion had no majority consensus, so I can understand the process better.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Please know that Kelly Sadler is NOT salted. Sandstein salted it but unsalted it today. Sandstein originally salted it because the draft on Kelly Sadler was crap. However, there is no need for a draft because Kelly Riddell is an established article with lots of citations and written better. Cowding Soup ( talk) 05:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I see that you are an administrator who does RM. After looking at Kelly Riddell, why don't you close the RM and move it. It is not controversial. Kelly Riddell married Mr. Sadler several years ago and now goes by the name "Kelly Sadler". The only reason I listed it as a RM was to be sure that I wasn't doing anything wrong. Cowding Soup ( talk) 05:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi I recently saw how you helped someone by moving Hina Khan page. I just want you to please conlude these articles VJ Andy ( Talk:VJ Andy, Chandrakanta, Brahmarakshas and Shastri Sisters. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by VarunKhurana326 ( talk • contribs) 07:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, a while back you rejected to move Kristiani Herrawati because I don't give much evidence, so this is the evidence:
-- Hddty. ( talk) 21:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I ask you to reconsider your behaviour towards IP editors. I have better things to do than to spend much time editing Wikipedia. But that shouldn't prevent me from jumping in and making the odd edit to something that stands out to me as a reader. That's the point of Wikipedia. The dismissive attitude some editors show towards IP editors is offensive and serves only to emphasise how unwelcome many parts of Wikipedia are. Please don't contribute further to that. 87.210.99.206 ( talk) 10:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I feel like you have closed the move discussion on Talk:Parsons Green bombing too soon. I was certainly expecting at least several more opinions before the request would close. Is there any way you could re-open it? -- Gateshead001 ( talk) 16:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for moving it to a title that is at least properly capitalised. However, the consensus was that Remington ACR is the more common name, and I had been meaning to add my support to that name, though rather unhelpfully didn't get around to it. As such, would you please move the article to Remington ACR. Thanks, RadiculousJ ( talk) 23:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I saw that you removed the "retail location" and "supporters" section of B&E. I based the re-write on the basis of this article, where there are separate sections for the information provided. Why is it okay on one article page and not okay on another? Or is this something that has been overlooked? Jesstan01 ( talk) 22:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
DEFAULTSORT, which you have added for several airline destination lists, is in the form of {{DEFAULTSORT:Example}}, not {{DEFAULTSORT|Example}}. Note the colon. HotdogPi 00:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the closure conflict; but nice to know I was on the right track in my close. Happy editing! -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 01:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Dekimasu (and Cameron11598). The tropical storms moved were closed as no consensus, but there is a consensus. The broader consensus of the tropical storms naming conventions ( "If a name was used only once, no year is needed (e.g. Hurricane Rina or Typhoon Zeb)." Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones) and the even broader consensus of the articles titles policy WP:PRECISION ("titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that.") both show consensus for dropping the unneeded disambiguating qualifier from titles that are not ambiguous on Wikipedia, and that's why the tropical storms naming conventions were updated to stop conflictng with WP:AT. The oppose !votes in the discussion had no guidelines or policies to support them. I'd like to suggest that you re-close the moves in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Cheers! -- JHunterJ ( talk) 13:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
日本語を母語に近い状態で扱えるとのことで、日本語で書かさせていただきます。日本版のタイトルは 東芝川崎ブレイブサンダースから川崎ブレイブサンダースに既に移動してあります。これは、Bリーグ2018-19シーズンから、同チームの経営が東芝からDeNAに移行することが既に発表されているからです。だから記事名から東芝を削除したいのです。宜しくおねがいします。 Ntsctalk ( talk) 10:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Dekimasu. You have new messages at Talk:President of China#Redirect or disambiguation. -- Bejnar ( talk) 17:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I think you have misunderstood this edit by IP editor 46.200.143.183. The long list of links are his/her arguments for why he/she supports the move.
That was why I added a signature block using the{{subst: unsigned IP}} template at the end of his/her post.
You have tried adding a second signature block in the MIDDLE of his/her post. [84] and [85].
I hope that you do not mind, but I have attempted to fix the problem.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
There is no support in any guideline for the googling technique that you are using: "Hit counts reported by Google are only estimates, which in some cases have been shown to necessarily be off by nearly an order of magnitude, especially for hit counts above a few thousands." ( WP:GOOGLELIMITS). When the hit count is over 100 million, I would say more like two or three orders of magnitude. Two academic studies of the Google algorithm are cited to support this claim. In my opinion, you would profit from reading them both. Google trends and ngram were created to replace the result numbers, so we must assume they are superior. Why do consecutive searches yield the same result number? At one time, the result numbers changed in consecutive searches. Users wondered what was going on, so Google rejiggered things to make the earlier number come up again and again. Nine Zulu queens ( talk) 01:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I have noticed you have closed the request on Talk:War in Donbass. One again I think you have prematurely closed this down, after just one response. This is clearly not reasonable enough. I would like you to re-open the case so that at least several more opinions are added before a consensus. -- Gateshead001 ( talk) 13:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Dekimasu, in regard to the debate at Talk:List of Vice Presidents of the United States#Requested move 21 May 2018, forgive me because I disagree with that outcome. The list title must be changed to be in accordance with MOS:JOBTITLES, which represents the community consensus on the subject of whether or not to capitalize common nouns in article titles. If you disagree with that guideline, then you should open a discussion to change it on the talk page of the style guideline. If you choose to abide by the community consensus that shaped the style guideline, then please overturn and rename the list. Paine Ellsworth put'r there 15:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Subtropical Storm Alpha (1972). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. B dash ( talk) 02:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu, You have recently closed the article move discussion for this which was initiated by Accesscrawl. In this relation, you might find this interesting. I have heard of paid editing, but not paid discussions: [86]. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 12:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I checked out the result of move discussion! Can you merge these articles? (Title is List of Kerala Blasters FC head coaches). Do we have a discussion again? I think that discussion is waste time! I hope that controller deal with it without discussiaon.
Hey, can you relist this discussion please? Actually, there's just one oppose with the other opposes being mirrors of FactStraight's comment. Moreover, I think this support comment brought something new to our eyes and we can work on it. Regards. -- Mhhossein talk 11:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Purely for my own learning... what does the addition of relisting mean to the move proposal. Did I do it incorrectly, or does this just mean it's been proposed before? Cheers, Basie ( talk) 23:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I posted the following to Wikipedia:Move review regarding the page move of MP-443 Grach before I realized that I should discuss with the closer first. Well. Here are the contents of my move review post:
During the discussion, it was stated that "The Latin-looking "МР" is actually the Cyrillic letters "М" (Em) and "Р" (Er)". However, in reality, the letters are in fact Latin, and not Cyrillic. They stood for "Mechanical Plant". This fact can be found on the Russian version of the page: "Буквы MP следует читать как латинские буквы, которые являются сокращением от Mechanical Plant (Механический завод)" (Machine Translated: The letters MP should be read as Latin letters, which are an abbreviation of the Mechanical Plant), with this page as its citation. Relevant paragraph from citation follows:
После долгих работ над возможными вариантами конструкции, многочисленных усовершенствований и доработок, готовый пистолет на ИЖМЕХ-е получил наименование MP-443, при чем MP следует читать как латинские буквы, которые являются сокращением от Mechanical Plant (Механический завод). Однако для официальных испытаний оружию был присвоен индекс 6П35. На научно-исследовательском полигоне Министерства обороны России пистолеты проходили испытания на ресурс, надежность функционирования в нормальных и затрудненных условиях (стрельба без смазки, при температуре – 50 до + 50 градусов по Цельсию, в условиях запыления, при дожде). Всего во время таких испытаний было произведено около 1500 выстрелов.
Machine translated:
After much work on possible variants of design, numerous improvements and revisions, the Ready pistol on Izhmeh-E got the name MP-443, at what MP should be read as Latin letters which are reduction from Mechanical Plant (mechanical Factory). However, for official tests the weapon was assigned the index 6p 35. At the research site of the Russian Ministry of Defense pistols were tested on the resource, reliability of functioning in normal and difficult conditions (shooting without lubrication, at a temperature of 50 to + 50 degrees Celsius, in conditions Dust, rain). In total during such tests about 1500 shots were fired.
The discussion simultaneously resulted in the renaming of MP-412 REX, MP-444 Bagira, MP-445 Varyag, MP-446 Viking, and MP-448 Skyph. These should all be reverted. -- Wuzh ( talk) 04:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Discovery Science (TV channel). Since you had some involvement with the Discovery Science (TV channel) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. jamacfarlane ( talk) 02:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Hey, from your recent moves of professional wrestling templates, Template:Infobox Wrestling promotion is double redirecting to Template:Infobox wrestling promotion rather than targeting Template:Infobox professional wrestling promotion. I cannot fix it myself due to page protection. Pre fall 21:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu
I'm thinking of requesting close of the RM at Talk:Giuseppe Pitrè.
You closed it and it was then reopened by an involved editor, claiming that the listing period had not elapsed (by 51 minutes).
I'm just wondering, was it listed at WP:RME at the time of closure?
Best. Andrewa ( talk) 08:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Amakuru has beaten us to it. They're good value. Andrewa ( talk) 11:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi can I get military aristocracy restored, you had previously deleted it per WP:G5, thanks.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 00:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I moved the page history to the more appropriate location of Jimmy Doherty (Third Watch character). I then kept the dab page deleted since I don't see any further value in retaining it. — Xezbeth ( talk) 05:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit summary comment on Naoki dates in the Miyuki Miyabe article. Clarifying conferral date vs. award time frame is important. Following your lead I'll start using conferral date for the awards list and text, but also indicate the award time frame (e.g. 2003下) in the awards list. That should help clarify for readers why source articles say one year while the official list of winners sometimes indicates another. I've gone back through articles I've created or updated and made similar edits to keep things consistent. Good catch, thanks. Bakazaka ( talk) 20:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi - on the Bill Potts close, would you mind a little more meat on the bones of your rationale and maybe weigh the strength of the arguments? Seems to me like the !opposes were largely based on a faulty premise - that articles on fictional characters have to meet a higher standard to be primarytopic. I and a few other editors noted that that is not the case in any WP policy, guideline, or essay. I'd appreciate a second look. Thanks! Dohn joe ( talk) 16:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to come back to you because you closed my move request: /info/en/?search=Cyber_and_Information_Space_Command_(Germany) I attached a new official source to the article with the official naming of the command. Please look into it and relist my move request. Schariez ( talk) 19:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions. However, regarding Talk:List of Persian Roman Catholic saints would you mind giving it a relist, since it is actually 2-2 stakes? WP:CONSISTENCY for article realm should perhaps merit at least one relist, shouldn't it? Thank you! Chicbyaccident ( talk) 19:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn't that have benefited from a relist. Even if "Luccombe" was the most common name then WP:NATURAL could apply, but I think the OS is a more appropriate source than Google Maps. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 07:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Disambiguator's Barnstar | |
The Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who are prolific disambiguators. For piloting to a solution for the James Addison Baker articles. Oldsanfelipe ( talk) 19:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC) |
Today you changed the title of the Casma/Sechin culture article to Sechin Complex.
Apparently you requested the move on August 17, but my watchlist does not indicate any changes in the Casma/Sechin article on that day or any proposal to move the article. Had I known of the proposed move, I would certainly have commented, and probably opposed the move.
My problem is that the title Sechin Complex is not inclusive enough to describe the topic. The several archaeological remains of the culture are found not only in the Sechin River valley, but also in the Casma River Valley. The title Sechin Complex might be interpreted to exclude the ruins in the Casma Valley. The title Casma/Sechin culture makes clear that all these ruins were similar in culture, existed contemporaneously, and were possibly politically united for part of their 2,000 year history.
Yes, the name Sechin Complex is often used to describe this grouping of ancient settlements. However, as several of the ruins already bear the Sechin name ( Sechin Alto, Sechin Bajo, and Cerro Sechin), I also thought it would be better if the article bore a more encompassing and less confusing name than Sechin Complex.
There is also precedent. The culture found about 100 miles distant is described in the article titled Norte Chico civilization. One reason that title was chosen was that it is more inclusive than other possible titles such as Caral and Caral-Supe civilizations.
I'm not going to wrestle you down to the mat on this issue, but I am irritated that the watchlist system failed to notify me of the proposed change. Smallchief ( talk) 02:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello, because you were the closer of the move request on Talk:Zakarid Armenia, I would like for you to reconsider the result in order to avoid the lengthy WP:MR process. I had established that Zakarid Armenia is by far the more WP:COMMONNAME. Considering that "the debate is not a vote" and "valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements", this should've been convincing enough to move the article. And even if you do not believe it is sufficient, please consider the article had been named Zakarid Armenia for years until it was recently moved with no discussion taking place (and articles can't be moved back to a previous name by regular users). So if you still consider there to be no consensus, then reverting the article back to Zakarid Armenia should've still been the correct result. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 16:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Armenia within the Kingdom of Georgia. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 17:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, when you move a template, please check whether there is a "name" parameter within the template. If so, this needs to be updated to match the new page name.
This applies to all stub templates and navigation templates, and probably others too.
I mention it because you did not update the parameter after doing the requested move of Template:RC-society-stub to Template:Catholic-Church-society-stub.
I hope this is helpful. Thanks for all you do here! – Fayenatic London 09:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Corn, N64 Emulator. Since you had some involvement with the Corn, N64 Emulator redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu. You protected the page Template:Lookfrom. It was subsequently made a redirect after the template was moved, and thus the original basis for protection, that it is a high-risk template, no longer applies. Could you unprotect the page? It would also facilitate a pending edit request. Thanks. -- Bsherr ( talk) 21:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey, I just noticed this. I don't recall, but was the version of the page you deleted a separate (content fork) article created by me during 2017 Asian Month? The article appears on my list of articles created, but the live version of the page has no edits by me; I suspect what happened is someone created an earlier article at the wrong title without leaving a redirect at the right one, and I accidentally concluded that no article existed and created my own (this is what happened at Talk:Kanikōsen, and I actually recall venting to User:Curly Turkey about inconsistent naming order of modern-but-dead Japanese authors at around that time). If you don't mind, could you restore my version and put it in my user space as User:Hijiri88/Fusao Hayashi so I can overwrite my version (which unlike the present version was almost certainly fully cited) and keep whatever of the existing article is worth keeping? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 23:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Dekimasu. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Dekimasu: The hospital article Frank R. Howard Memorial Hospital had the sockpuppet User:Frayae illegally rejected the move of Frank R. Howard Memorial Hospital to Adventist Health Howard Memorial. So the article should be moved to Adventist Health Howard Memorial. I greatly support this move since it makes sense to move Frank R. Howard Memorial Hospital to the new name Adventist Health Howard Memorial. Catfurball ( talk) 17:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi!
I'm wondering if you would consider reopening/relisting the move discussion at Genesis flood narrative you closed as "no consensus"? [87] I would argue that there needs to be more time and perhaps more attention brought to the discussion as there are outstanding questions that are unanswered by some of the participants and the quality of the arguments is rather uneven up until now.
I would be curious if you had any ideas of how to more widely advertise this discussion to get more input if you do find occasion to reverse your close.
Thanks.
jps ( talk) 10:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Similarly, it seems indecently brief for you to have closed this move discussion within 15 hours of the first response, and with the !votes at 2-2. Please explain how you consider the requirements of WP:NOTMOVED section 2 in such a short (in both the temporal and extension senses) discussion. Kevin McE ( talk) 00:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu
We're working to measure the value of Wikipedia in economic terms. We want to ask you some questions about how you value being able to edit Wikipedia.
Our survey should take about 10-15 minutes of your time. We hope that you will enjoy it and find the questions interesting. All answers will be kept strictly confidential and will be anonymized before the aggregate results are published. Regretfully, we can only accept responses from people who live in the US due to restrictions in our grant-based funding.
As a reward for your participation, we will randomly pick 1 out of every 5 participants and give them $25 worth of goods of their choice from the Wikipedia store (e.g. Wikipedia themed t-shirts). Note that we can only reward you if you are based in the US.
Click here to access the survey: https://mit.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eXJcEhLKioNHuJv
Thanks
Avi
Researcher, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy -- Avi gan ( talk) 00:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
1.129.104.218 has asked for a Move review of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Hhkohh ( talk) 02:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu, can we have your more detailed reasoning (policy considerations, etc.) behind the closure on Talk:2018 Leicester helicopter crash#Requested move 6 December 2018 please. Thanks. -- DeFacto ( talk). 21:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." I assumed that statements of support or oppose based on personal opinion rather than supported by Wiki policy would be disregarded. And WP:CONLEVEL (part of the consensus policy) is explicit that "
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." It also says "
Wikipedia has many naming conventions relating to specific subject domains... This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names.... So I would have thought from that, that WP:COMMONNAME policy should trump a Wikiproject naming convention, rather than vice-versa. -- DeFacto ( talk). 14:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Article titles should not contain the year of the incident unless needed for disambiguation." -- DeFacto ( talk). 17:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I have initiated a discussion specifically about the redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 18#Christian. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019! |
Hello Dekimasu, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. |
Hello, Dekimasu. Happy New Year to you! 2019 is coming soon. Can you creat the article "2019 in Japan" in English Wikipedia? Thanks a lot!
123.150.182.177
13:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Just in case I've updated the main article for AMD's proprietary graphics device driver "Radeon Software Crimson Edition" (Formerly Catalyst) after the requested move. Maybe the weird overlong section title should be also fixed, e.g., drop the Crimson Edition detail, but keep proprietary + formerly Catalyst as is. – 84.46.53.87 ( talk) 02:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
You recently closed a RM at Talk:Hewlett-Packard. I'm wondering if I should merge HP Inc. into Hewlett-Packard then get an admin to do the move or if I should start a merge request. I thought the request I opened was suppose to be a merge and move request at the same time. I started the RM rather then a merge request after a discussion at Talk:HP Inc.. So, what should I do next? – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 21:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Dear Dekimasu, thank you for listing the "Universität Klagenfurt" discussion! Cambridge51 ( talk) 10:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC) |
Good day! Did you mention me at Wikipedia:Requested moves? Please {{ ping}} me when you reply. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 14:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey. Regarding Talk:Moscow Metro#Requested move 31 December 2018, I just wanted to let you know that you moved the Moscow Metro page to Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya line by accident. It was supposed to be the Arbatsko–Pokrovskaya line page that was moved. I've moved the pages to the correct title. Just a friendly reminder to please be careful next time. Thank you. epicgenius ( talk) 02:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
You recently closed the move discussion of Talk:Zayn Malik. As a matter of fact move discussions are generally closed after at least 7 days. And I do not know how to send a Move Review, so I discarded the close. 68.195.141.2 ( talk) 00:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Zayn Malik. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Neel.arunabh ( talk) 04:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
You are certainly right that renaming the page "Sarah Vaughn" would conflict with the existing page. Can we rename the page "Sarah Vaughn (album)" to distinguish it from the main entry on the person "Sarah Vaughn"? Dr.skim ( talk) 14:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello Dekimasu,
EPIC Church International is an official name change credibility verified by multiple sources locally and on the internet. Thank you. Yours truly, follow of Jesus Christ alwaysCite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page)..
John1427 (
talk)
18:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
From the love of Jesus, I admit it
John1427 (
talk)
18:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks TheSandDoctor Talk 17:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Please move my request [88] onto the main Wikipedia page please, thank you. 194.207.146.167 ( talk) 13:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Back in May 2018 I requested a simple name change, which you closed as refused. I recently found it had been renamed exactly as requested by a registered editor with no drama.-- 86.29.222.228 ( talk) 15:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Secondary sources were not supplied as being largely irrelevant - they do not determine the team name in any way, but can be keyed-in sloppily, or be copied from WP without acknowledgement due to the internet being unregulated, as you will know, so better to 'get it right'. I had actually looked at third-party sources, generally (and so found the comment "Do your homework first" to be condescending, as a registered username would not have had to supply substantiation). Accordingly I will not being re-submitting. Some website presences do show the name 'wrongly', but the majority are in accordance with the historic team name. A basic google search shows WP to be out of line in the initial results - note there are other (sometimes) unconnected businesses using Tech3 or Tech 3.-- 86.29.222.228 ( talk) 16:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Today you blocked this user, but I feel like that may be a very heavy-handed response. While they are self-admittedly associated with that company and did make some questionable edits in the past, those seem to have been over 5 years ago. Their main recent activity was contacting Wikipedia via the Help Desk and Teahouse (an acceptable way to engage with Wikipedia rather than directly editing), and at the time, they were given a standard COI message on their talk page. I feel like we can be a bit more diplomatic and offer them an opportunity to WP:DISCLOSE and continue to use methods like community boards and the article talk pages to contact us. -- Netoholic @ 16:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for catching and fixing this. But it's kind of a drag because it's nice to have references from a given section all co-located at the end of that section, instead of having one global References. Any way to fix that? -- В²C ☎ 01:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, regarding the recent close, there were three supports (including one as the nominator) and one oppose. This sounds like sufficient consensus to me. Would you be willing to reconsider the close? -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of 2019 Indigenous Peoples March Incident. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Jax 0677 ( talk) 18:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Why did you close the requested move at Talk:TVA this soon? There were only four comments, and one of them used a factually incorrect statement in his/her position, and we were still waiting on them to reply. Would you mind relisting it so we can possibly get a clearer consensus on whether or not to move the page? Bneu2013 ( talk) 06:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Regarding your
closure; The are 3 opposes the last two being the copy of Icewhiz's comment. I checked all the sources Icewhiz grounded his argument on.
NY times does not say it was an Iranian plot rather it says "The European Union penalized Iran on Tuesday over allegations that the country’s intelligence service orchestrated a series of assassination plots in Europe,"
and there's no sentence showing NYTimes is supporting the title.
The Telegraph article begins with "The Dutch government has accused Iran of..."
and again claims and allegations are reported and there's no text saying the assassination plot was made by Iran. Same is true for for the
the Reuters saying "Iran has denied any involvement in the alleged plots..."
and "as the Netherlands accused Iran of two killings on its soil ..."
. I think sources were misinterpreted to reach the conclusion that the current title fits and it's not an allegation, while all the sources mentioned by users are cautious and use terms like "alleged", "claimed", "accused" and etc. So, the only argument opposing the proposal was based on a misunderstanding/misinterpretation of the sources. That said, do you really think those opposes have the same weight as the supports? --
Mhhossein
talk
14:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I've actioned Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AmYisroelChai with CheckUser. NativeForeigner Talk 06:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
StraussInTheHouse relisted this discussion about ten minutes before you closed it as no concensus, specifically to avoid that outcome. Would you mind reopening? PC78 ( talk) 22:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits on
Talk:List of Sword Art Online episodes. I didn't know that a move discussion is kept for 7 days. I still have a lot to learn. Pardon me can I make a suggestion? You added an userbox stating that you have made more than 50000 edits. But your contributions number is 41827 at the moment. Please modify it. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Masum Reza
talk
05:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Why are you objecting to Anita Hassandani move. That is her name that she uses now. If you type up her name anywhere it will say she uses Anita not Natasha anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.178.72 ( talk) 11:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu, My page mover rights has been expired. Could you please reassign page mover rights with no expiry. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 02:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Is it possible to re-open this discussion. It's only been a week and it is a low traffic page. --Let There Be Sunshine 17:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cybele Palace (Madrid). Since you had some involvement with the Cybele Palace (Madrid) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. B dash ( talk) 16:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu,
I'm wondering if you would consider reopening/relisting the move discussion at IDFC First Bank you closed as "not moved"? The official spelling "IDFC FIRST Bank" is very important since this is how it would appear in Google's Knowledge panel. I am providing you with few reference links so that you can consider reopening/relisting the move request.
IDFC FIRST Bank Official Website See how IDFC FIRST Bank is written in logo used on this news publishing site Official Twitter Account of IDFC FIRST Bank Official YouTube Channel of IDFC FIRST Bank Official Instagram Account of IDFC FIRST Bank Official LinkedIn Account of IDFC FIRST Bank See how IDFC FIRST Bank is written in logo used on this news publishing site
Hope this helps!
Thanks & Regards, namrata.kadam 09:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu,
As you suggested, I had redirected the IDFC First Bank to IDFC FIRST Bank and it was reviewed by Narutolovehinata5, but today I found that it is again redirected to old one by JJMC89 with a comment "moved page IDFC FIRST Bank to IDFC First Bank over redirect: revert undiscussed move" though we have discussed this move. Could you please let me know what can be done in this scenario? Should i undo the changes made by JJMC89?
Best Regards, namrata.kadam
Hello Dekimasu, just a quick courtesy note fyi about this page's recent copypaste move (I noticed you objected to this move at Talk:Vela Trading Technologies in 2018). From a technical point of view, it would be far easier to accept the change now instead of reverting the whole mess once again. But of course you could revert the move, if you strongly disagree with the recent changes - I have only cleaned up some tagging and linking afterwards, and have no horse in this race either way :). GermanJoe ( talk) 23:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello there Dekimasu, I hope your new year has been well. I'm writing to you about my page mover permission. As according to WP:INDEFRIGHTS: "In general, rights of editors blocked indefinitely should be left as is. Rights specifically related to the reason for blocking may be removed at the discretion of the blocking or unblocking administrators.". However, you removed my page-mover right in December. I'm guessing (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) the reason you removed it was the 7th reason: "The editor has been inactive for 12 months.", as I was blocked indefinitely. However, now I have completed the Standard Offer, that is no longer the case. I am now wondering would it be possible for me to regain my permission. Apologises if I seem demanding, this is not my intention. Thank you. The Duke 20:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Request translation: ja:烏丸家 ( Karasumaru family), ja:山本顧彌太 ( Koyata Yamamoto), ja:亀井重清 ( Shigekiyo Kamei), ja:片岡常春 ( Tsuneharu Kataoka), ja:伊勢義盛 ( Yoshimori Ise), ja:駿河次郎 ( Jirō Suruga), ja:鷲尾義久 ( Washio Yoshihisa), ja:富樫泰家 ( Yasuie Togashi), ja:大社駅 ( Taisha Station), ja:村田勝志 ( Katsushi Murata), ja:藤井恒久 ( Tsunehisa Fujii), ja:宮根誠司 ( Seiji Miyane), ja:諸國沙代子 ( Sayoko Shokoku), ja:世界一受けたい授業 ( THE MOST USEFUL SCHOOL IN THE WORLD), ja:にっぽん丸 ( Nippon Maru (1990)), ja:馬場元子 ( Motoko Baba), ja:生ハムと焼うどん ( Nama Ham & Yaki Udon), ja:さわかぜ (護衛艦) ( JDS Sawakaze), ja:いず (巡視船・2代) ( Izu (PL 31)), ja:かめりあ丸 ( Camellia Maru), ja:京都府警察 ( Kyoto Prefectural Police), ja:柳川次郎 ( Jirō Yanagawa), ja:花形敬 ( Kei Hanagata), ja:小林楠扶 ( Kusuo Kobayashi), ja:毎朝新聞 ( Maiasa Shinbun), ja:田中六助 ( Rokusuke Tanaka), ja:角田 久美子 ( Kumiko Tsunoda), ja:安村直樹 ( Naoki Yasumura), ja:三枝夕夏 ( Yūka Saegusa), ja:少年ケニヤ ( Shōnen Kenya), ja:チャンピオン太 ( Champion Futoshi), ja:ジャイアント台風 ( Giant Typhoon), ja:引田有美 ( Yumi Hikita), ja:松岡巌鉄 ( Gantetsu Matsuoka), ja:鈴木理子 (ホリプロ) ( Riko Suzuki), ja:谷内里早 ( Risa Taniuchi), ja:尾崎仁彦 ( Kimihiko Ozaki), ja:アーサ米夏 ( Aasa Maika), ja:ミスター高橋 ( Mister Takahashi), ja:吉村道明 ( Michiaki Yoshimura), ja:沖識名 ( Shikina Oki), ja:芳の里淳三 ( Junzō Yoshinosato), ja:SAKI ( SAKI), ja:MIZUKI ( MIZUKI), ja:万喜なつみ ( Natsumi Maki), ja:篠原光 ( Hikaru Shinohara), ja:沖野ヨーコ (漫画家) ( Yōko Okino), ja:徳住有香 ( Yuka Tokuzumi), ja:とみながまり ( Mari Tominaga), ja:堀内博之 ( Hiroyuki Horiuchi), ja:永野椎菜 ( Shiina Nagano), ja:諏訪道彦 ( Michihiko Suwa), ja:阿部ゆたか (Yutaka Abe), ja:渡部陽一 ( Yōichi Watanabe), ja:吉岡昌仁 ( Masahito Yoshioka), ja:グレッグ・アーウィン ( Greg Irwin). Thank you very much, if you can help me, because I'm too busy. -- 95.244.236.110 09:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Administrators
must secure their accounts
The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
|
This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, - Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Since you closed this Move Request of Chowkidar Chor Hai, the two discussion subsections below it; of Merger and Non-neutrality, also appear to look like they are closed. Can you please fix it? I tried; but wasn't able to. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 11:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks for your closure on this proposed move. TomHennell ( talk) 15:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello Dekimasu, I was wondering if you could explain to me the closing of this move request. There was barely any rationale given for keeping the name as it is. One user mentioned that I hadn't proven the real name was the real name even though I posted the official release of the policy. and One other user posted that this was an article specifically about the Trump administration's separation of families, which is untrue because the title mentions a policy name, and there are several other Presidential administrations mentioned in teh article itself. However, on the support side you had my explanations, and two other supporters who agreed and gave reasons for their belief that titling this by a made up policy name is wrong. I know that if this was a straight vote, the name change would lose, but as I understand it, it is not supposed to be a vote. I think the points made in favor of moving it far outweigh the minor points made in favor of keeping this fictitious policy name. Thank you. Doniboy71 ( talk) 20:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Since you were the blocking admin, this is a heads up that I've created an ANI discussion about OfficeBoy and his sourcing problems, if you want to weigh in. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() | |
Ten years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
この
ミラ
PはDekimasuたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます!
フレフレ、みんなの未来!/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラ
P
02:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Dekimasu,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-
Nahal
(T)
23:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Per this close, it's interesting that moving one redirect over another to the same article is perfectly OK to do manually, but is considered malformed by the bot. The move would have accomplished exactly what was intended; the redirects are not "identical" as you said, because one of them appears in a category and the other one doesn't. Don't you think it makes sense to use RM for this, to rename the item in the category? It seemed to me like the most sensible way to get some eyes on the question. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
You have relisted the move request at Talk:Mirroring (psychology). Two support and two oppose. One oppose is based on a refuted claim ("No primary topic"), the other is invalid per WP:NOTNEEDED. How does your close mesh with WP:NHC? Paradoctor ( talk) 12:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I generally agree with what you said when you pinged me at Talk:20th Century Studios/Archives/2020#Requested move 17 January 2020, I just got to the discussion too late to comment in it before it was closed. We should usually wait for usage in sources to change. That said, such moves are usually actually harmless as long as redirects work and the lead is clear, unless there's something potentially very reader-confusing about the case (e.g. the Kraft others instances in which the old company name remains the dominant brand/service name and all that's happened is a background change of the name of the legal entity, or a merger into a different one). I doubt that 20th Century Studios versus 20th Century Fox has much in the way os major user-confusion potential. If Apple Inc. changes its name tomorrow to Global iDevices Inc., then we'd have a different kind of case, because they'd continue to be referred to as Apple by almost everyone for several years, except in financial news, etc. It's been my experience that it's often actually easier to move barely-notable company names shortly after such a corporate name change, because COMMONNAME barely applies due to the lack of much coverage at all. I.e., there's not much RECOGNIZABILITY to even consider. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
PS: I also didn't notice your "living text" clarification at Talk:Das Kapital, Volume I#Requested move 6 December 2019 until after closure. Thanks for the pointer to the legal sense of a similar phrase, which I had not encountered (or remembered encountering), despite being a non-lawyer steeped professionally in several areas of US law as a policy analyst. It's a good usage to know, even if it's not terribly common. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Community view before Friday.
Only 100 or so words. It should be fun and serious at the same time.
All the best,
Smallbones( smalltalk) 00:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Of course you're right - a vaccine is not a treatment! Boud ( talk) 12:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the requested move of A Line (Blue) (Los Angeles Metro) and other Metro pages. Since you had some involvement with pages related to A Line (Blue) (Los Angeles Metro) and others, you might want to participate in the discussion if you wish to do so. Lexlex ( talk) 11:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Greetings. Not sure if this is the correct channel or whether if this is an appropriate request, but I've navigated to your page through Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and the "Want to skip the drama? Check the Recently Active Admins list for admins who may be able to help directly" option. As I've noticed your activity on 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak and thereby be fit to understand the context of the discussion, I've like to request your input in an informal DRR/3 for a stonewalled discussion thread there, if possible. The link to that is here: 1 Best. Sleath56 ( talk) 06:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your cleanup on Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). The same editor you cleaned up after also put 4 large edits in 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak that might contain similar material. Can you skim them for copyright violations? oldest, #2, #3, and the most recent. These were all made between 05:25, 3 February 2020 and 10:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC). davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 15:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Dear Dekimasu,
I appreciate your input. However, what you have been doing regarding the coronavirus webpages is a clear obstruction of free flow of information. I don't know your particular field of study. However, I can reassure you that there are no available review articles on the novel coronavirus at the moment. The publication added is a good source of information and blocking other people's access to this source does not make sense in any way.
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by StatWikiped ( talk • contribs) 07:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Bio-star | |
Thank you so much for your tireless and high quality contributions to 2019 novel coronavirus Mvolz ( talk) 19:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC) |
@ Amakuru, Doc James, and BD2412: Hi. Kindly excuse the title for this discussion. As you are aware, most of the articles directly related to the 2019 coronavirus are having move/merge/split discussions every day. Is there any way to make all these articles consistent with 2019 novel coronavirus, and split the current 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak to reflect one article regarding outbreak in Wuhan, and China; and other article about the activity of coronavirus in rest of the world? —usernamekiran (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Apropos the "corona thingy", could you'all decide on a standardize name for this virus? It has at least three that I know of. Use the WHO name? Cheers! Shir-El too 09:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Will leave the experts to it. God Bless! Shir-El too 07:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The adjustments you made to the entry were perfect and exactly what was needed, and you summarized the two entries to say the same thing. And thank you for the reference cleanup and additional information added there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan ( talk • contribs) 07:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Dekimasu, on that latest removal regarding the "pangolin identified as early as 2003 in a list of illegally traded animals" was added because, yes, as you say it is not been concluded yet and yet at the same time that research is being conspiratorially called a "red herring." It should be shown this "pandolin" connection is not a conspiracy but a natural evolution of focus and thought over the last 17 years, and not even as recent as October 24, 2019. The research in Vietnam, among many that could be cited from that time, began because the world started looking at a list of illegally traded animals as sources of zoonotic viruses. This provides a context for serious consideration and to encourage more to study this scientifically. Finding the reservoirs is the most important aspect of correct antivirus creation.
I will of course, yield to your considerations in the overall scope of the article. Thanks again for your tireless efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan ( talk • contribs) 08:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
The 99% issue. The math on the sequence is 98.6% and this second paper is a refinement of that 99%. Look at this quote that is the basis of Nature's page:
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-02/07/c_138763355.htm
They have refined it, and this link is a refinement of that immediate "shoot from the hip" statement back on Feb 7th. This second study you mention is the more relevant information. Perhaps the first sentence can be adjusted to indicate this "was an initial reaction." Depending on how many blocks in the genetic code have been counted, 100, there is only 1 differing! Thank you again for all your efforts. 100%, 98.2%, 96.7% and 90.4% amino acid identity with 2019-nCoV in the E, M, N and S genes, respectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan ( talk • contribs) 07:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Once again dear sir. You nailed it and your circumspection curbs my passion. And yes, not intending for Wikipedia to break it, but Wikipedia is a great source of information because of people like you. Thank you.
Dekimasu, we have a new study and possible addition to the Reservoir/Pangolin. "Continued examination of the receptor-binding domain of SARS-CoV-2, suggests suggest that the development of new variations in functional sites in the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike seen in SARS-CoV-2 and viruses from pangolin SARSr-CoVs are likely caused by mutations and natural selection besides recombination." Source: https://academic.oup.com/nsr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nsr/nwaa036/5775463
This is an acknowledgement of how a 60 amino acid sequence in the Sub Unit 1 98-99% match to Pangolin can end up being in the receptor binding domain of SARS-COV-2. "...likely caused by mutations and natural selection besides recombination." We will probably never find the intermediate source because of this explanation also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan ( talk • contribs) 04:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Dekimasu, thank you for referencing the discussion prompted by this academic.oup.com study. The L and the S "multiple strains" is insignificant, shown by Trevor Bedford by mutation history. However, the portion of the link cited still includes any possible manner of natural selection, i.e. selective pressure, recombination, mutations, et. al. therefore believed it was relevant. Will continue scouring scientific articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan ( talk • contribs) 23:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Dekimasu, patience has paid off. The 98-99% pangolin amino acid sequences of the Sub Unit 1 of the Receptor Binding Domain of SARS-CoV-2 is now being reported as a clear indication this of natural selection or natural origin. (based on the discussions above you recommended we wait for to be published). It is also now being reported in LiveScience.com
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9 https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-not-human-made-in-lab.html
This reality is the single most important questions about the virus, as it determines whether it will recirculate or not, and now a preponderance of peer review and professional journalism has established that. Therefore a final paragraph with citations to the article(s) above would be fitting:
The appearance of the 98-99% pangolin sequence in the Sub Unit 1 of the Receptor Binding Domain, including all six key RBD residues, "clearly shows that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein optimized for binding to human-like ACE2 is the result of natural selection."
I am very excited that the Nature.com link above cites all of these materials we had been finding and put it all together just like you recommended.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan ( talk • contribs) 19:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Furthermore, "The KD values for the bat and the pangolin SARS-like CoV RBDs indicated that it would be difficult for bat SARS-like CoV to infect humans; however, the pangolin CoV is potentially infectious to humans with respect to its RBD. " Without the pangolin reservoir, this novel coronavirus would never have become so potentially infectious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan ( talk • contribs) 19:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Dekimasu, I hope you and your family are doing well. Yes, I agree with you on the overall assessment of the preprint. The preponderance of scientific viewpoints is now that a pangolin sequence in Sub Unit 1 of the Receptor Binding Domain explains giving SARS-CoV-2 its infectious ability. It has been shown Pangolin involvement cannot be denied as a part of the Reservoir sections.
I am going to be more precise. Here is the 3rd paragraph under Reservoir section:
A metagenomic study published in 2019 previously revealed that SARS-CoV, the strain of the virus that causes SARS, was the most widely distributed coronavirus among a sample of Sunda pangolins.[46] On 7 February 2020, it was announced that researchers from Guangzhou had discovered a pangolin sample with a viral nucleic acid sequence "99% identical" to SARS-CoV-2.[47] When released, the results clarified that "the receptor-binding domain of the S protein of the newly discovered Pangolin-CoV is virtually identical to that of 2019-nCoV, with one amino acid difference."[48] Pangolins are protected under Chinese law, but their poaching and trading for use in traditional Chinese medicine remains common.[49][50]
Adding:
A metagenomic study published in 2019 previously revealed that SARS-CoV, the strain of the virus that causes SARS, was the most widely distributed coronavirus among a sample of Sunda pangolins.[46] On 7 February 2020, it was announced that researchers from Guangzhou had discovered a pangolin sample with a viral nucleic acid sequence "99% identical" to SARS-CoV-2.[47] When released, the results clarified that "the receptor-binding domain of the S protein of the newly discovered Pangolin-CoV is virtually identical to that of 2019-nCoV, with one amino acid difference."[48] Bats and pangolins are suspected as the reservoir and the intermediate host. The receptor binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 S protein plays the key role in the tight binding to human receptor ACE2 for viral entry." https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.15.991844v2
Furthermore, "The KD values for the bat and the pangolin SARS-like CoV RBDs indicated that it would be difficult for bat SARS-like CoV to infect humans; however, the pangolin CoV is potentially infectious to humans with respect to its RBD." Hence, the 98-99% pangolin amino acid sequence in Sub Unit 1 of the Receptor Binding Domain of the virus, explains how the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV2-2, gained its ability to infect a human host efficiently.
Pangolins are protected under Chinese law, but their poaching and trading for use in traditional Chinese medicine remains common.[49][50]
"The genome sequence of the virus isolate (GX/P2V) has very high similarity (99.83-99.92%) to the five sequences obtained through the metagenomic sequencing of the raw samples, and all have similar genomic organizations to SARS-CoV-2". https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2169-0_reference.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan ( talk • contribs) 04:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Again, the point of these entries is not to say the pangolin is the immediate reservoir, but that the pangolin sequence in the RBD is significant. And SARS-CoV-2 like viruses in Pangolins prove pangolins can be a reservoir of a human infectious strain. We believe this is noteworthy and applicable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan ( talk • contribs) 02:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for opening my eyes to several topics at the end of the SARS-CoV-2 move request. It had not occurred to me that there is no WP:MOS for something like viruses and that they likely should be separate from WP:NCMED. Also, thanks for the pointer to MOS:ALTNAME. Finally, I went back to the move talk discussion tonight after seeing a new Lancet letter suggesting the CSG's proposed name be changed. It may be weeks (or more) till the name is truly resolved in the scientific community. Best, Inkwzitv ( talk) 06:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I think you should have closed Talk:Planters#Requested move 17 February 2020 as "no consensus to move" instead of "not moved". Yes I realize that the arguments against the move were probably stronger than those in favour in the !votes, but I had provided provided a significant rationalization in my nomination statement with reference to the guidelines and conventions (previous discussions). While there were only 2 supporting (with 1 weak) v 4 opposers, only 2 of the opposers contained any substantial rationalization, the 1st originally being a personal attack (that was removed by another editor) and the 2nd only with a link to PLURALPT which usually (but not always) supports the singular and plural forms going to the same place. While the 2 supporters didn't contain as much rationalization they did appear to allude to the 2nd criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. While I realize that this change doesn't actually physically affect the outcome I think it would more appropriately reflect the discussion since "no consensus" to move is usually in between "not moved" and "no consensus", thanks. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 18:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Just wanted to know what your variety of English is so that I can replace the ugly {{ EngvarB}} template on Coronavirus disease 2019 with the correct regional one, like {{ Use British English}} or {{ Use Australian English}}. · • SUM1 • · ( talk) 09:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know the procedures for summarizing a Wiki discussion and actually performing a Move of "heat-not-burn products" to "heated tobacco products" now that it has been under discussion for a week and the consensus of support looks consistent. Could you perchance do so or let me know who can? thank you very much. DrNicotiana ( talk) 18:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
The bot is meant to free up whatever menial work the manual work entails, but if you think is fine still, let's put it in much later as you have mentioned.
The RM section can be pinned just like what's done with Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_outbreak#Semi-protected_anti-vandalism_request_on_3_March_2020:
<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message}}<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 08:46, 1 March 2030 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1898585168}}<!-- END PIN -->
robertsky ( talk) 11:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey,
I'm a journalist writing about the COVID-19 wikipedia page. Any interest in talking real quick? Thanks! Journo0000 ( talk) 16:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Hi Dekimasu, just a note of thanks for your ongoing work on the coronavirus articles, ensuring they're kept factual, on-topic, and free from spam and POV pushing. It's at times like this that we realise what an amazing body of editors we have working here, and how fantastic this project really is. Keep up the good work! — Amakuru ( talk) 19:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC) |
Hi Dekimasu,
I saw you edited my contribution to the Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2 Infection section. Unfortunately, the resulting paragraph features the early February WHO spread model which discounts asymptomatic transmission, but it has been superceded by the results March 16 article from Science, showing the majority of infections are from pre-symptomatic shedders. That is extremely important information. I am ready to update but figured you would have thoughts and want to avoid revision conflicts. Please let me know how you'd like to proceed as soon as possible.
Thanks, Pablo Mayrgundter ( talk) 19:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi there! I noticed that you reverted my edit to SARS-CoV-2. However, I'm a bit confused as to exactly what was wrong. COVID-19 is the official name for Coronavirus disease 2019, and nCov-19 was it's provisional name (Novel Coronavirus 2019, as it was unclear as to if it was a disease or syndrome). Neither of which, are viruses, and simultaneously, you can't have a symptom of a virus be a virus, as you seem to indicate. In reality, the only change I made was change the symptom from it's provisional to its official name. ItsPugle ( talk) 01:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu,
Unlike the two previous deletions of the entry I wrote regarding LTB4, you've made an interesting point, that deserves some consideration. I think your reason for deleting my entry is a bit of a gray area because the conclusion that LTB4 may be worth considering for future research is a soft conclusion that in the current context I think justifies some slack with respect to the Wikipedia no original research policy (as stated on the page that you helpfully directed me to). I get the purpose of the WP:NOR policy, but in this instance I think it applies weakly and for the sake of the greater good (because of what is currently at stake) should perhaps not be so rigidly adhered to.
Regards,
Elariphe ( talk) 02:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu, you reverted [89] my edit [90] stating it would not improve the article.
Actually, my edit realized quite many detail improvements, so I'm a bit puzzled about your reversion.
Regarding 4-digit years, MOS does not require 4-digit years for consecutive years, but it recommends them unless there are strong reasons not to use them. Why should we use abbreviated years? This is fine for space-constrained areas, but otherwise it looks very unprofessional (after all, we are an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and this is about a virus, not a sports season or such). Regarding broken links, can you point me to one, I must have overlooked it. It was certainly not my intention to break anything.
Regarding the expansion of the citations, a reference not even properly naming the authors is almost worthless. I therefore changed it so that all authors are displayed and their forenames can be spelled out as well. Authors, for which we have articles, can be linked as well (already started, but requires more work). Also, this change significantly improves the produced metadata.
Some citations were using abbreviated Vancouver style names, others did not, that's why I made sure that all citations use the same consistent format. If there would be consensus to use Vancouver style it would be possible to add |name-list-format=vanc
to display the names in that style while still providing the proper names in metadata.
|year=
is a deprecated parameter kept only to support a special case (not used in the article), which should be replaced by |date=
.
In a few cases, the author was given as "World Health Organization"; we don't normally specify an author if none is given in the source (and the publisher is the same anyway). What we usually do is add a hidden comment "staff writer".
{{ cite news}} and {{ cite newspaper}} are the same, but specifying "news" could be confused with {{ cite newsgroup}}, that's why spelling it out as "newspaper" is better. However, this is only cosmetics.
|website=
is typically used for website names (like google.com or nextstrain.org). If the site has a real name / logo or such, this typically goes into |work=
instead (or into |publisher=
if it is the publisher). Periodicals like New York Times or Wall Street Journal go into parameters like |newspaper=
(or |journal=
or |magazine=
if we were using {{
cite journal}} or {{
cite magazine}} rather than {{
cite newspaper}}), not into |website=
. There's certainly more tweaking necessary here, this was just the start.
--
Matthiaspaul (
talk)
12:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
|vauthors=
is not deprecated (yet - some users want to ditch it), but it appears to be used rarely outside the context of medical articles. At least, I haven't seen it being used in technical articles for quite a while.|last=
/|first=
and then use |name-list-format=vanc
to override the output format, so that the template would still contain all information for metadata and other styles.|last=
/|first=
and |name-list-format=vanc
instead of |vauthors=
.|last=
/|first=
, |name-list-format=vanc
and list style instead of |vauthors=
appears to be a workable solution. If you are not familiar with this variant, I could demonstrate this for a test citation so you can see yourself. What do you think? (PS. Like you, I don't use tools or scripts for security reasons.)An editor has asked for a Move review of Planters. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 17:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for all you do...peace be with you... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100b:b124:b002:81d4:b3cc:32b2:7829 ( talk • contribs)
My edit was intended to render the sentence in concise English. The word "so" spells out what is already clear and obvious from the prose. If your native language is not English, I see where you are coming from. It's important to realize what the previous sentence imparted to the reader. If the reader is not generating their own "if...then" scenario based on the preceding sentence, how are they managing to understand the article's prose in general? My guess is that you are a native speaker of an Asian language, as the construction you employed is characteristic of the usage chosen by editors from Asia who are editing in English. I revert them all.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 04:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
"China virus" and "Wuhan virus".The discussion is about the topic
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Thank you. Sorry about this, but I don't think the discussion will be resolved until it goes to the noticeboard. Kind regards.
Hemiauchenia (
talk)
17:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
you've made article read worst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfdooger ( talk • contribs) 02:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Poll: 102,000,000 or 1.02 million Thanks! Feelthhis ( talk) 15:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu, [91] "undo de-capping, not mandated for piped links in this way" I'm surprised that's important enough to revert?! No edits are, in fact mandated, as it's voluntary. Is it an improvement? Well, not for readers no. For writers, arguably yes...my justification is User talk:Widefox/Archive 5#Caps in piped links . To me, it's a good indicator of a need for a copyedit of an article. In fact, I was suprised just how these SARS/COVID articles and dab were missing vital items in the lead, now fixed. Regards Widefox; talk 14:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu, I guess from your lack of editing that you're pretty burnt out by the whole coronavirus thing, especially around the whole "China virus" debacle. The NPOV noticeboard discussion suddenly started several days ago and has now reached concensus, that "China virus" and "Wuhan virus" shouldn't be used in the lead, after nearly two months it is finally over. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
About two years ago, you created the revert tag, do you recall the reasoning? I can't find a use at that time. It's basically unused and I think it's likely to cause confusion, especially as the devs plan to add a reverted tag ( phab:T254074). ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 21:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Coronavirus 2019. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 21#Coronavirus 2019 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Seventyfiveyears (
talk)
18:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Dekimasu,
I hope you're all good. I'm writing about a podcast documentary series I'm making about Wikipedia and the people behind it, and am looking for someone who's been active on the Covid-19 page. I came across your name and was wondering if you'd be happy to chat to me a bit about your work on the page and what it's like working on something that's a constantly changing, breaking news situation? Would be really interested to hear your thoughts.
Let me know what you think. Thanks! Wearecrowd ( talk) 16:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
The article Phil Salt (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Disambiguation page not required ( WP:2DABS). Primary topic has hatnote to only other use.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
20:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Good to see you back editing again! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 19:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi!
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Thank you. / Johan (WMF)
18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Hey, please don't delete a redirect just because a RM closed as move. If that was the result, the redirect should be moved, including all incoming links. As it stands you not only deleted a redirect, but left incorrect incomings link that are meant for the Arrow TV version of the character. Gonnym ( talk) 10:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello...I appreciate your quick attention to my addition of the "Triangle Daruma" section on the "Daruma Doll" page. Rather than make a separate page for this folk art form, I added it to the main page for "Daruma Doll." I would like to have the section return to the page, and respectfully ask that you reconsider.
I get over one million results when I search Google for "三角だるま" or "三角達磨" and over two million when I search for "三角ダルマ". There are over 3,000 English results for "sankaku daruma," but only 200 for "triangle daruma." If you prefer that I list and identify it as "sankaku daruma," I certainly would be glad to edit the section to reflect that header.
Also, I am very willing to add more information and attributions from deeper sources, as I had done in adding the Nikkei.com newspaper article. The source from 2004 did assert that Imai's son was the only maker of these figures at the time, but since 2018 they are crafted by a contingent of women in Agano City, where they are listed as a cultural property. This is from Japanese Wikipedia, where these dolls have their own page: 三角達磨
These figures are an historic folk art form in Japan, which I believe is evidenced by their extensive presence in online articles found through native Google searches. I feel they are significant cultural adaptations of the Daruma doll phenomenon and a relevant folk art form in their own right.
Thank you so much for your consideration... DDDnfl ( talk) 17:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Dear Dekimasu, I'm writing you regarding the discussion on the page Talk:Kharkiv Collegium. I've been very busy the last three days and haven't had time to reply. I have more arguments and I would like to have the opportunity to continue the discussion. I didn't know that in three days it would be closed. Can you please reopen the discussion or should I start a new one below? Ушкуйник ( talk) 07:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I am raising a concern there that your closure there was a pile-on supervote; the opposers operate entirely on the basis of rejecting definite articles as a good enough small detail, but I believe that is against our consistency policy due to longstanding precedent supporting the definite article as sufficient disambiguation. Much evidence that this is the case is cited this other RM I closed. Consideration of policy outweighs headcounts; doing otherwise is like failing to delete articles on blatantly non-notable things just because a majority voted to keep. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 16:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Dear Dekimasu, I realize that you have closed the RM discussion of the page Kriyananda. I would like to suggest that the arguments put forward by me endorsing the RM were entirely aligned with Wikipedia:CRITERIA, while OP's arguments lacked the reasoning on the same criteria. I would like to quote WP:TALKDONTREVERT : "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever."
The OP is strongly opposing my RM, yet they are not supporting their arguments with good reasoning (rather tends to overweigh on personal preference, often masquereding it as a preference of the article subject himself (Kriyananda). I request you to re-look at the discussion from this perspective. Bluesky whiteclouds ( talk) 17:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Not sure if formal discussions are required, but there are templates and categories which should probably be moved, per the recent rename of January 6 United States Capitol attack. Are you open to moving these or submitting rename requests? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
FYI, I have added the Dictionary of National Biography as a source for Honywell (and his date of birth). Please see discussion at Talk:Robert Honeywood#Requested move 17 August 2022. Thanks. wjemather please leave a message... 16:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
It looks like mosdab was seriously undated recently. Thanks for pointing at it. Still, placing surname in "See aslo" is wrong. The policy says, in part, A list of name-holders can be included in a People section of the page, or alternatively in sections such as People with the surname Xxxx or People with the given name Xxxx below the main disambiguation list.
Loew Galitz (
talk)
16:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of President of Japan. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Privybst ( talk) 05:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
The reason of those here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here is because of the redirect links so I have to fix them. That's the reason, so don't block me indefinite while I'm fixing it. Obrigado (Thank you). Wildlover22 User talk:Wildlover22:WL22 27, September 2022 (UTC) Wildlover22 ( talk) 04:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
[[redirect]]
with [[target|redirect]]
. This is an editing guideline on the English Wikipedia, which means all editors are expected to follow it in normal circumstances. I do appreciate your communication, but you still must stop editing links that are working redirects.
Dekimasu
よ!
04:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Stop and how many times do I have to you? "DON'T BLOCK ME INDEFINITELY WHILE I'M FIXING IT!" Wildlover22 ( talk) 15:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello! On behalf of WiTricity and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I've shared a draft entry for Japanese Wikipedia, which is a translated version of the English Wikipedia article. I'm searching for an editor who is willing to review this draft and update the entry appropriately. Might you be willing to take a look? Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason ( talk) 18:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your work in dealing with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fuhitobe.
The editor in question for that has been active for nearly a year, consistently producing rubbish from multiple languages. From what I've observed, their MO appears to be 1) find an article on the JA, DE, ZH, and RU Wikipedias (and possibly others), run that through machine translation, and engage in some light copy-editing. I am a professional JA-EN translator, and I'm fluent enough in German to be able to assess their efforts in that language pair as well -- and it all shows a profound ignorance of the other languages, the translation / localization process in general, the subject matter of the articles themselves, and Wikipedia standards (particularly Wikipedia:Notability, with a side order of problems in understanding what adequate sourcing is).
I and other editors have tried advising them to change their approach, as documented in part at User_talk:Immanuelle/Archive_2#Dongyue_Dadi and User_talk:Immanuelle/Archive_3#Please_take_previous_comments_into_account, among other threads. Our entreaties have clearly fallen on deaf ears, as those threads concluded in August and September of last year, and the editor continues to create terribly incorrect content.
I spend most of my time helping to admin over at Wiktionary, where this user would have been blocked months ago for their persistence in adding misinformation. I am less familiar with procedure here at Wikipedia. What forum would be the appropriate place for nominating this user for intervention / censure? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
[94] Elinruby ( talk) 06:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Oops meant to show you this one: [95] Elinruby ( talk) 06:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice on page move perm. I saw that you changed the title of an article mentioned at perms. I made some comments there about how I came to use the lowercase letter in "life" Still life: An Allegory of the Vanities of Human Life. Thank you. Bruxton ( talk) 16:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello Dekimasu, Thank you for removing the spam site that replaced Jolliffe's expired website for his project One Free Minute which now directs to a casino. Jolliffe was an awesome Wikipedian, and I like to keep an eye on his biographic article. Re: his expired "Official Website" I found an archived version on the Wayback Machine and added it to the External links. But I'm not sure I did this correctly.
Two questions: 1) Is there a tool available that can help with adding archived links (I see this frequently in citations where the url expired)? 2) Can a link to the archived site also be in the infobox, or should that be deleted since it duplicates info? Netherzone ( talk) 17:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi to whomsoever it may concern. We cannot retain former names of cities, the current name is Gurugram and not Gurgaon. Why do we need rfc ? it is common sense? If that is the case, then we should retain the city names Bombay and Madras. The advise received in preceding section is some editor's personal opinion. Personal opinions doesn't work in this case. News paper articles can write anything, they just take info from wikipedia, it is called mirroring of wikipedia. Coming to books and articles, there are still millions of articles calling cities as Bombay and Madras before their official name change. You cant take it as a standard, and forcefully rub your opinions on other editors. Your personal interest with Gurgaon instead of Gurugram cannot be endorsed by other editors. The Govt officially designated it as Gurugram city in ( Gurugram District) - https://gurugram.gov.in/department/municipal-corporation-gurugram/ Fostera12 ( talk) 14:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Plip!
For
Special:Diff/1149326615.
–
CityUrbanism
🗩
🖉
18:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Please revoke TPA, they are somewhat violating NPA and are being disruptive. Thanks, Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 07:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I see undid my move of the german torpedo named Neger from Neger (torpedo). do you think when someone see the title of my comment here will think “ha, a discussion about torpedoes!” Neger is german for negro or to be more accurate the n word. Never heard someone using that word and discovered they were talking about torpedos! FuzzyMagma ( talk) 13:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu! Thank you for your kind help on my draft article for James E Ketelaar.
The 2006 version of Ketelaar, J. E. (1990). Of Heretics and Martyrs in Meiji Japan: Buddhism and its Persecution. seems to be significantly altered beyond a translation. The following is written on his Chicago uni page https://history.uchicago.edu/directory/james-e-ketelaar: "Jakyô, Junkyô no Meiji: Haibutsu kishaku to kindai Bukkyô. Tokyo: Pelikan, 2006. A substantially revised version of Heretics and Martyrs in Japanese with a new introduction."
to that effect I believe that they constitute separate books. What are your thoughts? Thank you! Coroz Coroz12 ( talk) 00:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Hey there, Dekimasu. I suspect the block evader who has been editing the Sailor Moon articles over the past few months (such as Black Moon Clan, Chibiusa, Sailor Pluto, List of Sailor Moon Crystal episodes, etc.) has returned, this time as EleventhBrother26.5 ( talk · contribs), 2603:8001:4a00:ca8:154d:5d39:1fe2:fa76 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 216.176.47.241 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). Can you please take a look into this? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 01:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I've just stumbled on talk:IPA#Requested move 28 July 2018 where you (very reasonably) closed the discussion with a "consensus to move". But it doesn't seem to have happened? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 09:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
In the discussion at Talk:Post-it Note#Requested move 13 August 2023, you said "Please avoid relisting before the discussion's initial week has finished; this can be interpreted as a sort of finger on the scale. Dekimasu よ! 09:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)"
Is that guidance stated somewhere? Isn't a relisting prior to the end of a week the only way to discourage immediate closure when the end of the week arrives? And as far as I can tell, the relisting was only 10 hours before the end of the week; maybe DaxServer needed some sleep or needed to go somewhere offline IRL at the time. I notice that DaxServer had not expressed any opinion in the discussion. I was surprised to see some discouragement of relisting in the WP:RM instructions; I had thought that some years ago it had said anyone could relist – even editors who had been involved in the discussion – but perhaps my memory is faulty.
— BarrelProof ( talk) 16:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Dekimasu! Remember your page move on 19 March? It seems I have to alert you first before I begin the process with this as you did it and you're an admin. It kind of drag me into what I've never been used to here on WP until now; see my talk page. It seems part of the community wants to move foward with this now so as to prevent this from ever happening again. Thanks! Intrisit ( talk) 20:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Please, can you help me with these Japanese translations? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.251.38.168 ( talk) 06:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
I have asked for a Move review of List of spaghetti Westerns. Because you were involved in the discussion, you might want to participate in the move review. -- В²C ☎ 04:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Short version when we move (at least at WP:Plants) we mostly follow Plants of the World Online (POWO) (except for ferns, World Ferns for them), but check with other major sources like World Plants, World Flora Online, USDA, VASCAN, etc. to see if they are the one source that says something different than everyone else.
Longer version example. The discussion at Mahonia came to the conclusion that since both POWO and WFO say synonym of Berberis, even though World Plants says valid and there is a very persuasive paper, we're going with them for now since there is not yet a complete survey of everything that "should" be in Mahonia or the two new genus proposed. We're going to move and then wait and see if everyone changes their mind in five or ten years. Or not. Also most new serious botany books like Flora of Colorado by Ackerfield are using Berberis so this seems to be the way the wind is still blowing in the botanical world.
I changed my position on this one after discussion. I wanted to stick with Mahonia, but I opened the discussion because I was not sure if I was right after seeing NatureServe using Berberis for a species I was working on. Edit to add: I could not avoid the thorny issue. (joke) 🌿MtBotany ( talk) 15:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I noticed you reverted a lot of edits from an ip editor just now. Were they long term vandalizing Japanese pages? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
I am working on a draft on the Kobe Watatsumi Shrine, also more intuitively read as Umi Shrine (海神社) but I've been hitting a major brick wall. I can't find english book sources on it. I think this is rather strange for how highly ranked it is.
It is currently the highest ranked shrine in the Modern system of ranked Shinto shrines without an article, being an Imperial shrine, 2nd rank.
I'd like you to search a bit through google books or a similar service for any book sources about the shrine and determine if you think it is notable or not.
My leads are as follows to start
Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 08:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024! |
Hello Dekimasu, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
🛧 Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 05:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello, Dekimasu, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --
Ynhockey (
Talk)
11:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, sorry, I had no idea about that template and I can't believe I didn't check to see that that link didn't point to the Japanese language! I'm working on changing them now. Any chance you could give me some pointers in using that template, I've never seen it before. Thanks. -- Timkovski 20:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for putting in the Imperial Japanese Navy links. I'm posting articles on a lot of WWII U.S. Navy ships, and I'm just learning about the appropriate links for U.S. stuff. I'm grateful for anything about the Japanese side. Lou Sander 19:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments and the edits! I am not an expert on Japan but I am writing a couple more articles with Japanese-American themes. I am sure they would benefit from a good critical reading.
By the way, I am a huge Tanizaki fan and I agree that the Tanizaki article should be expanded. I look forward to it. Actinman
If you have time, please check out League of Blood Incident. I am not an expert on Japanese history but I found a reference to the incident when I was researching Katsuma Dan. It seemed appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Let me know what you think. Actinman 03:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
You edited the talk page of a rejected, and therefore inactive, policy proposal. First, editing others' comments is widely frowned upon. Second, inactive policy pages are often on watchlists, in case anyone tries to revive discussion. Edits tend to confuse the record and make the discussion look active.
No great harm done, but I thought I would mention it. Robert A.West ( Talk) 16:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for fixing my profile XSpaceyx 22:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I left a question related to your recent edit on Talk:USS Haskell (APA-117)-- J Clear 01:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
If you could take a quick peek at this bio stub Totsuka Michitaro and if nothing else can you comment on the two spellings I found (see its Talk page)? Thanks.-- J Clear 01:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Just dropping a note, thanks for the disambiguation link repair on my profile. akuyume(Adam) 03:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi there how are you going? Apparently some contributors have edited the section you've tagged with the cleanup tag. Please see it, Tourism in Indonesia and tell us what you think. If you think it still need the tag, umm, please point which part of the section that needs major edit. Cheers, take care -- I mo eng 10:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Konnichiha, dekimasu-san.
Thanks for the heads-up on the copyright violation. The person who wrote the text and took the pictures on the website is very likely to be the author of the wikipedia page, and claims to have released the pictures into the public domain.
However, the external website has a copyright notice on it. Accordingly, the text is copyrighted. I've removed most of the content. Thanks for pointing it out. - Richardcavell 12:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
G'day from Australia, Thankx for fixing my link to Japan. Konichi wa?
Hi there, you marked Simon Woodroffe as being contradictory. Just passing by, but couldn't see where it was contradictory, and wondered if I was being dim? You didn't leave a comment on the talk page explaining it anyway. TheMoog 09:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Could you add a line to the description that says which episode you took the screen-cap from? Otherwise, that blasted orphanbot may tag it as unsourced. -- tjstrf 06:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I know, that link is tiny. I may be able to fix that, since I was able to at least improve it from the default (compare with Rurouni Kenshin). I disagree that it creates any POV issues, since this is the enwiki. If I'd left out Canada or something, that would be POV, but putting all the non-english non-original publishers in an extended list shouldn't be a problem and was the entire purpose of that field to start with. I didn't create that field, I simply made it not impossible to see. -- tjstrf 10:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, the size issue is fixed. At least for me, the text size is identical to the other infobox text. -- tjstrf 10:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I must go to bed now. Sorry, but you'll have to talk to me about this tomorrow. Hopefully it's only effecting you. -- tjstrf 10:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm 99% sure this is Nick, Eddie H.'s friend (no full names; I like staying anonymous on here, too). I was hanging out with you and Eddie in Kobe. If I'm wrong, please disregard.-- Nobunaga24 12:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes... it was an error when copy-paste fixing the huge number of double redirects we just created. Sometimes the page would redirect without me noticing and I'd edit the wrong one. Oops -- tjstrf 03:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I thought I had removed the subcategories as well, can you point me which ones are still alive? -- Drini 20:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the disambiguation link repair on my page. You missed all of the Russian -> Russian language ambiguous links though. ;) But thanks to you making me aware of the problem I fixed it now. お疲れ様でした~。 Truncated 12:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The book that revealed Sora's name came out in January 2006! [1]
Be glad it came out as soon as it did, I guess. Also, I expect VIZ to revise its newer printings of Bleach Vol. 1 soon. WhisperToMe 02:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
In fact, which volumes had "Kakei"? I'll check my bookstore and see if VIZ edited the printings. WhisperToMe 02:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
"VIZ isn't known for being good about things like that. Under what circumstances did the English manga and anime have to reveal his first name anyway, when the originals didn't? This after people were complimenting the dub on its respect for Japanese naming issues. Dekimasu 02:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)"
When a younger sibling addresses an older sibling in Japanese, he or she calls him or her "honorable older brother" or "honorable older sister" - I.E. Orihime called her brother "Brother" in the Japanese originals. VIZ did not want to have Orihime call her brother "brother" all the time, so VIZ had to make up a name for him. WhisperToMe 02:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I may have found your page based on your contributions or your link repair user box on your user page. If you are not a member, please consider including your name on the project page. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 22:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Dekimasu! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand ( talk • contribs • Bot) 20:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
What is it about the Highcliffe School wiki that is not notable? Electrology
Sorry for causing a back-up, didn't realise that some of the pages were doing that. How do you add these disambiguations and know which pages will need them? Ichi-o 12:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
You have recently vandalized the article STS-120. This is really not a good idea and could result in your being blocked. Hektor 11:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
– Clockwork Soul 04:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
AzaBot 16:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
AzaBot 03:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
AzaBot 01:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
AzaBot 01:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, just thought I'd point you in the direction of a new category I created: Category:Wikipedians in Osaka. Figured there might be enough Wikipedians living in Osaka to make it worthwhile. -- Brad Beattie (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted your edits to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 August 26. When doing disambiguation maintenance, you should not change links that intentionally point to a disambig page. You should also avoid changing archived deletion debates. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 13:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
How come you redirected elections in Higashi-osaka to the main page of the city. Other cities have separate pages for elections. Also the Higashi-osaka page looks clutterd with all thoose tables. -- Jonte-- 20:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I replied to your comment on my talk page. Thanks. Shimeru 07:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Great! I'm glad that she didn't make any damaging edits on JA Wikipedia. Has any action been taken against the account there? I really can't tell because the Japanese characters all come up as a box.-- E d ¿Cómo estás? 23:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
You removed some data from Henna gaijin as being copyvio: why, and where does this material come from then? The phrases seemed quite simple, so why not paraphrasing them instead? LHOON 10:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for pointing the mismatch in Japanese links that should have been Japanese People. From now on, I'll make sure to point to the correct page. -- Pygenot 10:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
As it clearly said at the relevant place on the relevant page -on which I have also left you a note - I have been working on this for the last 4 weeks, and it is very discourteous of you to cut in once the great majority of the work (103 links out of 109) has been done. Even on Wikipedia, famous for its rudeness, some basic standards of behaviour are necessary, and I see from your page that you are quite old enough to understand this. HeartofaDog 20:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that little edit on my userpage. ^_^ DrowningInRoyalty 01:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi! That one is tricky; I'm not even sure what is meant by the relevant sentence ("Although relativity implies that there is no true inertial frame..."). :-( I left a note on the article's talk page hoping that someone will clarify it. Thank you for the disambig advice, by the way! It's my first time trying my hand at it. HEL 12:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
I hereby confer upon you this Working Man's Barnstar to thank you for your tireless disambiguation work! Russ (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC) |
Hi there, I just wanted to point out that while the new picture may be of lesser quality, what's more important is that its licensing is not in question at all. The previous image had a highly dubious fair use justification and very vague sourcing. I think we shouldn't have to rely on dubiously sourced/fair use justified images, especially as we clearly have English-language Wikipedians in Japan. If you really object to the quality of the new picture, I suggest that we don't use either picture until a better image can be found. Bwithh
with your preference for traditional dress in mind:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Shinto_married_couple.jpg (could do with some cropping)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Shinto_wedding_shrine_tokyo.jpg (cropping needed)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Morioka_Kinder_3.JPG
Bwithh 04:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
http://flickr.com/photos/76162070@N00/39589492/ (good profiles but needs cropping especially to remove the face on the right)
http://flickr.com/photos/nandemo-ii/158581109/
http://flickr.com/photos/bnittoli/213176729/ (well... I thought we might want a modern/traditional fusion)
http://flickr.com/photos/geoff_leeming/27740478/
http://flickr.com/photos/taminator/304772947/ group shot (traditional and modern) with um, bonus gaijin (location is Vancouver however - but that doesnt matter for ethnicity template?)
http://flickr.com/photos/taminator/301744479/ group shot "japanese" (shinto temple in Vancouver?} interior with same family as above but without gaijin... I think this is one of my favourite ones - I like the way the younger couple is in traditional clothes and the older people are in modern clothes. I would crop above their hands though. Bwithh 05:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately,the photographer has not yet replied to my flicker email to him , and he has definitely been active on flicker (uploaded new photos) during the time. On the other hand, someone else has uploaded a public domain set of photos to the template, so it's all good Bwithh 05:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
Too busy to do dab page stuff at the moment, but may be ready soon. I notice you do TEFL, presumably in Japan. I'm a Taiwan TEFL'er currently in the US getting a PhD. Also your remarks on my talk page that began, "As an aside, I certainly agree with your idea..." sound like something I might say, but I don't remember saying them. :-) Where did I say that? Later, -- Ling.Nut 05:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The photographer who owns the flickr image has replied - he's interested. I am currently clarifying the licensing situation for him. We'll see how it goes Bwithh 06:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
You've been approved to use NPWatcher. Please give me any feature requests or bugs. I'm also happy to help if you have any problems running the program, or any questions :). Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if I've made a new release (or just add the main page ( here) to your watchlist). Finally, enjoy! M a rtinp23 14:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia, but I'm glad to find a project I can help with! I'm going to work on the "Spring" disambiguation page as much as I possibly can until they're all cleaned up. Kaiwynn 02:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I moved a recent comment that you had left on the Hinduism talk page to the Hindu Notice Board where it is more likely to be seen by all editors working on the Hinduism project. I hope you will not consider this rude. Thanks. Abecedare 04:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that translation. I really owe you one.-- Maison mere des rumeurs 05:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits to User:Sam ov the blue sand/Ace Combat X Fictional Aircraft they are greatly needed. Sam ov the blue sand 18:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for reviewing History of Sheffield. I have made the MoS changes that you requested—in my line of work we always put citations before punctuation, so it looks odd to me this way, but that's OK. Thanks again, — JeremyA 19:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
{{Hindu Links}}-- D-Boy 11:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi there,
As a user looking to Adopt with the Adopt-a-User program, there has been some ongoing developments that we would like to bring to your attention, as well as request help with the backlog at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user.
You should know that the way the adoption process works has changed slightly. To decrease workload at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user on offering adoption please change the {{Adoptme}} template to {{Adoptoffer}} on the user's user page, and this will add the user to Category:Wikipedians having been offered adoption. Users that have already been offered adoption can always have a second or third offer, but by separating out those users that have not had an adoption offer yet, it is hoped that no one will go lacking. Once adoption is complete please use the templates found here on the Adoptee's and your user page.
Also numerous Adopters have been adding their details to a list of users available for adopting, to offer a more personalised service and allow new users to browse through and pick their own Adopter. The quickest way to adopt though, is still to contact users at the Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user.
Furthermore a new Adopter's Area has been created where you can find useful resources and other Adopter's experiences. Please feel free to add any resources you have and if you know of any useful resources for new users / Adoptees then you can add them here.
So I hope you get adopting soon - and if you have any general questions or suggestions about the further development of Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User please bring them to our talk page. Cheers Lethaniol 15:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: J-ska, this is an inquiry for my own edification rather than a challenge to your edit. Can you refer me to the guidelines on this matter so I can know which from what in the future? To make communication easier, I'll just watch this page for now and you can answer me right here. Thanks. House of Scandal 12:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
No, that's cool; I understand and appreciate the help. I like adding audio and video links to my articles when possible. I see it as an extention of the "don't tell, show" philosophy. I will avoid linking to probable copyright violation stuff in the future. BTW, you may not have noticed that J-ska is listed at AfD right now. Give an opinion there if the spirit moves you. Thanks again for the guideline links. Have a good Sunday. House of Scandal 13:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Dekimasu, my apologies for the error on disambiguating Nomenclature. Thanks for setting me straight about correct procedure for disambiguation, and thanks also for fixing my changes to the disambiguation:Done section. Clicketyclack 12:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I've restored the talkpage of the deleted article and moved back to its parent article, as it was previously moved by you. Does all the current links to University of Wisconsin meant for University of Wisconsin-Madison? If so, then perhaps it may be a good idea to seek help from WP:DPL (or a bot if possible) to cleanup all the links from articles to point to University of Wisconsin-Madison directly. That may be tedious, but that should solve the problem once and for all. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we have a cencus on directing University of Wisconsin to UW-Madison. I've provided my comments on the University of Wisconsin talk page. Miaers 18:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you an administor? It is very unprofessional to move the page without any talk and no consideration of previous discussions. Miaers 01:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I appreciate your help in dealing with this situation. Unfortunately, Miaers has rarely ever listened to consensus on anything and prefers to argue with other editors. I see your latest comment on the talk-page, but would appreciate you checking back when you return as having an outside editor's opinion is helpful in this type of situation. Cheers, PaddyM 01:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I have asked for a deletion review of University of Wisconsin (disambiguation), at your suggestion. You might want to participate. -- Orange Mike 03:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I think if you still have further things to talk, it is better for us to do this through our talk pages. Miaers 19:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
This is to notify you that I am making an arbitration request concernining the University of Wisconsin redirect at [Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration]. Miaers 00:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
In addition to NPOV, no promoting and no academic boosterism, I think you also need to be civil. You are not supposed to make orders here. Miaers 17:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you previously heavily involved in the discussion on University of Wisconsin talk page. Your comments should be at the "Statement of previously involved editors" section not "Comments" section, which is for outside editors who didn't participated in the previous discussions. Miaers 15:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The comments section for requested comments are for outside editors. If you insist, it is no big deal. Miaers 21:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I was about three minutes behind you, I guess. But, I'm not convinced that the Japanese article is for the same guy. None of the songs are credited to him as 作詩家, which is what you would expect from a poet. Neier 07:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I've not been sure what to do about users blanking the page and whatnot, I've just reiterated Wikipedia policy over and over again. Any help you can offer expanding the article, including keeping it up-to-date and reliably sourced, is appreciated. Italiavivi 03:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Template:WikiProjectBanners has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- Ned Scott 08:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
No, not offended at all. I was just about to go and give him my reasoning myself when I saw your response, so I figured I'd explain to him why it was removed. ^^; Nique talk 14:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
もうかりまっか??if you have a problem with the images isn't it ethical first to talk to me before going anywhere? I agree that the first photo is the same one in her official site.And I obviously knew it.BUT you also have to understand that,the given site do not have any authority over the photo..Certainly not to my knowledge..In fact photo was given to me by one of my Japanese friends ,and he had no idea about the site !! Remember as a super model, thousands of her photos were taken by various cameramen and many of them are definitely not copyrighted.
And the other two were not copyrighted at all..They were taken by her fans..I will re add the photos and if you can prove that these are actually copy righted, please go ahead with your deletion..if not please let the photos stay,as a super model she deserve to have them in wikipedia.Plus, Japanese people are not big boasters.And to find citation to prove "she is one of the most successful ever" may be hard,as neither she nor anyone say that..But that's a fact.ask any girl in her late 20's or early 30's and hear what she says..She was probably the best known model at her generation,and with 梅宮 アンナ and RINKA probably the best ever produced by JJ. ほんならまたね -- Iwazaki 15:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
How come everytime I try to do some good on wikipedia. I always get crapped on. It doesn't matter if the songs were not singles. Look at the Beatles albums. Every song that is not a single has it's own page. So I guess you will have to propose those for deletion too. : ( User:wikiwonka12
(From User talk:Petri Krohn#Aino)
-- Petri Krohn 13:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
From User talk:Miaers, and copy-pasted here by User:Miaers: I came here to talk about the deletion review of the disambiguation page, but I noticed that you have a fair use image you uploaded on your user page. First, please note that it is never considered acceptable to display fair use images on your user page. I am also certain that this is a replaceable image and doesn't qualify under a fair use claim, but I don't want you to think that I am trying to attack your editing personally. Image:Chapman Hall.jpg should be listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, but you can remove it from the articles and ask to have it deleted yourself. Please let me know if you have any questions about this. Dekimasu 03:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not even in Wisconsin. I can't take the picture. More importantly, I don't think anyone can take a picture as beautiful as the one that is being used. Miaers 06:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I contacted the author of this photo, Allan Hong. He agreed to let me use this photo in Wikipedia. Could you please let me know what kind of license I should use for this image? Miaers 14:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
This is to let you know that there is no free replacement to the two UW-Milwaukee alumni photo I uploaded. There is nothing wrong with this There is no free replacement. There is nothing wrong with this {{promophoto}} tag. Please stop reverting. Miaers 20:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I have no apologies or retractions to issue with regard to those who have been attacking Miriam Shear and Talk:Miriam Shear whatsoever. User:Yisraelasper ought have been banned the second he engaged in repeat vandalism, including more advanced tactics like page-moving. Italiavivi 14:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I found your name on the list of users wishing to adopt other users and wondered how one would go about being adopted. Thanks for your time. Rurouniyuudai85 18:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
From User talk:Qxz, and copy-pasted here by User:Qxz: How about an ad related to Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links? It's been hit kind of hard lately (see the link numbers at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages maintenance) and would have the sort of widespread appeal you seem to be looking for. I love the ads, by the way... especially the one on edit summaries. Dekimasu 13:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Psyche.
Thank you very much, I like it. One suggestion is that it could probably stand to lose the notice image on the left since it's just taking up space and the notice is long enough that the image is obscured. But overall that's an excellent idea. -- tjstrf talk 06:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Kentaro's history is here.
-- 125.172.137.254 16:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Third-party's writing is here.
-- 125.172.137.254 17:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, the user is now blocked. (You might have received a faster response at administrators' intervention page, because I was busy editing a different article at the time.) - Mike Rosoft 09:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my recent RfA. I'm honored that you consider me one of your favorite editors. Here's hoping I can do some good with the new tools. Shimeru 15:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how do you get the information saying that she was born at 1977 instead of 1978. As far as all the DVD's and related materials I have, they concerned me that she is a product of 1978. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scorto ( talk • contribs) 08:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
You are damn right. I know that she celebrates her 30th birthday this year, however I still stick with the materials from her DVD....... I am disappointed about admitting both facts. She is 30 and born in 1978, that doesn't make sense. Thanks for correcting me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scorto ( talk • contribs) 19:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
I noticed that in your userboxes, you had (what appears to be) a homemade "Osaka-ben" language box. I'd actually be interested in having something for Kansai-ben on my own user page, and I thought that perhaps it might be worthwhile to create an actual set of usable Kansai-ben templates. There is no listing as-of-yet at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Non-ISO_Languages, but I don't think it'd be that hard to create such. If anything, the tricky part would be putting the message in-dialect and making it sound natural... -- Julian Grybowski 13:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Trampton has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Trampton 15:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
Please see Talk:Bleach (manga)#References formatting problems. I'd never paid attention to that part of the box before, but on reading it I've noticed that your proposed format for the manga citations cannot give us consistent and accurate page citations throughout our articles. -- tjstrf talk 01:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
About the changing of Japan. I do not approve of people editing my own page. As it makes my head mad and I nearly have a fit. But I don't mind people correcting me. Thanks for that. JoshuaMD 15:40 26th March 2007 (GMT)
I almost can't believe how far I'm going for such an insignificant article. Anyway, maybe, and just maybe, you want to read (and then feel remorse for doing it) my answer to your prod. Also, I'm still trying to understand what's that WP:SNOW you dislike. :o
Just a side note, I've noticed you must like Bleach... If, by any chance, you are not an anime fan, and you also hated basically all the Bount Arc, you should try Full Metal Alchemist and / or The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya. I envy you so much you're both learning japanese and living there. -- Caue ( T | C) 02:48, Thursday 2007- 03-29 ( UTC)
I hate when that happens, those damn starving browsers... On firefox I've even had a plugin where I could save a temporary file with a shortcut, just like I would do in a normal notepad, back when I used to use non- gmail browser text forms a lot. Maybe you should look into that kind of thing, since you do so many edits around here. It shouldn't be hard to find.
Anyway, yeah, redirecting to a "grouping" article sounds good. I'll take a look on it whenever I have the time. Maybe improving that japanese sound symbolism, maybe using another more relevant with the same grouping idea in mind, or maybe just moving it there as it is. Hopefully before those 4 days left.
I realised that it was a template just before I've answered it, but I don't like editing what I write too much. Specially not deleting (or losing). I choose pen over pencil. :P One reason I love wikipedia so much is not just the fact you can correct and clean up messed things, but you can also look at the mess (through history) and learn a lot from so many mistakes. I wouldn't mind any deletion at all if the article history was saved, i.e. basically setting a page to blank. It'd be just like deletion is really done on old disk partition techniques (which are the same used in domestic computers today), by the way.
About manga, I've never thought about it like that, although I used to read translated Ranma 1/2. I thought you'd say "I read manga because the story is better there", which is true most of the time, just like books are mostly better than movies. But I still prefer watching an animated story than reading it, for many reasons. Maybe I can catch the spoken language, just like I did with english... And maybe I can eventually learn the writing from games, closed captions and internet, again as I did with english. :o But I think that learning japanese would take me way more time than it already took me with english.
And don't worry, you don't look blunt to me. Specially after I realized how different PROD is from AfD. Plus, I still would like to discuss over all the fuss around deletion with ya.
-- Caue ( T | C) 18:14, Thursday 2007- 03-29 ( UTC)
Hmm, I knew I've heard dekimasu somewhere before... It was from that (any) little j-girl joyfully screaming when she finished something. And now I wonder why you chose that codename! :P -- Caue ( T | C) 19:05, Thursday 2007- 03-29 ( UTC)
At Talk:State university (disambiguation)#Survey - in opposition to the move you say I know we've had this discussion before. Did you have any particular discussion(s) in mind? Which? Andrewa 00:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Replied. - Neier 07:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Aha: "(removing sentence fragment that appears to have been added in error)". Thanks for fixing that. It's the text of my edit summary, and I must have dropped it carelessly into the article also. – Noetica♬♩ Talk 08:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Note from Dekimasu: This was my original message to User:Radiant!, brought over here so that the discussion causing the nomination will be in one place: You recently closed a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 27#Category:Singaporean executions that resulted in the move of Category:Japanese executions to Category:People executed by Japan. I don't dispute the close or the applicability of the debate to Singapore, but a lot of the people in the category about Japan were executed "in Japan" (by warring factions) rather than "by Japan", as an action of the Japanese government. I was considering initiating another move request, but I thought I would ask for your thoughts first. Dekimasu 06:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hm, that's an interesting complication that I was unaware of. But wouldn't "executions in Japan" also include people executed by, say, China or the US, as long as the execution took place in Japan? >Radiant< 09:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Please note that the bot's language ordering in Bleach (manga) is actually widely accepted and also used by most other bots. There was a straw poll about it a while ago and the result was about 50/50. Basically the bot ordered the languages by their native name, which is easier to navigate for reader (and harder for editors, but you learn after a while). Some notable languages which are not as their appear are Hebrew (Ivrit), Japanese (Nihongo), Chinese (Zhongwen), Korean (Hangugeo) and Finnish (Suomi). -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 08:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Belated kudos for your very funny WP:POINT comment at Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive/Removed/Archive2#Godwin's Law. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont ‹(-¿-)› 14:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Answered on my page. Cheers. MadMaxDog 04:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
[French]
Bonjour, je prend contact avec vous afin d'éclaicir un article de traduction en japonnais. Au départ, j'avais créé un article avec les caractère
エリック・モングレン, mais les wikipédiens on décidés que cela devait s'écrire
エリック・モングレイン à la place, étant donnée que Erik n'avait pas de site officiel en japonnais pour déterminer quelle façon écrire son nom. Je suis Webmaster de Erik Mongrain, pour faire les
pages en japonnais, le traducteur a épellé Erik Mongrain エリック・モングレン. Le problème que je rencontre c'est qu'il y a deux façon d'écrire son nom en japonnais et je me demandais quel était le bon pour que je puisse écrire son site officiel de la bonne façon (et l'article wikipedia)...
Ma question est : lequel parmi ces deux appellations vous choisieriez pour le nom officiel de Erik Mongrain en japonnais??
Merci à l'avance pour votre aide. Passez une bonne journée! -- Antaya 00:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for reminding me; I suppose I missed that. I created a redirect for the name, and will be more carefull in the future.-- 十 八 04:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the conclusions, because of the "first major contributor" rule. However, the stub Counterinsurgency operations predated Counter-insurgency and was eventually merged into it. Does it make sense to have a rule like this? I mean, once the first person has chosen the spelling of counterinsurgency, wouldn't it make sense for everybody to follow that lead rather than discount it because it appeared in a stub? Of course, what I am advocating would involve rewriting the relevant guideline. Joeldl 04:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu, I've noticed your work at WP:RM and elsewhere, and I would like to ask for your help. Recently, User:Mackan filed a sockpuppet case at WP:SSP relating to edit warring going on at Joji Obara, Lucie Blackman, Asahi Shimbun and elsewhere. Basically, Mackan alleges that the 2ch forums are being used to recruit new users to edit those pages to reflect a certain viewpoint; if true, this would be a violation of Wikipedia's policies against sockpuppets, specifically WP:MEAT. Mackan has provided evidence of this at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vml132f and on my talk page at User talk:Akhilleus#Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets.2FVml132f. Unfortunately, I can't read a single character of Japanese, so I am unable to evaluate these charges fully. I would be extremely grateful if you could either take a look at Mackan's allegations and take a look at the forums he links to, to provide a perspective independent of the dispute, or put me in touch with an administrator who is fluent in Japanese. Thanks very much, and sorry to bother you. --Akhilleus ( talk) 04:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu, thanks a bunch for looking into this. If possible, I'd much appreciate if you could, ASAP, save the 2channel thread onto your hard drive, as the thread will become unaccessible when it reaches a 1000 comments (it's currently on 975). I've saved it onto mine but I'm afraid I could be accused of tampering with the files, if it's only me. Again, thanks a lot. Mackan 08:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I know you have shown an interest in the debate as to whether Emergency should be an article or a dab page. I have now created an article which I believe would be suitable for the 'Emergency' page, with everything else to be moved out to a separate disambiguation page. My suggested article is here (in my name space), and the debate as to whether this will be suitable is on the Talk:emergency page. I would appreciate you input! Owain.davies 07:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I see I'm not the only one who's been holding off on a nomination until Bleach made GA. (I personally don't want to run until after I graduate, which is in less than 3 weeks.)
You belittle your own work there, by the way. I may be good at figuring out how to fulfill arbitrary criteria and referencing things to death, but you're honestly a much better writer. Without your help, we'd still be languishing at B if for no other reason than that everything will be put in the passive voice by me.
Have fun with your new wikipe-mop! :) -- tjstrf talk 08:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I have made a proposal to amend the guidelines at WP:MOS. The proposal is in keeping with the spirit of those guidelines, but will hopefully lead to a technical improvement. Comment is welcome at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Joeldl 14:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Template:Active Wiki Fixup Projects, one of us is missing something not sure who, probably me. As I read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and readers' date preferences it tells me that linked dates should display in the readers preference. The default value in preferences is no preference, so when you use the format YYYY-MM-DD it displays in that format for anyone who has not set their preferences which would also include anyone not logged in. Due to cross ocean habits 2007-05-08 could also be read as 2007-08-05, when you include a named month it eliminates the ambiguity, 2007 May 08 is clearly the same as May 08, 2007. I should have not removed the wiki links when I changed the format. I think that would have met both of our concerns, but when I changed the format the links where red, so for some reason I removed the brackets. Unless you have other concerns I will redo them tomorrow. Jeepday ( talk) 04:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi. The instructions for Template:Active Wiki Fixup Projects state, with good reason, Note: If adding or relisting an item, please add it to the *top* of the list,. I'd be interested in knowing why in this edit you decided to move geotagging to the bottom of the list. Please let me know. -- Tagishsimon (talk)
Hi there. My uncontroversial request for a move for Call for Help (TV series) is totally uncontroversial. I'm just trying to clean things up, and furthermore, the double redirects are in preparation for the move, not the other way around. It appears that you are just griefing me, as this is the second time you've pulled a simple move requests of mine. Is that true? I made a solid case as to why this should be uncontroversial, can you expand on what your objections are? Do I need the original objector to take his/her statement back? — Wikibarista 05:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
When Cingular Wireless was legally renamed AT&T Mobility in January, a user moved the page to "AT&T Mobility". Since Wikipedia rules generally stated (according to the talk page) that when things are known as one thing, the page should be the generally known name, even if the legal name differs. As a result, the discussion ended and everyone seemed happy for a month. Then, AT&T started dropping the "Cingular is now the new AT&T" logo from its advertising in newspapers, simply using "AT&T", and a user chose to move the page to AT&T WirelessLLC, then AT&T Wireless LLC. This raised a red flag with me, at which I then requested the page be moved to its correct place, AT&T Mobility, which is currently a redirect page created when Cingular was legally renamed. In the course of the 4 days since I requested the move, a user decided to move the page to another inappropriate titie, AT&T Mobility L.LC and then AT&T Mobility L.L.C., its current place. As I requested before, and you commented on, the page should be at AT&T Mobility, since most company articles here use the title the company is commonly known as, not including "Inc." or "LLC", etc.; in this case, "AT&T Mobility". KansasCity 20:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see my recent comment in WP:RM.... procedure has not been followed here. Also User:Naruto134 and User:K00bine seem to be largely collaborating in the move-warring, in many Godzilla-related articles: an RFCU is in order if the decision is close. I think a lot of trouble can be spared if Naruto134 / K00bine can produce some kind of a source, but unfortunately they have refused and have resorted to personal attacks.
In any case, "King Seesar" seems to be a more acceptable alternative than "King Caesar", because it's also rumoured to be trademarked by Toho, and especially because it romanizes into the Japanese name "キングシーサー".-- Endroit 19:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain how you arrived at your views on the "primary" Enfield and why you think structuring a disambiguation page by "prevalence" is preferable (in terms of clarity for the reader) to alphabetical order? We don't start our telephone directories with the "Smiths" because they are the most common. There would lie chaos! ( Sarah777 23:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC))
Not really. There are about 450 Wiki links to Enfield, New Hampshire compared to 230 to Enfield in London. Google returns roughly the same number of hits for both (1.2 v 1.3 million) and the Enfield Gun gets a half as many as either. Also, a suburban area within a city is not as notable as a separate town by the same name. So I think there is no primary "Enfield" - if you type in Enfield you should get straight to the disambiguation page as 80% of queries will be for pages other than the London Enfield. ( Sarah777 01:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC))
Congratulations, you are now an administrator - with unanimous support! If you haven't already, now is the time look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Warofdreams talk 16:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks; I put it up for DRV, but if that fails, I will rewrite. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Would you please look at this version of the Britain dab page? I thought it was better, but didn't want to argue when it was (mostly) reverted. I can see you do a lot of work on dab pages, so I thought I'd ask.
Congratulations on becoming an Administrator. -- Steven J. Anderson 01:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Dekimasu,
Well done on being sysopped. I know you'll do a good job. I have seen much of your work on Japan-related articles. I have quite an interest in Japan myself, and have been there twice. - Richard Cavell 13:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I put it up for WP:RM last night. What will happen about that as well as the people i've informed? Simply south 09:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
(3 revisions restored: move was reverted, but history wasn't restored):
Hello. I notice you have done some work with disambiguation pages. There is a discussion on Talk:ALF_(disambiguation)#And_again that could benefit from your expert advice. Thank you. — Viriditas | Talk 08:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I posted about User:Sparkzilla and his undeclared CoI over at the CoI noticeboard [5]. Unfortunately, there hasn't been that much response from the admin's (except fro MangoJuice), so I was hoping maybe you could take a look at it. Heatedissuepuppet 12:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I am concerned about the conduct of this user. He has reverted several disambiguation fixes [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] by Catneven. I'm about to re-revert them myself but want to give a heads-up to an admin since the user has a rather colorful history and is currently the subject of an RfC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven J. Anderson ( talk • contribs)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of titles with "Darker" in them — Gaff ταλκ 18:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello there! I got your name from the Disambig page, and I was wondering if you could assist me in something. I've been working on Groningen and there is one weird link that I can't seem to fix. It affects about 15 pages, so far. It's in the footer of these pages (example: Marquis of Namur) under Lordship of Groningen. I'm sure it should be Groningen (province) but after searching Wikipedia, I can't find how to edit this footer. Do you know how? Sorry to trouble you over something so small, but I wasn't sure who to ask. Thanks in advance! -- Cabiria 20:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
"Cannon" serves both as the singular and plural of the noun, although the plural "cannons" can also be used." I don't know if it makes me stupid to not have known that.... or.... well, in any case, sorry for giving you more work because of my deficient English. gren グレン 07:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Dekimasu, I am responding to your comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Dokdo:
Thanks for your comments. I'm happy to help, but it can be a lot of work at times. Don't worry, if I do retire (which is not outside the realm of possibility) I will leave behind the programs I use. -- Russ (talk) 10:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 04:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Apologies for my overzealous refactoring in the discussion section for the article "JLPT". I'd like to come to a consensus that perhaps everything before the heading "Clean Up" can be archived or deleted. (I took a quick look at WP:Archive and it looks like an investigation topic in it's own right - when I've got a spare hour I'll try and figure it out ;-)) spurrymoses 13:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks! That makes a lot more sense then what I was doing. I was wondering what exactly I needed to do on that page. -- Milton 02:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to talk with Dekimasu.In English,cool and sophisticated argument will be expected.By the way,my favorite is Chopin.Not only in wikipedia,but also in virtual piano and violin play,his masterpieces should be researched! Naotyan 01:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
You thought this was dormant, at least for a week or so? Me too. Seems we were wrong. As ever, your cool and sophisticated input would be welcome! -- Hoary 12:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you explain your revert to me, please? No sense edit-warring on the matter; if you can explain your reasoning to my satisfaction, we are good. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 11:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
No, it didn't bother me, I think we just disagree which part of DAB the page relates to better. It isn't something that's unresolvable, or that we have to edit-war over. There's enuff clownage going on there with that. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 11:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we should discuss the matter here - far too many people seeking blood in the water on the page to let anything constructive happen. I replied ont he page, but we can continue the discussion here, to save time and static. Sound good? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I think most of the disruptive stuff is out of the way, at least for now. You shouldn't feel nervous about someone jumping down your throat. At least, I won't. I agree witht he chancges Slim made as well; she took the time to explain why she thought the edit made the DAB better, which I rather appreciated. Anyway, all seems well in the page, so if you think there's something nifty to contribute, please do so. You are an interesting person, interesting viewpoints are always good to have in a discussion. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
It is indeed very heartening that you have decided to undo, whatsoever I did in many months. If wikipedia encourages people like you who without sufficient experience go about demolishing the efforts of other serious editors, I can foresee that very soon it will be limited to the small present ( a small mansion in Japan) you claim you have gifted to Wikipedia. Hallenrm 04:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, thanks for fixing that :-) My monobook.js clearly needs fixing :-( Cheers, Tangotango ( talk) 09:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I saw your changes to "Empire of Japan" on U.S. Navy warships, so in the future I will follow your lead on any other ships that need that phraseology. Wikited 18:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of the article was so it could hold the large amount of information while the main article had it summarized in a few paragraphs. Work on the summarisazing has begun slowly. Currently I am not working on the article but UH and the others are. Could you please contact them at Talk:Sivaji: The Boss or on their respective talk pages. I have reverted your edit.
Thank you,
Good Evening Dekimasu!
Thanks for your help in correcting any errors for the article: Taisei Gakuen.
Would you mind helping me expand the Japanese version of the Auckland Grammar School article? - based on the English article. Just 3-5 extra lines would be sufficient enough. Please.
Yours Sincerely -- Per Angusta, 09:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC) (I had only learnt Japanese for two years at Auckland Grammar so my Japanese is only at a very basic level).
You may find this helpful about the following proposal that was copied from WP:RM: Intellectual giftedness → Giftedness. The user MrsMacMan is an abusive sockpuppet of User:Jessica Liao and a longtime disruptor of education related articles. You may safely close or even delete anything she has initiated at Wikipedia. -- Fire Star 火星 02:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
To discredit a myth is not the same thing as spreading a myth. At WIKI we must approach subjects to document facts and sometimes that means discrediting LIES. For example, to say that some still BELIEVE that there were Weapons of mass destruction is NOT the same thing as SAYING that there were Weapons of Mass destruction. The first step in debunking Junk Science, Lies, and Rumors is to confront the factual head on. Thanks again! P.S. Your contributions are impressive. Cr8tiv 20:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Bank of Manchukuo#Requested move, which you have joined, has been denied due to a dispute on where it should be moved. Hence, I have started a thread, Talk:Bank of Manchukuo#The name still has to be discussed to gather some consensus for where should it be moved-- since we all agree the current name is wrong. You are welcomed to join in the discussion. -- Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 14:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi.
I noticed you switched the page I created to the western style of given name family name. That's fine and dandy; thank you.
I am trying to do some internal links for tha page, specifically for Kitamori's intellectual fathers, Tanabe Hajime, and Nishida Kitaro. Both of their pages have family name given name. Should they be changed, too, or what's the deal? Thanks
Uac1530 04:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused as to what happened with Taito Corporation. If nobody opposed the move, why was it not moved? I could have changed the dab page, but a disambiguation page is not needed with only two articles and a dablink at the top of one article. This is why I proposed the move. "Corporation" is not necessary in the title of a company article, unless as a qualifier. So the point of the move was to move Taito Corporation over the disambiguation page (which is more of a trivia page), nobody opposed it, so why didn't it happen? ~ JohnnyMrNinja { talk} 02:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for closing the discussion about the requested move for Angband. That was the first time I'd seen a requested move discussion take place on a WikiProject talk page rather than an article talk page. I still think an article talk page would have been better, with notices on both of the other talk pages, but it worked out OK in the end. Thanks again. Carcharoth 09:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I've processed the July 16 database dump and the results are at User:RussBot/DPL, in case you want to start a new series at WP:DPL. -- Russ (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting that out. Now the project has a name I can actually promote to the people most likely to contribute to it. :-) GreenReaper 14:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the inadvertent !vote mess over there. It's one of the XfDish processes I don't spend much time in at all. I thought I was being helpful. :-) — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the move. Just to clarify, did you mean included in the article [11]? The Evil Spartan 19:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like to close the old move request for Taito Corporation → Taito. The request has been open for 11 days without much discussion except between you and JohnnyMrNinja. Are you willing to let things stand as they are now? I have no personal opinion on the matter—I would just like to close the old discussion. ● DanMS • Talk 05:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind closing the move request for 4′33″ → 4'33"? I probably should not close it because I participated in the discussion. ● DanMS • Talk 00:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I closed the move request for Eisack → Isarco ( discussion) because no consensus had been reached after 12 days. Almost immediately I had a request to reopen the debate. (See my talk page.) I told the requester that I would reopen the move request discussion if a couple of other admins agreed that it should be reopened. Do you agree the debate should be opened again? ● DanMS • Talk 01:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
What is to be done with talk pages like this one, which was created when I moved Twitches Too! to Twitches Too? Since it was newly created by the move and has no history (and seems useless anyway), should I (1) delete it, or (2) just remove the redirect? I appreciate the assistance you have given me with these page-moving tasks and I hope I am not asking too many questions. I am learning a little more every day. ● DanMS • Talk 01:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I notice you fixed the Jam redirect; that was fine, thanks, but please take care in such cases to ensure that the destination article handles the redirect via a disambiguation line. Anyone typing in jam would have been thrown to " Fruit preserves" without having access to other meanings of the word. Fourohfour 20:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Domo arigato! -- Orange Mike 03:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Re: the notability tag on the Socialist Canarian Party, I think that its incorrect to compare votes for individuals and political parties when judging notability criteria. Most probably the party only contested in a single municipality, and it should be ruled out that the party might have had members outside of that municipality. Moreover the party is registered with the Spanish authorities, and it is advisable that persons going through those registers might consult wikipedia for information about the parties listed. -- Soman 08:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, El on ka 05:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I see that you wrote on the picture of Voldemort in the article of the same name, that the movie was not yet in a screenshot capable medium. But then obviously, the screenshot was not taken from the film itself, but the official theatrical trailer. I then suggest that you remove the Fair Use-review, but I agree with you that it should be of a lower resolution plus a rationale for the picture captured from the trailer. Wikiburger 17:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your work merging my controversy article to the main article. That is really where it belongs. Steve Dufour 13:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward
Luk suh 04:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Would you be interested in help expanding a series of Anime related articles? I need help from a Japanese speaking person to add material from Japanese sources.
For now my focus is mostly for the articles on Oh My Goddess! (ああっ女神さまっ, Aa! Megami-sama!). More specifically articles on the featured list " List of Oh My Goddess episodes". I want to start with the article You're a Goddess?.
A concern was raised that the articles in question did not have adequate out of universe material such as information on the production or information on the cultural references such as the reception it received. Information on ratings, awards a particular episode received would also be a helpful addition.
If you could help perfect just one of the articles, I could use it as a metric for future reference. Of course I would more than welcome any additional help as well.
-- Cat chi? 18:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Could use your help here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_Brothers_101_Ranch The original author seems to insist on her original (and incomplete) version. All the additions that I have offered have been deleted. All were from legitimate sources. Check the history. Also, this article should be included in Wikipedia Oklahoma. Thanks:
jcm
Hello. I saw you were volunteering to translate from Japanese. Can you help me evaluate Image:Fake of nanking.jpg and the book it's from, 情報戦「慰安婦・南京」の真実 [12] to determine how reliable a source it is, and of course to translate what the picture says? It's being used as a source in the IfD to prove that the images Image:Trimedfilm battleofchina.jpg and Image:The Buttle of the China2.jpg are not original research. Thanks, nadav ( talk) 22:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I (and maybe User:Stemonitis) would appreciate your comment at User_talk:Stemonitis#British_Raj_move_request_decision on a move request of British Raj. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 18:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi: thanks for asking that question. Unfortunately, I will only be available to answer it properly this afternoon (or, alternatively, around 6 hrs from now). I hope this is okay, and I just wanted to let you know that I had noticed it. Cheers -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 21:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Why was Bengaluru moved back to Bangalore? There was one more vote to keep it at Bengaluru. Reginmund 17:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Your close of the move discussion appears to have been guided solely by procedural nitty-gritties. In doing so, you've literally with a single wave of your hand invalidated a very long and detailed discussion of the move. This, you've done by pointing to an older discussion that is older by almost a year! It is also an insult to all the editors who took part in the extended polling in good faith. Now that you've corrected a wiki-legal anamoly with your hasty and imo, ill advised close of the discussion, do you expect us to open another poll to now 'discuss' moving it back to "Bengaluru"? (My reading of WP:BURO is that this is precisely the kind of bureaucracy that is to be avoided on wikipedia). I request that you read the discussions first, make amendments to your closing remarks and move the article back to Bengaluru (for reasons detailed in the poll discussions and this thread which has come up following your baffling close of the discussion on procedural grounds.
And no, I do not think there is anything 'controversial' about moving it to Bengaluru. If you think there is, please point out what the controversy is. Just because there is a detailed and lengthy discussion, doesnt mean there is controversy. Until now, you havent said anything about the merits of the arguments at all! You've only pointed out procedural details and not much else. Sarvagnya 22:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Sarvagnya 22:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Dekimasu, please reconsider your move and change Bangalore back to Bengaluru. Thanks. Kanchanamala 09:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey Dekimasu, I saw how wonderfully you handled the Lake Heavens RM - I think that you have a very broad & open mind & you are perfectly fitting to be an admin. Could you handle dispute & handle it with neutrality? I personally don't care what the result is as long as you do it. Thanks a lot. ( Wikimachine 22:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC))
![]() |
The Barnstar of Peace | |
This is no bribery but I checked all of your discussion archive & you got only 1 barnstar! Well, there's no written rule that says you've got to have more than, but I'm so impressed with how you dealt the Lake Heavens stuff that I took time to pick an award - which reminded me, the sign of peace that you have on top of your discussion page. Gl. Wikimachine 22:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC) |
Thanks for moving the page (I was the one who suggested it). User:Wmpearl, the page creator, has reverted your edits with no explanation. I think you did the right thing with the move. Would reverting his edits back be appropriate, or discussing on his talk page? Since he gave no indication for his decision (and probably just has a mild case of WP:OWN) I think reverting with an explanation for why on his talk page would be appropriate. What do you think? All the best, ~ Eliz 81 (C) 22:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Dekimasu. The arbitration case in which you commented to has opened. Please provide evidences on the evidence page for the Arbitrators to consider. You may also want to utilize the workshop page for suggestions.
For the Arbitration Committee,
-
Penwhale |
Blast him /
Follow his steps
21:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The first is just WRONG. It violates all the Rules of Style, and is not the way the title is actually written - in pracice. So I'm going to revert your error. We should not re-inforce people's mistakes! Do you understand me?
Contesting proposed deletions: The way to do it is not with a reversion, but with the following Wiki Tag: {{hangon}}. Best, -- Ludvikus 14:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Dekimasu -- You know, I hope, that some of us are doing a major revision of the Manga article. We've been working on it for a month or so, posting lots of notices and invitations on the Manga and Manga/Anime project talk pages. We're working in small steps, adding new sections and removing old ones if there is no objection on the talk pages. You can see the material we're working on now on User Talk: Timothy Perper/Sandbox5.
Fairly soon, we are going to starting on the subsection dealing with the history of manga before World War 2. The draft material we're accumulating has a fair amount of Japanese language material in it, contributed and translated -- thank you, thank you -- by Japanese Wiki editor Kasuga. Much of the material deals with history from the late 1800s (Meiji) up through the 1930s.
Can we ask your assistance with this material? Not merely to confirm the translations, but also to help edit the translation for smoothness. We very much want to keep as much of this material as we can, both out of respect for Kasuga and because we feel it adds substantively to the article.
If you're willing -- and I hope you are -- can you leave a note either here or on the User Talk: Timothy Perper/Sandbox5 page?
Timothy Perper 17:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi.
Rich Farmbrough, 12:59 2 October 2007 (GMT).
i noticed your opposition to renaming the econ prize, and thought you would be interested in knowing that there's another attempt to thwart the will of the community by subterfuge. you might want to check it out and share your views.-- emerson7 16:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I know you're very busy but if you could spare some time, could you please answer my questions at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Page move after no consensus? I don't know any other user who has this as their speciality area. Thanks! –panda 01:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thank you for the canvassing note, i honestly didn't realise there were specific prohibitions against it. i've reverted those i could find regarding another matter. with regard to agf, for weeks i actually believed panda was making good faith efforts until i discovered and understood his tactics at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Page move after no consensus. at some point, it just has to be called. either way, i take your admonitions to heart. cheers. -- emerson7 15:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
emerson7 has been harassing me since I made a change to the Nobel Prize in Chemistry page due to a comment by an anon on its talk page [15] [16]. A quick look at my talk page, emerson7's talk page, Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#Country of record, and Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#RFC: Country – ambiguous or not shows his uncivil comments to me. I don't know if these are enough violations to file a case at WP:WQA or if its even worthwhile. But in the mean time, he has been (1) removing good faith edits by new editors [17] [18], accusing one of them of level 3 vandalism on their first offense [19] and possibly driving away these editors from the project ( Special:Contributions/Pavlina2.0, Special:Contributions/Dwolgel), (2) blaming the script for his reverts, such as "i pushed the wrong button before i could enter explanatory text." [20] or "sometimes the script get confused" [21] and (3) feigning ignorance such as "i'm afraid i don't know what you are referencing" [22] [23] to reverts he did several times [24] [25] [26] [27]. If this person still doesn't know how to use the scripts after having used them for over 6 months, can WP not allow them to use the scripts? He has been warned that using rollbacks in content disputes is not acceptable [28] [29] but continues to do it anyway, such as during his edit war with me [30] [31]. emerson7 also has a tendency to use the blanket edit summary "copyediting" or "cleanup" when he does include an edit summary. These don't say anything and are about as useful as not adding an edit summary. Sometimes, they're simply misleading, not necessarily incorrect. But I don't know if that actually violates any WP policy.
Should this case go to WP:WQA or some other venue? It's mostly a lot of small violations to different (newer) users and nothing that I can see as being any single serious violation. –panda 15:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
If you didn't already check:
Please check the histories of the editors you choose to defend and accuse before doing so!
...And if you've taken the time to read this far, thank you for your patience in actually reading my frustrations with the system. :)
–panda 00:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Re: your closing comments to Talk:Nobel Prize in Economics#Requested move, a rewording may be appropriate. Note: I'm not challenging your decision, but I do think your comments need additional clarification.
Re: Nobel Prize in Economics, Nobel Prize, and User:Vision Thing
–panda 17:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Comments about your closing comments to the RFC? –panda 03:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)
Reword your closing statement to the RM then if you now understand that "stable" can be thrown out. If you wanted to avoid this entire discussion, you could have simply said that the RM is from the current title instead of stating that it is from the "established" title, which you then further defined to be the "stable" title, both of which haven't been shown to be true in this case. –panda 03:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu. I guess we need some help on the Talk: Nobel Prize page. I'm going to stay away from the page for a while, since I've completely lost patience with –panda. But I would appreciate it if you could take a look at what is going on there, and give us some advice. I'm asking you since I know that –panda respects you, since he has previously sought out your opinion. Thanks. -- Anthon.Eff 02:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
While you're at it, could you please take a look at the Nobel Prize page? At 17:34, 9 October 2007 User:Vision Thing did a complete revert of 17 edits (made by several different editors) [48] for unexplained reasons. Asking him why he reverted 17 edits on his talk page hasn't generated much of a response. He has selectively replaced some of the text and very few of the references, including reintroducing references that did not support the statements they referred to. I may also ask another admin for comments on this as I know you're very busy and this has already taken up a lot of your time. –panda 18:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
i don't know exactly what the procedure is, so i was wondering if you could assist with the discussion at Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry regarding bringing a close to the polling that has gone on for the better part of a month. -- emerson7 15:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Samulili, you stated that you were striking your oppose !vote, however I believe you may have inadvertently left yourself in the list which will still count as an oppose. I have fixed the formatting based on what I believe is your intent. Please revert my edit if I misunderstood. Ronnotel 13:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks できます, for your participation in my Editor review. Your feedback has been very helpful in my recent edits. Once again, Thanks! -- Hirohisat 紅葉 07:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu. Would you mind taking a look at the move request at Kayqubad I and its associated pages? Many editors have posted opinions, and we would appreciate your disinterested perspective on whether it is time to wrap things up. Thanks. Aramgar 22:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you move this page for us?
Thanks, WikiDon 17:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Oops, you got it slightly wrong: "It has been proposed below that Kilian Ignac Dientzenhofer be renamed and moved to Kilian Ignaz Dientzenhofer." [49] You deleted (07:37, 19 October 2007 Dekimasu (Talk | contribs) deleted "Kilian Ignaz Dientzenhofer" (deletion to make way for page move)) to make way, but then moved to Kilian Ignac Dientzenhofer, though. -- Matthead discuß! O 05:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Venetian Ceruse was the first title, then it was moved to Venetian ceruse without discussion, it is not possible to MOVE everything back once an article has been created unless the editor is an administrator. As you are an administrator, please MOVE everything back to the original article Venetian Ceruse as this is the correct capitalization, thank you. Chessy999 06:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I see what you mean. Unfortunately, we can't assume that everyone who links to legendarium in the future will be talking about the Tolkien term. What is needed is for a bot to go through the 1000+ Tolkien articles that link to legendarium, and change the links to point to Tolkien's legendarium. Then it should be OK to change legendarium to redirect to legendary (disambiguation). Would that work? Carcharoth 14:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Dekimasu, I'm out of town, with a really bad web connection and probably no connection for the next few days. I've been frustrated by User:Nitsirk's POV edits on some of the education articles (for example, Nitsirk believes there are no disadvantages to mainstreaming any disabled student into a regular classroom except lack of money), and with the Talk:Grade retention proposal, I'm starting to suspect a sockpuppeteer. There are precious few edits by Nitsirk's supporters. Could you possibly look into whether User:Yasdnil and User:Refinnej are coming from the same place? It's the fairly distinctive language patterns that make me curious. Looking at Talk:Alternative high school, where Yasdnil proposes moving (well, merging) an article that Nitsirk has edited heavily might also be worthwhile. I'm sorry that I can't manage to deal with this myself, but I'm not even sure that my link will stay up long enough to leave you this note. Thanks for considering it, WhatamIdoing 22:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Mine was not all opinion. Grade retention is too restrictive! It doesn't include students in college and beyond. Repeater is better because it is the more general term. I told my friends to sign on wikipedia to support me. Why can't I do that? Just as long as they agree with me. I know it's not a ballot. They gave reasons for why they chose support. How much do they need to put down? And I did removed your comment because it was in the wrong place. I placed it under the discussion part. -- Nitsirk 11:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
How come you oppose the title? Grade retention is horrible. I gave you the reasons and you still oppose. How come grade retention is better? It's too restrictive. -- Nitsirk 11:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Please respond to me! I know you are on. -- Nitsirk 11:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
What's taking you so long to respond? I don't have all day. -- Nitsirk 11:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree 100% that the user in question is a sockpuppet of Jessica Liao. The editing pattern and prose patterns are identical. Blocked. Thanks for the heads up! -- Bradeos Graphon 16:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Yep, that seems to be Jessica Liao all right, same spread of articles, same patterns, even the three little periods she uses to punctuate...her edit summaries. Blocked. Cheers! -- Bradeos Graphon ( talk) 14:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a moment to advise me on the next step in the proposal to move Dub? I suggested it thinking it would not be controversial (silly me), and it was contested. You moved the discussion to Talk: Dub, where it has continued, but I'm not sure how to decide whether I can re-request a move. I seem to have solid support from at least one other editor, who has included some basis for his position. The rest of the responses are opinions about the meaning of the word which those particular editors are most familiar with, which isn't really the same as a good reason for or against a move. I'm still a bit of a newbie as far as procedures go, and I appreciate the tone and level of your contributions, so I thought you could help me figure out how to determine consensus. Thanks! SlackerMom 15:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu, I've noticed your name in the disamb w/ links project removing links to disam pages. I've been doing this also, lately, but I really screwed one up and I'm hoping you can go in as admin and rollback my mistakes. I inadvertently redirected Orlando to Orlando 9disambiguation), meaning of course to type Orlando (disambiguation). I've royally screwed this up and it gets worse every time I try to repair my mistakes. I'm getting dizzy. Any help you can offer is of course much appreciated. Keeper | 76 17:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I have clarified my wordings on question 5 of my RfA. Please read my clarifications to see if you wish to switch your stance. Thank you. OhanaUnited Talk page 18:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Dekimasu. I was going to close the move discussion at Talk:Estonian pirates, but found myself deeply divided on whether to close as a no consensus or as a move, since the arguments and sources provided by the move side seem to be sound. You're an experienced "move-closer" as well so I decided to ask you and another admin a second opinion. So, if you can spare the time, could you please have a look and tell me how do you think you would you close this one? Thank you. Hús ö nd 04:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for voting at my RfA. Unfortunately, the result stands at 51 support, 21 oppose and 7 neutral which means that I did not succeed. As many expressed their appreciation of my works in featured portals during my RfA, I will fill up the vacuum position of director in featured portal candidates to maintain the standards of featured contents in addition to my active role in Good articles. Have a great day. OhanaUnited Talk page 04:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The most recent edit to this article contains vandalism. Would you mind removing that? Just64helpin ( talk) 13:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to you at Talk:Jallianwala Bagh massacre and I appreciate your thought put into RMs. Please comment if you care at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves where I posted your comments.
Also, based on your interest in Japan, do you have a comment on this?
— AjaxSmack 07:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Why did you change the article title? There wasn't a vote, merely an inconclusive discussion. Colin4C ( talk) 12:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Please, see my post on the Balti talk page and explain yourself. Thank you. Moldopodo ( talk) 20:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo
User:Neelix pointed out that it was the Japanese thing that prompted you to tagged the page with {{
NPOV}}
. I fixed it already and please share your thoughts on the talk page to have a better collaboration. P.S. It's my first try to have a good article nominee. Thank you. --
βritandβeyonce (
talk•
contribs)
03:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm looking for a techie who can reboot this project (i.e. generate a new set of lists from the latest database dump showing templates which contain redlinks). Can you do this? Cheers! bd2412 T 03:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Hiya. Annoymous Dissidents comment at talk just got me worried - I'm not disagreeing with you at all, I think the point you've raised is really valuable, and I'm just trying to thrash it through! Cheers. Pedro : Chat 09:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
No, somebody just hijacked the shortcut. Hiding T 15:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, now completed the move task, feel free to close the move discussion. Willirennen ( talk) 01:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for fixing the On the Origin of Species page. I am the one who originally started the request for the name correction. Now I want ask you if it is the right time to take the dispute tag off Nur Ali Elahi. It has been on it for a very long time and most of the users agree the name should remain "Nur Ali Elahi".-- Persianhistory2008 ( talk) 10:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that but everytime I try to move it it tells me it is a protected page and I can't. How do I get it unprotected. Butch-cassidy ( talk) 20:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu. Per your suggestion, I posted my rationale for having Doug Parker link to the Doug Parker disabmiguation page, rather than to the airline exec's article. Thanks for looking at it. - Anirvan ( talk) 06:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I will put up Fall (disambig) for WP:RM so we can discuss this. Talk:Fall (disambiguation)#Requested move. Simply south ( talk) 12:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear Sir,
I was wondering if you would be interested in helping with a dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_allegation_of_child_sexual_abuse The section in question is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_allegation_of_child_sexual_abuse#False_allegations_of_sexual_abuse_in_childhood We need someone neutral that is well versed in wikipedia policies. If you aren't able to, would you be able to suggest someone else. Abuse truth ( talk) 02:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
You wrote " The result was no consensus to move the page to James D. Watson", but i think you meant to write there is no consensus to move the page to James Watson. I was going to change it but thought it might be better if you do it. David D. (Talk) 15:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey Dekimasu, There is a rather interesting discussion going on here. I think that your opinion might be helpful in reaching a consensus/compromise. Cheers — Cronholm 144 20:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
You are right, I should have mentioned this to Husond. If anyone had asked, I would have said he would notice; after all, both the talk page and WP:RM are presumably on his watch list.
As you can see, he has indeed noticed, and speedy closed the new discussion. I am non-trivially annoyed at this, and have brought it up at WP:ANI#User:Husond. Admins are supposed to implement consensus, not interfere with it being reached. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
---|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. If you decide to use mine (or someone else's) I suggest you give a history link to a specific version like Cacharoth did. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you. |
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s, "B"s and "C" having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "D"s, "E"s and "F"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) ++ Lar: t/ c 18:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
In the past you took part in a discussion about the name of the emperors of Japan. This discussion has just opened again (once again!). You are free to express your opinion here. Thanks Švitrigaila ( talk) 16:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your participation in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate that landed on WP:100, but ultimately was deemed a successful declaration of consensus, and I am now an admin. I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, carefully double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools, with my main goals being to help out with various backlogs. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. :) I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. Have a good new year, -- El on ka 00:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I've posted a reply to your comments at my RfA. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ( Converse) 23:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Deki. Sorry to bother you at your user page, but, the whole debate over it has now become toxic. Agreement seems to be heading towards Iassy-Kishinev Offensive or Jassy or Yassy. (With Iassy being the previous name before an undiscussed move, Jassy-Kishinev Offensive receiving the most google book hits and yassy being the ISO-9 standard transliteration, I believe). The only reason I take the unusual step of asking you to come in and close down the discussion is that now we have people forking off the article ( Yassy-Kishinev Offensive Operation) and the talk page has descended into what I can only call a farce. There has not been meaningful discussion for a few days now. Narson ( talk) 02:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
My request for adminship was successful at 64/1/2! Many thanks for your participation and I will endeavor to meet your expectations. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ( Converse) 09:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Could use your help here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_Brothers_101_Ranch
The original author seems to insist on her original (and incomplete) version.
All the additions that I have offered have been deleted. All were from legitimate sources. Check the history.
Also, this article should be included in Wikipedia Oklahoma.
Thanks:
jcm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcmcapital ( talk • contribs) 01:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
On January 15, User:Espoo moved the article Spiritualism to Spiritualism (religious movement). The move had not been discussed, and at least three of us who have contributed heavily to the article ( User:Anthon.Eff, User:Nihil novi, and User:Tom Butler) have objected to the move. Unfortunately, User:Espoo has edited the article Spiritualism, putting in a few dictionary definitions that he thought important. Now, all of the hundreds of links in other articles to Spiritualism go to a stub, and the reader has no way of knowing that the link was intended to go to the original Spiritualism article.
The Spiritualism article (now Spiritualism (religious movement)) had just completed a GA review when User:Espoo did the move, and now all of the energy that should have been spent on meeting the reviewer's suggestions has been dissipated on the talk page.
User:Espoo has one supporter, User:Lucyintheskywithdada. Both have some history (we all do, I guess, but for what it is worth here is something about them). She is User:Lwachowski, an indefinitely blocked user, under another name. Her earlier problems are documented here. I find myself unable to communicate with her. User:Espoo has a history of doing moves without notice. On December 13, he moved the article Spiritism to Kardecist spiritism, without any discussion. Editors were able to move it back, because Spiritism contained only a redirect. Our problem is more complicated, because Spiritualism has been converted to a stub.
I was very much impressed at your calm and objectivity in dealing with the fight over renaming Nobel prize in economics. So you came to mind as the person who could perhaps help us out here. -- Anthon.Eff ( talk) 17:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu,
Whenever you have time, could you take a look at my comment regarding downloading CorHomo?
Thanks, Adrian J. Hunter( talk• contribs) 14:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC) ps. watashi mo dekimasu yo! :-)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Astro Empires. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Butch-cassidy ( talk) 23:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yo you might want to check your userpage on the Japanese Wikipedia once in a while. There'd been vandalism there since December. - SpuriousQ ( talk) 01:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Your close of the English Defense move request was a bad mistake. Not only did you go against the clear consensus on the page, but your reasoning is fatally flawed. First, there are eight supports (counting the editor who requested the move) against two opposes. Calling this "in dispute" is bizarre—only a unanimous response in favor of the move would satisfy the bar you've set. Second, your goal of reducing the amount of time spent over discussing the naming of the page will not be met by a bad "no consensus" close. If the page were moved the discussion would be over forever. By not moving the page, you ensure that this will come up again. I have to say I'm really disappointed in what seems to me to be very poor judgment on this. Quale ( talk) 05:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Please note that on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves, I suggested re-adding a move request to WP:RM about the move of Lake of Gruyère/ Lac de la Gruyère in one way or the other.
The text you pasted on Talk:Lake of Gruyère ( [57]) doesn't make much sense there and confuses things further, as Rarelibra already kept deleting part of the discussion ( diff) and a question of mine there ( diff). Maybe you could repair that for me.
Obviously, I can't prevent rarelibra from posting the same stuff everywhere, but it shouldn't mean that my text has to be moved along. -- User:Docu
Thanks for the tip about Soho — I added that and mentioned the other similar moves at each RM section. — AjaxSmack 01:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd appreciate a comment to the reply I left. Thanks! PC78 ( talk) 15:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you closed the move of Lake Chiem to Chiemsee, and that Lake IJssel has been correctly moved to IJsselmeer pe WP:UE. Taking into account the arguments there, at WT:RM#Lakes and User_talk:Neil/Archive_23#Lake_names could you have a look at the similar moves here? These moves were made in good faith, but (with the exception of Lake of Gruyère) do not at all represent English-language use (see evidence at Talk:Chiemsee) and were completely undiscussed and unsourced. I feel a return to the status quo ante is the most appropriate given the large number of articles and the contentiousness if the moves. Knepflerle ( talk) 11:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
How precisely is this a no consensus? The "reply" merely points out a policy under which I am claiming this qualified as an exception! Relata refero ( talk) 13:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Dekimasu, thank you for taking part in
my RfB. As you may know, it was
not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight.
I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community.
I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :)
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to
call me out. ~
Riana ⁂
13:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Dekimasu. I know my RfB is well finished, but I wondered if I could ask if you could elaborate on your oppose on my RfB. My RfA was a year ago yesterday - I didn't comment much regarding the copyright violations because it was an honest mistake, but a very legitimate concern and felt it best I didn't defend myself and instead allowed people to comment solely with a negative outlook. I did make a statement on my RfA talk page stating that I'd fixed all the problems and that I would happily look at anything else. I certainly wasn't hiding away because it was going to pass - there were a number of times I was about to withdraw because I felt the opposes were strong and I shouldn't be an admin, but I decided to carry on and not offer an explanation, quite simply because there wasn't one - I thought before my rfa I was helping the project. Now, down to business - I just wondered exactly how you felt that would effect my ability to be a bureaucrat? It was long in the past, and when I was actually still new on the project - I have evolved a hell of a lot from that point in time and am very different from my RfA. I was a little puzzled why something that happened when I was relatively new on Wikipedia, and that happened a long time ago would affect how I would perform bureaucrat tasks when they had very little relevance to the tools. I look forward to your response, take care, Ryan Postlethwaite 03:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. - J Greb ( talk) 22:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that a page I deemed useful and informative, Silent protagonist had been deleted after an AfD I missed. According to WP:WMD, if one wants to put a copy of the deleted article into their own User: namespace, they should contact an administrator to retrieve a copy. So I'm asking you. :) Thank you for your response in advance. -- Bisqwit ( talk) 11:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi Dekimasu/Archive1! Thank you for your
support in my RfA (87/3/3).
|
Please take a look at what is going on with the article on Bangalore. I guess you'll remember the Bangalore/Bengaluru business from a few months ago. It has surfaced again. On March 9, someone suggested that the article should be moved to "Bengaluru" (which was perfectly alright, in itself, of course). On March 31 someone else agreed, a relative handful of supporters piled on and before 24 hours had passed the page was moved to "Bengaluru". Then a further edit to the redirecting "Bangalore" page rendered the move irreversible by ordinary editors.
Given the long-running controversy over this, I think the page-move did not get proper discussion this time around, and was executed without what anyone could reasonably suppose was consensus. Please restore the page to "Bangalore". --
Lonewolf BC (
talk)
17:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, what made you edit the Paul Hastings law firm web page? curzon@cominganarchyy.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curzon ( talk • contribs) 04:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Doing my nightly rounds through WP:RM and came across something I'd appreciate your input on. Once again, a request to move CFL (disambiguation) → CFL has come along, and as you closed the last request last July, I thought you might have more of a background for this one (granted, one of many move requests you've participated in, but who knows). Thanks! JPG-GR ( talk) 06:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Why did you close this as no move? There was no opposition to the move; one comment from an IP providing no reasons doesn't count.
Your closing summary said 'sex not ambiguous', which is absurd - the word 'sex' most often refers to sexual behavior in modern English. The way, the truth, and the light ( talk) 08:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for resolving the flags of Gibraltar issue, could I ask you to have a look at the six pages which were renamed from 'Gibraltar' to 'Gibraltarian'
Where a similar argument applies to elections and referenda.
They comprise
which are wrong
uses the correct wording (see official poster on page)
-- Gibnews ( talk) 20:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
If you will notice, in my FIRST revert of your changes to the media section, I noted that it had been done per a talk page discussion. You are the one who continued reverting instead of going to the discussion that had already agreed that the List of Bleach media was inappropriate and needed to be merged back in properly per the MoS. Please stop changing the media section, which is now in a more proper format per the MoS and the consensus of the project as to how that section should be formatted. If you disagree with its contents, please just join the discussion instead of continuing to undo the start of much needed work on the article. AnmaFinotera ( talk) 07:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm just writing to you to request your help and assistance in referencing the Japanese Music Charts. Through out alot of popular english songs I have viewed I have noticed that they have been noted as performing well in Japan and have also read that the Japanese music market it very big. But in saying this every song I have seen has not got a Japanese chart position in the charts box. So if you are into music and willing to try and provide information on the Japanese Music Charts it would be greatly appreciated so then wikipedia users can start adding the Japanese chart positions into the chart boxes for popular songs. TeePee-20.7 ( talk) 04:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed that you had added the clean-up tag on this article, and with good reason too. I have now removed the primary text and have put in descriptions and references. I have also removed the clean-up tag. Hoping this is fine. Prashanthns ( talk) 12:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'm dropping you a line because you were previously interested in this topic - please see [ [63]]. Thanks DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered ( talk) 19:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of that WP:RM. Aille ( talk) 17:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu! You handled the previous discussions on the title name for the Seljuk sultan. I drafted a third move request in Talk:Kayqubad I, in small letters for the moment, before putting forward the actual request. I will be pleased if you could take a look and comment on the argumentation and the wording if and as you may judge appropriate. Regards. Cretanforever ( talk) 02:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in on the RFA--I will do everything I can to uphold the policies of this site, and try to make it a better place. All the comments, questions, and in particular the opposes I plan to work on and learn from, so that I can hopefully always do the right thing with the huge trust given to me. rootology ( C)( T) 08:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | ![]() |
See your meta talk page. Prodego talk 02:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Just a note to say that I fully agree with your closure of the RM. The creation of the disambig page solved the problem. Mjroots ( talk) 12:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, We've had a request to allow AWB to use your tool for list building purposes. Is it possible for you to provide an API/xml output for the results. A parameter like &format=xml or similar would be great.
Thanks!
— Ree dy 18:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:NALBUMS is in regard to album articles, not their mention in other articles, nor does it really cover serial type works. If it were a ordinary soundtrack, its mention would be fine, however as it is part of a series, just as with the manga volumes and DVD releases, we generally stayed that "As of X, Y have been released" without saying "and Z will be released in a month". The only time we generally note future release dates is in an actual table/list rather than summary prose. Your changing the MoS like this reads a bit snarky and was an inappropriate change. If you disagreed with the removal, a discussion on the article talk page would have been a much more appropriate place to voice this. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 02:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I notice that you are listed on: Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles.
I am requesting 6 articles which were deleted then redirected to be userfied, :):
From: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 15
Can you please move all 6 pages to my userspace, with the history intact (I am interested in who created the article, and when).
I really appreciate it. You are probably wondering why I ask. Well, I have spent my weekend on a graph found here: User:Ikip/AfD on average day. I am interested in what type of user gets their page deleted, etc....November 15 is just a day pulled out of a hat by another user.
Thanks :) Ikip ( talk) 01:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
It seems that several of the pages you put under "Done" still have many incoming links, especially the ones you did on Feb.3. See for instance Special:WhatLinksHere/Clerval. Can you have a look? Perhaps some of these should be moved back to To Do. Thanks for your work, -- KarlFrei ( talk) 10:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Dear Dekimasu,
I saw what you wrote in Tú y yo article history. It's not an unique case, but I think it deserves special attention for all the articles involved.
According to Spanish Royal Academy's Orthography rules, only the first element goes with initial upper case in every artistical work (book, musical piece, magazine, film, song, etc.)
I also commented it on the Wikipedia Music Project talk page, twice, but never and nobody has given me an answer. I think, although artists may not be aware of the official spelling rules, in an encyclopedia we must keep them in the correct form.
Regards, -- El Mexicano ( talk) 20:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Dekimasu, I had my post deleted for what was called "blatant advertisement," which was not my intention at all. How can I change it to a legitimate wikipedia entry? What can I include and what should I omit? Thanks! Rebecca —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebes74 ( talk • contribs) 15:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I thought your speedy deletion of the page was uncalled for. We don't have a policy when it comes to curling articles, and since I am the main contributor when it comes to curling, I've sort of come up with guidelines when it comes to notability. The curler in question is a member of the World Curling Tour, which I would definitely ascertain as a top level in the sport, however it's not really a significant accomplishment per se. Going to the provincial championship certainly is, considering curling's popularity in Canada. I would liken Gardiner as an equivalent to perhaps an lower NHL player, in terms of significance for the sport. I hope this has helped. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Queens_College&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.21.50 ( talk • contribs)
You recently deleted the article Methionylglutaminylarginyl...serine citing G4 as the reason. The deletion logs show only your deletion and none about a listing on AFD or a discussion for deletion. Is it possible that this was deleted in error? If not can you put up the deletion log?-- Ted-m ( talk) 00:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
hmm... well, I was going by http://www.google.com/search?q=Lini+Simmons&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official which gives 0 results related to the subject. However, you are correct that it's not an obvious hoax (I read what it said incorrectly). My apologies for deleting it. Thingg ⊕ ⊗ 04:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, it's pretty obvious to me, considering the notices and warning on the creators talk page, that this is a non-notable advertisement of a business. I have no issues with the decline of the speedy but have now put it up for a prod deletion instead. Thanks fr33k man -s- 05:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu. Now I'm interested in your name. Dekimasu sounds "Yes we can!".
Aside from this, look revision history of Tokugawa Ieyasu, the article was vandalised countless times by multiple unknown IPs. Please semi-protect Tokugawa Ieyasu.-- Bukubku ( talk) 08:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
... for catching my mistake. I tagged a few redirects for speedy deletion. Due to the non-Latin characters the author used they looked like no context / vandalism to me. The titles were rendered as "???" on my screen. I'm glad you figured out what was really happening and that you removed my tags.
SIS
22:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Concerning the Amur (disambiguation) page, no issues with what you did, except the writer, as many users look for people by their last name. speednat ( talk) 07:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, well done! Johnbod ( talk) 04:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed you created/restored the redirect from South Korean to South Korea, and placed the dablink on South Korea. I'm just wondering if you could clarify the rationale for that? Personally I don't really care one way or the other, but some people have been warring over it (removing the dablink from South Korea, and having South Korean be a disambiguation page) with the rationale that that is how other such pages work (like North Korean, Chinese, British, and what have you)...would it be better to do that, or was there a good reason for setting it up the way it is now?
Thanks, rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 05:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out if this http://journal.mycom.co.jp/column/ebook/077/ is a personal blog or if it is a review of The Manzai Comics from a respected publication. I can't tell who wrote the article and/or if he/she is a staff member of the website. Do you know if this website is a reviewer or if its something else? WhisperToMe ( talk) 07:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Japan#Is_this_a_column_from_a_respected_publication.2C_or_is_this_a_personal_blog.3F Mantokun looked at that link, and he says it is from "MYCOM Journal" of Mainichi Communications, which is an established company. He can't tell if the writer, On Ichii was a staff or a freelance. But if Mycom published it, would this make it an RS? Would this help satisfy the requirement for notability? WhisperToMe ( talk) 13:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Slakr's Slam Dunk Award For maintaining awesome cool, being completely professional, showing excellent judgment, and basically scoring a slam dunk (in my eyes) while dealing with a hot-tempered user on User talk:Amyseekuif, I hereby award you your very own slam dunk. Use it wisely. Don't waste it on schoolyard pickup games: save it for that game-winning, send-'em-packing moment. :P Heh, anyway, keep up the great work, and cheers =) -- slakr\ talk / 12:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC) |
Well, the situation was rectified on the same day with no harm done, so it's really not that big of a deal at this point. As for the questions, I do not think they are at all combative. I am happy to answer any questions regarding WP:RUSSIA's activities—they are a part of the collaborative process, so there is no need to apologize. I will post a reply to WT:DPL later today. Cheers,—
Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (
yo?); 15:11, February 27, 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Feel free to borrow the blimp :) It is still in mint condition.—
Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (
yo?); 15:11, February 27, 2009 (UTC)
Kindly explain your edits to this template a little further, so that I can understand the basis for the "de-link" of names of chakras from the articles. Thanks. VasuVR ( talk, contribs) 16:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
I've noticed your edits on pages relating to the sport of
Sumo. We encourage you to join
WikiProject Sumo where we are working to expand, improve, and standardize all articles related to sumo on Wikipedia. If you would like more information on what needs to be done, please visit the project page. If you have any questions, please feel free join the discussion on our talk page |
XinJeisan ( talk) 21:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB ( talk) 17:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu! Unfortunately I don't have much knowledge on the subject, and don't have sources on it either. The Hebrew Wikipedia doesn't have such an article. Basically the most prominent modern Hebrew poet by far was Haim Nahman Bialik. Other major figures include Shaul Tchernihovsky, Avraham Shlonsky, Natan Alterman, Rachel (poet), Leah Goldberg, Uri Tzvi Greenberg, etc. More recent poets include Natan Yonatan and Natan Zach. I can give you a translation of the Hebrew section for modern poetry from the Hebrew poetry article if you wish, and possibly write a short stub to that effect later, although it's better if some sources are found first. Cheers, Ynhockey ( Talk) 01:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The modern Hebrew poetry was pioneered by Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, and it was developed by the Haskalah movements, that saw poetry as the most quality genre for Hebrew writing. The first Haskalah poet, who heavily influenced the later poets, was Naphtali Hirz Wessely, at the end of the 18th Century, and after him came Shalom HaCohen, Max Letteris, Abraham Dob Bär Lebensohn, his son Micah Joseph, Judah Leib Gordon and others. The Haskalah poetry was greatly influenced by the contemporary European poetry, as well as the poetry of the previous ages, especially Biblical poetry, but was not able to make significant innovations. It was mostly a didactic form of poetry, and dealt with the world, the public, and the contemporary trends, and did not cater to the individual or the soul. In the age after the Haskalah, the prominent poets were Hovevei Zion, including for example Naftali Herz Imber, who wrote HaTikva.
The revolution of Hebrew poetry was ushered in the last decade of the 19th Century by Haim Nahman Bialik and Shaul Tchernihovsky. They let go of the genre principles that were widely accepted at their time, and began writing personal poems, about the human being and the soul. In the national revival period, many arose as the literary heirs to Bialik, in various genres. In the 1920s and 30s, the weight of the Hebrew poetry moved from Europe to the Land of Israel. Women became prominent poets ( Yokheved Bat Miryam, Esther Ra'av, Rachel and others), and an expressionist genre developed (especially Uri Zvi Greenberg and David Fogel). In the 1930s and 40s, a neo-symbolic style emerged as well, in Avraham Shlonsky, then Natan Alterman, and then the Palmach age. In the 1950s, the "State of Israel age" was active and rebelled against the style of Shlonsky and Alterman, with the poets Natan Zakh, David Avidan, Yehuda Amihai and Dalya Ravikovich. Along with these, there was a line of religious poets, such as Yosef Zvi Rimon, Zelda, and the religious generation of the end of the 20th Century.
Thanks for taking those NA's out - appreciated - Satu Suro 05:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I was surprised to see you closed Talk:Little Englander#Move? as "no consensus"; my reading of the debate seems to suggest there was a reasonable consensus in favour of no move. Shouldn't the closing comment reflect this, per the recently closed Talk:Michael Van Patrick#Requested move for example? -- Rogerb67 ( talk) 11:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
As a heads up, I have restored this article. If you have kids and live in the US, you would know that this is a very high profile award. I've also added references to third-party sources to establish the notability. じゃあね~ howcheng { chat} 17:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
CheckUser has confirmed that User:Academiic (and User:Deskaheed, as it turns out) are the most recent socks for Jessica Liao. The case is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jessica Liao. You were the last admin to block one of her socks; if you get this message in the next few days, perhaps you'd like to consider these two new ones, as well. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 06:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
— harej ( talk) 20:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I saw this when going through the RM backlog; as an admin, you don't need to place the speedy tag before deleting it.-- Aervanath ( talk) 13:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know exactly WHY you would go about deleting my entries on both Outer Space Entertainment AND about founder Jay Luciano. This seems to be the work of someone with disregard towards Hip-Hop and the Hip-Hop community, and that is not a valid reason for deletion. A mass of people have requested more information about the label, and Google reports the name being searched in the month of April over 100'000 times. If you sir, do not find that of substantial reason enough to restore the page, i can only see the reason fitting to be a lack of knowledge towards the subject and a strong distaste for Hip-Hop and it's community. Outer Space is becoming a strong force in the music industry, and your deletion of the page will only cause an uproar on wikipedia by fans such as myself. I've noticed you have made many contributions to wikipedia, which you deserve outstanding credit for but as far as your dismissal of Outer Space Entertainment and it's accomplishments is insulting to the many fans across North America and Europe. Please inform us what other than your obvious distaste of rap music and it's pioneers would cause you take such disrespectful actions. If you ever visited South Florida (Miami and it's surroundings), you would be familiarized with Outer Space and Luciano's work on the radio. For an Independent record label founded by one person to receive mainstream success in under a year is far from not being important and worthy of an article.
Sincerly, Benjamin Chase -New York, NY Jayluciano ( talk) 15:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, at Talk:No_Nonsense#Move.3F, I have a small doubt about one sentence. A simple "yes" or "no" would suffice. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 18:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Re: the recent discussion to move the article from Shirley Temple to Shirley Temple Black, seven people opposed or strongly opposed the proposal, while only two supported it, yet you determined "the result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page." Can you explain why you feel there was "no consensus" when seven out of nine opinions supported keeping the article as is? Thank you! LiteraryMaven ( talk • contrib) 18:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I reverted your move of Tropical Storm Nicholas (2003), as, in general, all non-retired storms should have the year disambiguation per project standards. Regards, – Juliancolton | Talk 02:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
You recently denied my request for a-7 on Quaternary Recovery, and given the facts at the time I think you made the right decision. Since then, I decided to help fix it. The article has taken an interesting turn, as you can see from the talk page. I'd like to mentor the new user into a future contributor to Wikipedia. But I may need some help. Would you be willing to lend a helping hand? Or am I just a silly optimist?-- Work permit ( talk) 04:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to request a temporary review. Could you please send me the deleted articles? I intended to add them to another wiki today. Also, I added these pages to provide context for the CDP Server page and include R1Soft on the list of proprietary Backup software. I feel like the description of company and product was very objective, no words like "affordable" or other promotional words were used. Was it the brief history section?
Just trying to understand so I can learn how to create a more accepted and useful page.
Looking forward to your response
Jenlynne ( talk) 15:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this is my first article so this explanation has been helpful. Thanks! Jenlynne ( talk) 16:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that your routine move makes a bad situation worse. Please reverse it and help fix the growing mess.
Before it was even over, Dbachmann violated the severally-declared snow Keep consensus of a "Christian cult" AfD. Here's my full explanation: [64] [65]
Dbachmann has a personal POV objection to the article's notable, consensed title (not the first time: "...no consensus to support move"). He misused his tools to force implemention of his POV (not the first time: WP:RFAR/Dbachmann: "Dbachmann is reminded to avoid using his administrative tools in editorial disputes in which he is personally involved...").
Please restore the classic article's currently unconsensed title to the consensus title "Christian cult" as approved by AfD Keep, then restore the "Christian cult" article to its original referenced condition [66] before Dbachmann overlayed it with unreferenced text (disguised by heavy wikilinking) – by transfering his overlay text [67] to a stub with the title "Christian new religious movements". (Please reply here if desired) Milo 16:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I do not have any "pov" in this, and I resent the passing implication that I do. It is beyond me what my "pov" is even supposed to be. My involvement here is entirely dedicated to WP:NAME. The primary meaning of the string "Christian cult" is Christian religious ceremony. The low-brow meaning of "cult" as "zomg evil psycho-sect" has notability, but it cannot be treated as the primary meaning and needs to be properly disambiguated, and needs to be classified under Category:Pejoratives just like our Nigger article. Wikipedia doesn't call religious movements "cults" any more than it calls people "niggers", it simply reports quotable sources that call something a "cult". -- dab (𒁳) 07:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
"...a user with whom I have never interacted before..." Dbachmann/dab has a faulty memory. Here is a list of seven posts in which we collectively interacted well prior to the Christian cult AfD, 23 May 2009:
I am really not that interested, but I would like to see one reliable source that refers to Kanye West as "Kanye" apart from his mother. I work in the music industry and I have never heard of anyone refer to him as plain "Kanye". Disambiguation seems more appropriate given that in it is a popular/common name in at least one region of the world. We don't have other common names go straight to an individual - try Mark, Peter or John, or more relevantly, even Madonna. Mfield ( Oi!) 21:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu,
We understand that you deleted the article we set up about Donna Meistrich. The reason given was: (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject).
Donna is the co-creator of an up-coming television show called Tacky People. They currently run teasers on their website. She practices various art forms professionally and has worked with the biggest names in Hollywood. These facts are mentioned in the article to highlight her significance. As part our marketing campaign for the launch of the new show, we set up Donna's Wikipedia entry. It is our opinion that Donna is at least as significant as some of the other people with bios on wikipedia. In all fairness, we request you to reconsider deleting her article.
Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolfalmao ( talk • contribs) 05:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Two editors expressed their concerns with the notability of the article, including User:Magnius, who suggested that it be deleted. I reviewed this deletion request and did not find a significant claim of notability. Wikipedia:Notability shows our basic standards for inclusion. In general, an article should show that the topic has been covered to a significant extent in reliable, third-party sources. The major claim made by the article which you submitted is that Ms. Meistrich is one of the creators of a program that has yet to be aired. This makes it unlikely that such sources are readily available at this time. You can try to write another article that contained such sources if they are available to you. However, I would advise against that as well, because you have implied that the article was related to a marketing campaign, which indicates that you may have a conflict of interest as pertains to the article in question. It is certainly possible that when the show airs, a Wikipedia editor may find the subject to be notable and write an article on it.
I have another suggestion as well. You inserted many, many external links into the article. At first glance, they might have been seen as attempts at citation; however, you were in actuality only inserting external links to the things themselves. For example, you said that Ms. Meistrich has worked with Harley Davidson. Adding an external link to the Harley Davidson website does not help us verify that statement. Unsourced statements are strongly discouraged by our policy on biographies of living people. Other links appeared designed to drive traffic to the "Tacky People" site, which is strongly discouraged if you are involved with the program, and can even be considered spam. Dekimasu よ! 13:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for pitching in at Judicial Review. However, the changes you're making are conflicting with the goals we set out on the discussion page at Judicial Review. We decided to create independent pages for each country, and I'm in the process of doing that now. If you'd like to propose an alternative, please mention it at the discussion page. thanks. Agradman ( talk) 03:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I saw this. If there's no objections to the move, then just go ahead and do it. If there's no other participation in the discussion, it likely means that no one else cares, so you can treat it as uncontroversial. Cheers, -- Aervanath ( talk) 17:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
While you are correct about the team still being active (I didn't read the article just looked at the IBL's website and they were gone), they no longer compete in the International Basketball League. Generally, when teams drop out of the IBL, they have gone defunct and I could've sworn I had read that somewhere. According to the article, they are now playing exhibition games, so I'm not sure what "league" to give them on the Nevada Sports template. Shootmaster 44 ( talk) 04:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
As much as I respect your judgment, I think you made a mistake with WB. I find it hard to believe that an Indian cable channel is the primary topic for this title; Warner Brothers alone is certainly a more common usage, and there are many others. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 10:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, if you google its old name: International Commission of Agricultural Engineering, you will be able to establish its Notability: http://www.google.com/search?q=international+commission+of+agricultural+engineering&hl=zh-CN&lr=&start=10&sa=N regards, -- Jhjlj ( talk) 21:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jessica Liao again. I'm hoping to get this pair into the "checkuser confirmed" category. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm attempting to verify your statement. Could you fix the link to "negotiate blocks or bans, represent [its members] at arbitration, and support [them] in content issues"? This not something I remember or ever endorsed though it may have come up somewhere. Regards and thanks. -- Klein zach 09:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm just wondering. You deleted the article for not following A7... But Madness Script is neither a person, organization or Web content? It's a programming language so I'm just wondering how it falls under that criteria? I would agree that it ain't very known and there is only one source (the creators web page) for mscript which makes it unreliable since it's only one source. But isn't the given criteria wrong?
My friend worked hard to make that article ^^
Sorry for not writing with my account. Lost my old email so can't restore password :P Send your response to groogy@groogy.se Thx!
Sincerely, Groogy.
See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#British peerage No. 4 Baronets, the form Sir Wiliam Robertson, 1st Baronet is acceptable when disambiguation is required. David Underdown ( talk) 15:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I saw the kana for 'YO' in your signature and thought I'd just click on it to see what would happen . . .
I'm a computer programmer, and I've written software in Java (and Javascript) to transliterate between romaji and kana (and back). (I'm also the guy who initially programmed the {{ age}} template which is used in tens of thousands of Wikipedia biographical articles.) -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 15:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, please see my comments about this topic at WT:Disambiguation#Primary_topic_uber_alles. I think we have lost the definition of "Primary Topic." (John User:Jwy talk) 16:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
If you have any interest in the matter, please read my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese cultural artifacts controversy (2nd nomination), and then go ahead and look at the all-new version of Japanese cultural artifacts controversy. I would like to know if this radical change might change some minds. Un sch ool 03:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't suppose that you've noticed Special:Contributions/Alchaenist? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your action. I fully support your reversal of the recent move. Would you also please delete the redirect created in the move back, i.e., delete Peer-to-peer (network architecture), as this classification is not proper, P2P is a distributed application architecture and not a network architecture, P2P can be implemented on many different network architectures in the common sense of the term network architecture. Kbrose ( talk) 18:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Why did you delete the articles? It had references so therefore it can be improved. Is it possible that we can paraphrase it rather copy from word to word? I have seen articles where editors have copied it word to word but provided references to it. -- Alchaenist ( talk) 01:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll just keep this short....thank you for using my idea of editing release dates and putting it into their own cause it shows that some people here are appreciating my work....thank you. :) 69.125.30.234 ( talk) 17:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the reverting! I thought I already did it and thought that I did not hit the save button. Again sorry for the work.-- Stone ( talk) 04:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Village School (Great Neck, New York) (2nd nomination). Thank you. Alchaenist ( talk) 22:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
You changed the 'Doru' page from a disambiguation page (pointing to 2 items - to a Romanian name and to 'Dory spear') to a indirection pointing only to 'Dory spear'.
Two problems:
1) There's absolutely no relation between 'Dory spear' and 'Doru', and you enforced this mistake. Check update at 18:50, 14 April 2008 by T.elias13. Please provide a link between 'Doru' and 'Dory spear' or remove the 'Doru'->'Dory spear' indirection.
2) 'Doru' does mean something: it's a Romanian name. Check just one reference
here. That's exactly the association that you cut out. Why?
Doruuu
Hi there. I've been away for a couple of months and was surprised to come back and find that you closed a 3rd move request for this article by invoking WP:NPOV, claiming that the original title was not netural. (Have you have not seen the articles on Judaization of the Galilee or Judaization?). Anyway, I searched for evidence from reliable sources attesting to the non-neutrality of this particular phrase, but could not find anything on the talk page or in the larger virtual arena. Would you mind explaining which scholarly sources informed your decision? Thanks. Tiamut talk 11:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah sorry, in a lot of cases the names were of small towns with articles barely a paragraph long, I can see that was a mistake in the case of Takamatsu though. Even so, it's bound to be the name of other people. Would it be worth posting a disambiguation note in italics at the top of Takamatsu, or if we find enough people, creating a Takamatsu (name) or something to direct to instead? I did notice that Smith does mention in the second line a Smith (surname) and List of people with surname Smith. I would have done that except at the moment I don't know any other Takamatsus so I figure list projects get started that way as more people get discovered. There is also Smith#Fiction. My main focus tends to be on redirecting the names of fictional characters, but a lot of times the creators of certain series might be more notable than some of the minor characters in those series so I thought I should try to include them too. But yeah, for major populace centres it does make sense to only have a small mention of people with the name, as opposed to the smaller towns. Tyciol ( talk) 18:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Someday, I'm going to guess wrong, but Special:Contributions/Legihatp should be on your mind. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
You have reverted the Rigsdag article, which I recently turned into a disambiguation page. Perhaps the format I chose is not right, it might need a rewrite, perhaps I should have placed a hatnote on the Rigsdagen article to an article called Rigsdag (disambiguation). What do you think, perhaps you have suggestions for improvement? Talk/ ♥фĩłдωəß♥\ Work 15:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
User:Dekimasu/Archive1 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand this statement. What would be the "primary topic" in this context, if not the "subway like things most commonly called 'metro'"? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 12:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing my mess up there. I meant to do it myself but got distracted and then forgot about it. -- User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 09:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. While I understand your reversion of my edit to Disambiguation (disambiguation), I'd like to discuss it. I do know that general practice is to keep from categorizing DAB pages, but this does seem like a special case. The page is, by its very nature, an excellent example of self-reference and (non-mathematical) recursion; not acknowledging this fact is arguably a disservice to the reader. Aside from the fact that DAB pages usually aren't categorized, what's the argument against leaving this categorization on the page? Thanks. Cakedamber ( talk) 17:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted a see-also link to
Disambiguation (disambiguation), and discussed why in some detail at
User_talk:Cakedamber#WP refs in WP articles, including quotation of the preceding section that is parent to this subsection.
--
Jerzy•
t
06:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I understand she was not miss nepal winner but she was miss nepal asia pacific and it's a title for a runner up so plz return that page plz thanxz ( FatDuy ( talk) 22:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)).
I share your concern for the need for Dab-bypassing work, and trust you will regard my reversion (of a new user) at Template:Incoming links as being friendly to your goals. I'm going to start a temporary substitute Cat (unless you accomplish that during my breakfast- and rock-gym-slab-climb break) without worrying much about getting the title or parent Cat right -- to serve the purpose that IMO the Dab-CU Cat is (at least superficially, but perhaps deeply) unsuitable for: it seems to me that "cleanup" has always meant, everywhere on en:WP, "fixing a page by changing its content" while the new template is about something that has always AFAIK been a separate issue, fixing the widely dispersed misuses of a given Dab. (But i think there's no need to see the change of Cat as prejudicing against an adequately discussed future decision that, after all, the earlier choice was the right one.) Pending discussion, IMO
all are problems needing addressing before including the Cat on the IMO desirable template.
--
Jerzy•
t
19:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
|
The Wikilink Barnstar | |
Without your contributions I wouldn't know what to edit. J04n( talk page) 09:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC) |
The novelty you reverted at Japanese people has corollaries -- see
This problem is likely to be recurring. -- Tenmei ( talk) 13:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
You blocked this user, now operating under the sockpuppet "Yakuza Libra"-please block the sock as well. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) ( talk) 18:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I've started a discussion on the above link. I thought I'd let you know as you tagged it for clean-up and have done a lot of work on it. Thanks, and keep up the good work! Boleyn2 ( talk) 20:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
What changes to Informatics do you suggest in order to make it better comply with the Manual of Style? Regards, — Ruud 19:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, first of all, thanks for closing this; rarely have I seen so many contributions to such an obviously one-sided issue. My question is, in closing that discussion, did you have to exercise an administrative tool, or could anyone with sense have done the same thing? Un sch ool 04:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
2009 in television probably should be expanded into an article but not "like all the other years". Instead what was done here should be the model for the other years. See Talk:2009 in American television. JIMp talk· cont 14:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Why do you insist on removing information which relates to a japanese language test?!
If you are seeking further clarification on the validity of the examination or its content i suggest you contact the Vice President at the Japan Testing Association - Miyoko Kawasaki (kawasaki@goukaku.ne.jp)
LICMU ( talk) 11:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Why did you remove the disambiguation page I created at Off Road? Those three computer games are all commonly known as "Off Road" to fans. People who type that into WP looking for information on the games will now be left confused. 2fort5r ( talk) 12:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, why do you think the two articles should be merged? They are different colleges, formally independent, with separate administration and always listed separately, neither is a "branch" of the other. (Also, why did you remove the external links?) Regards, Shreevatsa ( talk) 14:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
As part of my regular wikignoming, I removed almost 70 internal links from the rather short article William McKie. And I removed the overlinked template. Please have a look to see if you agree with that assessment. If you happen to disagree, I'd appreciate it if you would remove those internal links you consider superfluous, rather than just tag the article again. Thank you, Debresser ( talk) 20:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. I'll go particularly careful with allthose AfDs, PRODs and CSDs. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Greetings. I stopped talking to dbachman, because his mind is already made up. I wanted to explain to u my revert and hope to keep our contact civil. First I want to let you know that the article is not wiki sync. I do use sources that talk specifically about African Empires. This is not an article based solely on the combination of two definitions. I believe that is dbachman's main argument; however, I think things have simply gotten too personal between us for any light to shine through. I also have an issue with a merger (which was rejected via talk page months ago by someone who I think was relatively neutral to the debate) is that the African Empires page existed before the pre-colonial African kingdoms page. not to mention, a kingdom is not an empire. The Mali Empire is pretty obviously not a kingdom. I think you would agree. There are sources for these statements within the page. I was going to go thru and source every single polity, but I realized that only dbachman was making that demand and I don't edit on his behalf. I believe that people should contribute or get out of the way. i know that is rather frank, but that is my honest opinion. Please contact me via my discussion page so we can discuss this further. Best Wishes. Scott Free ( talk) 16:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, i have seen you use popups when sorting out disam links, i was wondering could you please explain to me how? Ive tried several times in recent days adding different text to the monobook, and just now i copied the text from your page (sorry lol), but i still do not see where or how to use it to alter where the link directs to? Hope you can help thanks. BritishWatcher ( talk) 17:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu, if a user searches brocade it takes three page browsing to get brocade communications system. and one page browsing to brocade fabric. If there is an index page user can select the page which he wants and could get both pages in two page browsing.And also he could save the time without browsing unnecessary page. pls search Myway or RT everything gives an index page,so pls dont say that disambiguation in one page is the standard.-- naveenpf ( talk) 01:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi i am telling about search results of Brocade Communication Systems.If i search for brocade i need to browse three pages.so can u revert back-- naveenpf ( talk) 14:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I have a feeling that page will need an RfC. I will be drawing up a request to restrict many of them from the page. I have posted tons of links about uses of Persian Empire in multiple books that 100% contradicts their claims. I have posted up evidence from Farsi itself and what the words mean in Farsi, and they have no defense against it. I have posted up how we have organized pages on Wiki and they have no clue. They make a claim and I point out the absurdity both on Wiki and in the sources. There is no way that these individuals actually care about the page but mostly just want to troll. The ANI ended telling them to back off from the page for a few days and what do they do? Keep on spewing the same nonsense. Sigh. Ottava Rima ( talk) 15:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
(Har har har.) I believe that Pragmatic, at least, must be disambiguated: many incoming links to pragmatic are intended to refer to Pragmatics, example: see Pragmatic language impairment.
I find it a little problematic that many people link pragmatic and are referring to "doing what is practical at the temporary expense of idealism", but are instead brought to a page about a philosophy that is likely unknown to the person or unrelated to the act described in their use of pragmatic.
Also, I just unearthed Pragmaticism, which itself is apparently considered a form of pragmatism; apparently "pragmatic" and "pragmatist" can be used to describe adherents to this branch. What to do? Whatever404 ( talk) 14:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
In case you wish to comment. Regards SilkTork * YES! 10:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for sending me a message! I've messed up, Powerlifting is a different sport than Olympic weightlifting. The Olympic weightlifting article refers to the sport that is in the Olympics but even not when it is in the Olympics context, it should be called Weightlifting (sport), but that doesn't excuse my mistake. I'm going to go back and fix everything. J04n( talk page) 11:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Please see further comment at talk:Sheep dog. Regards, Richard New Forest ( talk) 19:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, thank you for offering to nominate me to be an admin. I never put much thought into requesting adminship, but why not? Throw my name in and we'll see what happens. Although I'm not sure how I will answer "What admin work do you intend to take part in? "
Secondly, it looks the the issue with Computed tomography is all set, it was redirected to X-ray computed tomography. J04n( talk page) 12:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Re "moved The Tomorrow People (TV series) to The Tomorrow People: contesting move; TV series appears to be the primary topic": I guess the principle here is that any TV show, video game, album, etc. trumps any serious work of literature in terms of "notability". Thanks for enlightening me. So, I recommend that Homer's Odyssey (The Simpsons) replace Odyssey as the primary. Do you agree? No? Why not? GHJmover ( talk) 07:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi;
I am Daniel Arnaldo Roman, on june you deleted the wiki info i have assuming it was a copyright infringement. Well I am not doing that as I am the owner of the information, and i was the one who created both pages, Wiki and Saatchi. Can you please reconsider?
Best Beheriter ( talk) 15:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Daniel Roman
Hi Dekimasu. I moved the current 'Rowing' page to 'Rowing (disambiguation)' a while back. My idea was to keep the disambiguation page there and move 'rowing (sport)' to 'rowing', with a link at the top to the disambig page, as this is the main usage of the word (google the word 'rowing' and you will have to scroll though a few hundred pages of search results before you find something that doesn't relate to the sport). It seems an admin is needed to make these changes, so perhaps you could have a look at it?-- The Spith ( talk) 22:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
It was certainly an interesting week! Absolutely no need for you to be sorry, I want to thank you again for the nomination and the kind words you wrote about me. I still enjoy the editing that I do and will continue to do so. J04n( talk page) 02:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
You restored the National Socialism page to its original slot, but made several notable, unfortunate mistakes:
Apparently you thought that a generalistic topic article such as one about an ideology did not need disambiguation. That was indeed the root of why I moved it, and why I created the disambiguation in the first place. That you did not understand why we disambiguate terms, was your 6th error.
What I want from you now is to make every attempt at recovering the material I wrote for the disambiguation page, and then add it to National Socialism (disambiguation). Thanks for your compliance - Stevertigo ( wlog | talk | edits) 23:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello Dekimasu. I'm a Wikipedia contributor from Macedonia, and I am a great fun of the Zatoichi saga. In two of the movies I have seen so far I met a very sweet actress called Miwi Takada. I looked her name in the internet, but there was literary nothing about her, not even a photo of her, although she stared in several of Japan's most celebrated movie classics. That's why I decided to create the Miwa Takada article, and wrote all i knew about her. I also made two screenshots of her from the Zatoichi movies. Dear Dekimasu, could you please find something about her in Japanese, and add it to the article, or give me some additional info about her directly to me, because, I am about to became her fan :) Regards from Macedonia. -- Revizionist ( talk) 19:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi - my bot should produce the monthly disambig list update tomorrow at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/October 2009; probably shortly after the daily update of The Daily Disambig pages (as long as nothing goes wrong with the Toolserver between now and then). However, the main WP:DPL page needs to be edited manually to replace the September list with the October one, and I will be unable to do this tomorrow because I will be traveling. If you could keep an eye out and replace the list at the appropriate time, it would be a great help. Thanks. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 13:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I want to thank you for making the changes to World Domination. I have tried for the last two days to make it like you have while not tearing at the editors on the talk page. Keep an eye on it, The Protocols of Zion won't stay off for long :/ - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I only work with gomezbuster and hunter2727. There are a few other people at work that get on here every now and then but I can't tell you all their screen names. In any case, we work for a relatively large company and I only know who the guy is. I had heard of gomez's prank or whatever. It started with an office joke or something but obviously got out of hand. Another one of our friends is pretty mad that gomez caused everyone to get blocked. I only know his real name and not his screen name. He edits grammatical errors on here. In any case, my contributions have been mostly Minor League/Appy League baseball contributions. I used to work for the Kingsport Mets and fixed a few things there and added links to the page. Thank you for your time! Tshelton30 ( talk) 03:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I made it pretty clear on AN/I, which PennySeven has obviously been tracking, that it was their continued disruptive editing on AN/I that caused me to block. You might want to review that and either grant the unblock or modify your decline reason. Sorry for any confusion.... -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 12:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for helping me out with this mess. Is there any way the Sandor Clegane account could be unblocked as I had informed about the ArbCom about it when I registered it?-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 14:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
As you participated in the recent
Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two
requests for comment that relate to the use of
SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the
SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (
talk)
08:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about the unblock. I didn't think I was being "bitey" since it was a simple username block, but in any event, it's taken care of. Thanks again. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 01:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Greetings. I note you have unblocked this user. I have no issue with this, however I think that the following information may need to be stored away, as you may not have seen it. The Checkuser page for DrBat : [71] lists a suspect editing of the article Juggernaut - [72], which was confirmed as being DrBat here [73]. Note that this edit comes after already being blocked for sockpuppetry. The editor has also taken a shot across my bow here: [74], at the Talk page for the same article, after being unblocked.
For your consideration.
Asgardian ( talk) 05:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Given we only "exist" here as code and data and the other people are never seen, it is reasonable to ask the question if the behaviour continues to defy explanation (I know of one administrator who also asked the question of someone). How it is asked should probably be the focus. In this case, there was no rudeness. I am simply trying to get to the bottom of this and understand why an editor continues to defy logic and the argument presented and reverts back to an inferior version. The sudden appearance by this person and possible obsession with the article suggests it is one of the three scenarios I presented. The failure to acknowledge the case presented to them and the fact that another editor supports the revamped version is very telling.
For your consideration. Asgardian ( talk) 01:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtful participation in the thread at Talk:Order of Culture#Requested Move. I'm especially delighted by the phrase "preemptive disambiguation" because it manages to distill what I've struggled unsuccessfully to express for more than a year.
Caspian blue's response suggests that you managed to hit the nail on the head. In this, perhaps, you achieved more than you could have intended; but there you have it. -- Tenmei ( talk) 02:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Am I missing something? Where is the disambiguation? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I have sent you an e-mail. -- Tenmei ( talk) 18:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
J04n(
talk page) is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Xmas,
Eid,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hannukah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.
Hello User,
don't you think, that such redirect to the German political party is more too focused on the German point of view? You can see that abbreviation has many meanings and redirecting it to the German political party would wrong many non-German users. If you revert it to the version, in which SPD redirects to the German political party, it would be then fine for me, ok. Just wanted to let you think about it and consider also the non-German users. -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 ( talk) 00:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I've been working to bring additional useful info to the SEPTA articles (particularly the Market-Frankfort line), and noted in the recent revision history that someone added an external link to a Google map image of the line; but also saw that it was quickly removed as being spam. Looking at the link itself via the diff page, it looks like a perfectly reasonable addition to the article, and i can't understand why it was marked as spam in the first place. Granted, the user that added it seemed to have issues with consensus building and personal attacks; but the intent was still Good Faith. I'm not suggesting any kind of removal of their ban (that's not my fight, they can earn it themselves if they're interested); but i would support the re-addition of the google map link. I would like to put it back; but i'm not going to stick my nose out to add good data if the only thing it will get me is a cauliflower schnoz. Would you consider taking a look at the link itself and allow me to add it back to the MFSL page? If not, would you be willing to discuss your reasoning why? Hiroe ( talk) 21:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Greetings. I was hoping for some advice regarding DrBat, who you cautioned and unblocked after some sockpuppetry ( [75]). His editing behaviour hasn't really improved any, as I've tried to speak with him regarding the blind reversions without comment ( [76]), as have others ( [77]). There is currently a small dispute at Juggernaut which I've tried to resolve ( [78]), but given his response ( [79]) I don't know. What could you advise? Regards Asgardian ( talk) 07:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Why did you change Monoculturalism to redirect to the opposition subsection? LokiClock ( talk) 09:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Nice of you to notice. Talk to you soon. J04n( talk page) 21:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Dekimasu, this is a message from an
automated bot to inform you that the page you created,
International Hockey League (disambiguation), has been marked for
speedy deletion by
User:Dolovis. This has been done because the page is a recently created article that that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic (see
CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add "{{
hangon}}
" to the page text, and edit the
talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at
User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see
User talk:Dolovis. Thanks, -
SDPatrolBot II (
talk) on behalf of
Dolovis (
talk ·
contribs)
21:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I have started a conversation regarding a block of an ISP for low income users that was initiated two and a half years ago and was recently lifted. You were one of the people that helped review the initial block or helped review it when it was lifted. I am cordially inviting you to join in the conversation.
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Two and a half year block of ISP for low-income users
Thank you very much for you thoughtful consideration. -
Hydroxonium (
talk |
contribs)
03:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_influence_on_Japanese_culture
I dont think this page is necessary on a separate page. I would be grateful if you can look at this and decide.The information too, on this page is at best, dubious.
Best regards,
Lumber —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.47.79 ( talk) 12:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
J04n(
talk page) is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Xmas,
Eid,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Balloon}} to your friends' talk pages.
There has been a major revision of the the
Service Awards: the edit requirements for the higher levels have been greatly reduced, to make them reasonably attainable.
Because of this, your Service Award level has been changed, and you are now eligible for a higher level. I have taken the liberty of updating your award on your user page.
Herostratus ( talk) 18:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear Dekimasu,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name
HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar -- Jaobar ( talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlopeck ( talk • contribs) 23:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_5#Template:Incoming_links for the discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The reason the CBS Records page is a DAB page is because the most famous CBS Records is not the current one which was founded in 2006, CBS Records (2006). The entities which were formerly known as CBS Records now go by other names which are Columbia Records for the record label and Sony Music Entertainment for the record company. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 19:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry but can I please request revert this close or move to Shout (Idoling song) there are 7 out of 8 support for adding the name of the band (whether as (Idoling song) or (Idoling song), we don't need 3 RMs to make such a simple move when 7 out of 8 support it. I simply made a mistake in not also deleting the !!! from the template when I corrected it according to Cuchullain's request. In ictu oculi ( talk) 09:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, you participated in a previous move request regarding Crimea and Ukraine, so I thought you might be interested in this new request that is intended to address objections to the previous one. Cheers. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Dekimasu, I would like to take this moment and thank you for taking part in my RfA that happened a while ago. Although it didn't turn out as I had planned, I certainly appreciated all the comments and suggestions given by you and other people. I will learn from all of them and will hopefully run again someday when I'm fully ready. Thank you. TheGeneralUser ( talk) 13:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I mistakenly voted "oppose" without realizing that it's a movie, not a person. "Chitram!" is more accurate than "Chitram", and I didn't notice comparison between Chitram and Vichitram. Can you undo closure and then relist please (using {{ subst:relisting}}), so I can change my vote to "support"? -- George Ho ( talk) 17:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I assume you know of a quick and easy way to migrate all of the links for the English Durham that currently go to Durham to its new location following today's move? Bob talk 13:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
When you make moves like that one, please remember to add the necessary mechanism to enable readers to find the dab page. I've added hatnote at Artificiality in this case. Pam D 07:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Sex Tape (film). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Steel1943 ( talk) 01:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey, would you consider relisting instead of closing the discussion at Talk:Port Authority Trans-Hudson? I meant to make a comment that I'm pretty sure negates the one oppose argument (and the other per him argument) but never got around to it. Thought it would make more sense to include it there rather than have to start a new discussion.-- Yaksar (let's chat) 07:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu,
I have left a response on the talk page for the MoS. Gryffindor ( talk) 09:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu, I'm slightly confused by the recent Nagano moves.
From what I see, before September 2014, Nagano was a redirect to Nagano, Nagano. My reasoning:
So my timeline:
Is there something I'm missing (e.g. some logs that are only visible to admins)? Because judging by logs & hatnote, the stable version is to have "Nagano" redirect to "Nagano, Nagano". If we're reverting to 'stable' version while discussion is taking place (btw, where is this discussion?), shouldn't be go to that version? If the consensus is to have "Nagano" be the disambiguation page, then as Wbm1058 stated, all the links have to be edited before the move.
Thanks, Kirin13 ( talk) 01:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello - just wondering how you justified the move here. Where is the consensus in a 5-3 !vote, where several of the supporters offered no policy justification? (E.g., "Obvious" is not a policy justification, especially when other participants have invoked policy.) Thanks. Dohn joe ( talk) 15:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
|
Thanks for closing out the RM discussion and moving the page. Glad that's over with. Appreciate it. SW3 5DL ( talk) 00:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC) |
How is the move discussion different from Talk:Love You like a Love Song#Requested move? -- George Ho ( talk) 01:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
No consensus to move? Why? I provided so many reasons that the title of this article should change. But you just said the opinions of IP editors acting in good faith are welcome. If it is really like this please show me one of the valuable opinions that these IPs have provided in that discussion. Keivan.f Talk 09:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
At Talk:Jiwa Financials the {{ spa}} was causing problems at RM? Widefox; talk 22:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Dekimasu, when you moved Somme (disambiguation) to Somme, why did you not take responsibility for (a) fixing the first link on the disambiguation page, which is now a circular link and prevents readers from finding one of the most prominent articles on a topic associated with this title; (b) fixing the redirect from Somme (département); and (c) fixing incoming links to the disambiguation page? You have been doing this a long time, and you should not need to be reminded of these things. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 10:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
DO you want to reconsider your "supervote" in this instance, please? -- Richhoncho ( talk) 08:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I now have time to set out my stall.
Firstly, I assume neither of us dispute that WP:SONGDAB (quoted below) is a quideline. If it is a guideline then the compulsion intended by "When necessary" must mean something outside the scope of songs - and it does. It means if there is another article, then disambiguation should occur by using only "(band)", "(album)", or "(song)" This is fully in agreement with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. For you to read "when necessary" in the terms you did is quite incorrect.
When necessary, disambiguation should be done using "(band)", "(album)", or "(song)" (such as Queen (band) or H.M.S. Donovan (album)). As per WP:Disambiguation disambiguate by article content, not just by titles; for example, even though there is no article Hurricane, the redirect Hurricane should not be replaced with Hurricane (song) or Hurricane (album).
Then there is the second para of the guideline, that suggests, quite unequivocably, that suggests that music titles are rarely "primary topic" and notability is changes from year to year and decade to decade.
Use further disambiguation only when needed (for example X (American band), X (Australian band)). Unless multiple albums (or songs) of the same name exist, they do not need to be disambiguated any further. For example, Down to Earth (Ozzy Osbourne album) is fine, because there are many other albums named Down to Earth, but H.M.S. Donovan (Donovan album) is unnecessary. Disambiguate albums and songs by artist and not by year unless the artist has released multiple albums (or songs) with the same name. When a track is not strictly a song (in other words a composition without lyrics, or an instrumental that is not a cover of a song), disambiguation should be done using "(composition)" or "(instrumental)".
Next we need to analyse the voting and close. Firstly there are 3 !votes for and 3 !votes against (as confirmied by somebody supporting). That is a clear case of "no consensus." I don't see any argument in those votes that should have swayed the close either way.
Then we come to the close, not only have you ignored the !voting pattern, but have added a new comment to close in favour of a move. Your close reads:
The result of the move request was: move the pages, per the discussion below. I'd note that WP:SONGDAB does not state that songs need to be disambiguated every time songs with identical titles exist, or that we are unable to determine a primary topic for a search request involving song titles; song titles need only be disambiguated when necessary--that is, when there is no primary topic. Our determinations of notability for inclusion are general, but we need not treat all articles as equally vital targets of a given encyclopedic search term. The discussion of evidence here indicates that this article can be taken as the primary topic for the title.
So what is wrong with your close? :-
Now will you reconsider?
-- Richhoncho ( talk) 08:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Now I have a little time to respond. So you want to mention WP:AT, so let's look at part of that policy:-
This page explains in detail the considerations, or naming conventions, on which choices of article title are based. It is supplemented by other more specific guidelines (see the box to the right), which should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view.
Included in those supplementary naming conventions is WP:NCM, of which WP:SONGDAB is a part of. Are you following me? Do you accept that WP:NCM is supported by a policy?
Next you are relying on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which reads (and the bold is entirely mine for emphasis):-
Although a word, name or phrase may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is the primary topic. This is the topic to which the term should lead, serving as the title of (or a redirect to) the relevant article. If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or should redirect to a disambiguation page on which more than one term is disambiguated). The primary topic might be a broad-concept article, as mentioned above.
There is no single criterion for defining a primary topic. However, there are two major aspects that are commonly discussed in connection with primary topics:
- A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
- A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.
It's lucky I don't have to type much - the policies and guidelines actually support me, because there is absolutely no compunction to have a "primary topic" and as I have oft repeated, Primarytopic is perfect for presidents and capitals of countries but not for commercial titles.
So finally we come back to your close, I have never seen anybody else close on 3/3 using the nomination as casting vote, bearing in mind you added new arguments to the close, the close was improper and unrequited. Of course if you had been honest and actually !voted the result would possibly have been the same as has happened, but you circumvented that to enforce you point of view. I cannot any integrity.
Next time I see you misquote songdab I shall point out the error of your ways - again. Cheers.-- Richhoncho ( talk) 08:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Since you have participated in at least one Requested Move or Move Review discussion, either as participant or closer, regarding the title of the article currently at Sarah Jane Brown, you are being notified that there is another discussion about that going on now, at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested move #10. We hope we can finally achieve consensus among all participating about which title best meets policy and guidelines, and is not too objectionable. -- В²C ☎ 17:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
You put a lot of effort into the fairly thankless job of dealing with move discussions, and I think that deserves some recognition. Yaksar (let's chat) 23:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC) |
Hey there,
I was curious why you decided on "relist" rather than close given that I almost put the page up under noncontroversial moves in the first place. Ogress smash! 09:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey Dekimasu. Thanks for the move to the above article, appreciate it :) doktorb words deeds 16:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
"Mike Dalton" is one of Mattias Clement's ring names; so is "Tyler Breeze". Why no consensus to either birth name or another ring name? I'm sure that "Mike Dalton" is not a commonly-used name. -- George Ho ( talk) 00:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu, I'm not sure if you saw, but my request was to postpone the closing of the polls by ten days so that all contributors to the Star Wars pages could see them. An editor who was not aware of the polls just replied to my message after they were closed. While i do not engage in canvassing, I did however inform the editors who brought up the issues of the film titles of the polls (see Talk:The Empire Strikes Back and Talk:Return of the Jedi), because it is very clear what their viewpoint is on the issue. But because they were not aware of the polls, I do think it did not include all viewpoints.
And again if you look at the two talk pages already linked, they are dominated by multiple users bringing up the same issue. Had they been aware of the polls, the consensus would have been very different. What I propose is the polls be opened for a few more days. If not then I am proposing a poll at least one month long as a lot of editors are not active on wiki on a daily basis. I myself do not have the time to contribute more than a few times a month.
Lastly I wish to inform you that these films were never re-released as their episode titles as the articles state. These are misleading claims and have not a single supporting source. Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes back was released as such first in theaters in 1980 and the same for Episode VI: Return of the Jedi in 1983.
Not a single source has been provided to support these baseless fan-made claims, which is not compliant with wiki-policies. Regards-- Nadirali نادرالی ( talk) 22:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Hallo Dekimasu,
you moved the goat breed Swedish Landrace to Swedish Landrace goat. That is is a very uncommons name. It is not used in reliable sources [80]. If we use it, we do establish it. May I suggest to use parenthetical disambiguation instead and move it to Swedish Landrace (goat)? -- PigeonIP ( talk) 23:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Can you please explain why you moved this article from Libyan Civil War to 2011 Libyan Civil War? This is an extremely objectionable format, and was not the one proposed. Libyan Civil War of 2011 is the correct format, mimicking Egyptian Revolution of 2011. The "year first" format is only used for WP:NDESC titles, not for proper nouns. It was agreed previously at the various move discussions on that page that "Libyan Civil War" was a proper noun. Given that this is true, the "year first" format is entirely unacceptable. I had the page unwatched, but having now caught this, I can't believe how absurd it is. The proposer was right in requesting the "of" title. Now we have a mess, that fails our title criteria and standard English language usage. As far as 2014 Libyan Civil War is concerned, that article's title should not be capitalised, as it is not a proper noun. It should be at "2014 Libyan civil war", because the name "2014 Libyan Civil War" is not a proper noun used by the media. RGloucester — ☎ 04:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any guideline or policy applying here. RGloucester you've thrown around a lot of irrelevant policy links to support your argument that seems to boil down to "I don't like it". It's a stronger argument to say that other articles in this topic area are using the "name first" format, but that's not really an error in his closure, just something that should have been brought up at the RM. I don't think this issue is important enough to spend another RM on. It's purely cosmetic. Gigs ( talk) 20:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Why are you closing an active thread in which four editors support moving the page, and two oppose the move, citing 'no consensus'? Rob984 ( talk) 17:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
If you are to lazy to read a discussion properly then do not move pages. The consensus was obviously to move the page to Church of the Dominican Monastery (Sighişoara) which I will be doing now. Darkness Shines ( talk) 19:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Hallo, if you move a page like Roses, please remember to add a {{ redirect}} hatnote so that readers wanting senses other than the primary topic can get to the appropriate dab page in one click. Thanks. Pam D 23:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
for spending a whole four minutes considering this. Sammy D III ( talk) 17:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm over here because I cannot count all those colons. Thank you for forgiving my first rudeness.
I do disagree with the name change, but that's not my point. My problem is I don't think that there was enough discussion to change anything. I don't know the rules, I think peer review looks like the hot setup. Friday is seven days, I think I can post then and then just sit back and watch. Thank you. Sammy D III ( talk) 21:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Dekimasu. On reflection I'm not sure that your speedy close of the requested move discussion at Talk:Irish Republic was correct. Irish Republic is a history article, concerning a revolutionary state between 1919 and 1922. The Arbcom case was concerned only with the naming of the current state known as "Ireland" or "The Republic of Ireland", or of the island of Ireland. Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy if this latest silly RM stayed closed, but if the initiator wants to pursue it, I'd prefer he did it on the article talk page than on WT:IECOLL, because it would be setting a precedent to bring discussions to IECOLL that it was never meant for. Scolaire ( talk) 23:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi. You marked this page as not meeting the DAB style. I'm looking at it and the main issue I see is that refs shouldn't be cited on a DAB. Could you reply here, or even better post on the talk page for that article, any other issues that you see? Several of us are working on cleaning up this page and we can try to address it. Thanks.-- Karinpower ( talk) 06:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu, Your recent behavior in concluding the result of the List of Ukrainian rulers article has been a blatant disrespect of wikipedia conventions. The result of the move discussion on the talk page was an overwhelming "Oppose" based on the votes and AT MOST "No Consensus". You had no right to move the page based on the results of the discussion or to close the discussion as a "Move". You are disregarding wikipedia policy with your decision and it appears that you have arbitrated this discussion based on your own personal opinion, because you believed that the page should be moved. This is a conflict of interest, as you should have voiced your concerns in the voting, rather than engaging in WP:ACTIVISM and WP:ADMINABUSE. Please undo this dubious edit. -- Bogu Slav 18:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey, why do you think this should redirect to just one genre when there are 4 other significant ones that share the title? Is there evidence of this term being commonly associated with alternative rock? I myself typed it in looking for a general article on alternative styles. Links to everything related (rather than a single genre) are the next best thing.---- MA SHAUN IX 19:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Midway International Airport. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Sammy D III ( talk) 19:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I am posting this here to keep it away from the peer review, please do whatever you want with it. I think I have insulted you far more than I meant to. I don’t want to get you, and will of course apologize if your move is supported.
I have never felt that you have had any bias toward the airport, or any grudge against me. If anyone thinks that, they are wrong. Quality vs. quantity and defensive, that’s it.
If the form I used is insulting, I apologize. I have no idea what “WP:RMCI” is, the other one did not seem right. I have no idea where the list is, or why I want to be on it.
“Questionable closings appear…actions” is insulting, isn’t it? It was meant seriously, and not that you were not familiar with a procedure, rather as a shortcut to more peer review. It was also not intended to affect the review itself. You are correct that it was your talk page. I do seriously apologize for embarrassing you in front of your friends, I was an ass.
I’m not looking for any reply other than possibly an acknowledgement. I don’t think I have posted anything here that affects the peer review, this is personal. I am sorry if I have made this too ugly. I do still think your closing stunk, though. Sammy D III ( talk) 20:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello. What exactly is the meaning of this edit of yours?: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:List_of_French_classical_composers_(chronological)&curid=38022135&diff=633574069&oldid=633010150 Classicalfan626 ( talk) 21:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello Dekimasu. I have closed the proposed Cheryl Cole ---> Cheryl (musician) move at Talk:Cheryl Cole which had been open for a week. The problem was that the supporters were actually preferring something else -- Cheryl (singer) -- which was not proposed. So the consensus was for oppose the proposal. Moriori ( talk) 22:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC).
Why not vote instead? Well, you relisted the discussion, but everyone picked "support" except just one. -- George Ho ( talk) 23:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to burden you with another like/Like issue, but I just noticed that you're the last one that processed a technical request, and I have one for you that's basically a technical request, but is a bit more complicated. Someone did an ugly copy/paste move of Moves like Jagger to Moves Like Jagger on 18 October. This is contrary to the last RM discussion for that page, and should be reverted on that basis as well as due to being an improper method of moving the page. I tried to contact the admin that closed that prior discussion ( Jenks24), but they seem to be on a Wikibreak, so I'm coming to you. The article and the Talk page are now at different places, and some edit history has accumulated since the move. Please see:
Can you please take a look?
— BarrelProof ( talk) 05:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
The Feral pig page is largely nonsensical, as it's contents relate to a terminology used in North America. Will you be editing this page so that it properly reflects its new title? Obscurasky ( talk) 10:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I see you created the redirect at Lachancea kluyveri (which may be gone by the time you read this, overwritten by a move). Any comment on Talk:Saccharomyces kluyveri#Requested move? Andrewa ( talk) 14:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, interestingly one of the moves you reverted was of a town which was used as User:Gobustan name by a previous NovaSkola sock. I have put in an SPI for a Checkuser. In ictu oculi ( talk) 22:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi- if you're going to create a dab page, could you go ahead and do it (and correct any incoming links)? Right now, we we have "Raining Men (song)" redirecting to "Raining Men (Rihanna song)", which is a little silly. J Milburn ( talk) 20:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey, could you please move Anti-Armenianism in Azerbaijan to Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan as proposed in the talk page? -- Երևանցի talk 01:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
It is interesting that you use the term constructive. I'm not sure noting that he moved 8 times in his early career is constructive , especially since it isn't accurate. I would think his early career up to and including high school would be relevant and infinitely more constructive. If you remove my contribution, then I suggest you remove what is currently there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huskerdad4404 ( talk • contribs)
Hi, I think that this move debate needs a bit longer before closing. Please see the talk page. Btljs ( talk) 14:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Why did you say, when closing the RM, "Also note that 2014 coalition intervention in Syria is likely to be too imprecise to garner support." The first two responses given by the first two editors to the thread were in agreement. Please retract your comment at Talk:American-led_intervention_in_Syria. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Regarding your closure of the RM on Talk:Kick Six. The user who started the RM actually moved the page 1 minute after they started the move request. — dain omite 08:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I have noticed that you responded to my requested move of Sledgehammer (song) to Sledgehammer (Peter Gabriel song). Thank you very much!! You're a big help!! Paul Badillo ( talk) 04:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Although I opposed the move I was surprised it was closed after only two comments over the week. Do you not think it should have been relisted to allow other editors to contribute? Zarcadia ( talk) 20:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Requested. Thank you!-- SISCON ( talk) 07:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. After going through the whole process of the Requested Move for the Coliseum–Oakland International Airport line article, Salv007, the same user who moved the page originally with no discussion, just moved it again without discussion. As this was done immediately after a Requested Move process, can anything be done about this? I'd prefer that an Administrator handle this (and have any discussions with Salv007 that might be appropriate. Thanks in advance. -- IJBall ( talk) 05:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
It is obvious now that there was no rape. Thus it should be "2014 Alleged Badaun gang rape". I don't think there is anyone questioning the move.
Since there was no rape, there is very little interest in in the discussion regarding the earlier proposed move. But feel free to take you time. Malaiya ( talk) 22:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Your change to Mudslide in Japan as a redirect, in effect deletes the article I have improved. You may be correct in saying that Mudslide in Japan should not be a topic, or it should be a subtopic in another article. However, I think that decision needs to be made by a community discussion, perhaps by a Merge discussion or an AfD, and not by the update you made. My concern is with process, not the final decision at this time. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 17:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Were you supposed to move-protect or fully protect the article? -- George Ho ( talk) 05:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
You must comment about one of your recent closes. -- George Ho ( talk) 06:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
You forgot to rename the former. In regards to the latter, must I prove myself as not a sockpuppet, or are my comments enough already? -- George Ho ( talk) 00:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I invite you to the ongoing discussion regarding the matter that you and I were involved in. To access, you can hyperlink and preview on the edit page. -- George Ho ( talk) 09:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I see that you seem to be online. Please see the note I just left at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#The bot's not working. — BarrelProof ( talk) 07:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
As a closer of many move discussions, perhaps you'd care to look into Talk:Cabinet of France, which is a mire. RGloucester — ☎ 22:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me jumping in, as a total nonexpert in political matters, but one utterly baffled by these bizarre discussions. I mean, the government of Austria, France, wherever, is surely called the government. I'm somewhat hazy on what the cabinet is, but "cabinet meeting" sounds awfully familiar, as the senior ministers and suchlike getting together in No. 10. So when someone from Belgium says "In British English 'government' means 'cabinet'", I can't even parse it. What language is this 'cabinet' word in that we use 'government' to refer to it? American English must be somewhere at the root of the confusion, but how, exactly? Even if you think all of these people are wrong, can you explain how they are confused? (WP can be depressing, occasionally) Imaginatorium ( talk) 18:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Is it really, though? That sounds pretty subjective to me—the sound doesn't actually change, so such a wording could be misleading. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I was wondering if you can offer me some help. I was wondering if the page Tahitian and Hawaiian (they are both currently redirects) actually violated any policies. I see similar example for American, Scandinavian and Danish and I expanded Tahitian myself in the past base on those and the Hawaiian disambiguation pages. Thank you for any help you may be able to provide.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 21:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it, and not a disambiguation page.
I am sorry, Dekimasu, i still dont know enough about wikipedia, but i am learning every day more. I didnt know to add multiple request, and i still dont know how to move Category:Peja to Category:Peć. I tried to add RM, but that does not work. And just then renamed the category in articles, but some strange editor reverted several of those. Can you PLEASE just help me with that category, how that can be renamed? Can you add that also please into request? -- Ąnαșταη ( ταlκ) 22:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Greenbelt Station. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.
Dekimasu this editor is vandalising and ruin the article without discussion or reaching consensus the article is still dispute. here.Respect Lindi29 ( talk) 14:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for starting this discussion again. I hadn't enough time to continue this discussion with you but my problem is not solved yet. Previously, you said that: "It is also better not simply to cite sources that use the term the way you like, but to show evidence that other sources use it that way as well". Actually I didn't show the sources that use the term the way I like, they show the way she was known in history. And if you look at those Google results for "Mihrişah Sultan" you see almost all of them are referring to mother of Sultan Selim III, who is the person that I was trying to move her page. And sources distinguish between these women by using their full name, "Mihrişah Sultan" and "Emine Mihrişah Sultan". The second one's name has its "Emine" with it most of the time. So can I give a move request again in the future and will it be successful? Keivan.f Talk 14:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Welcome back! Steel1943 ( talk) 05:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC) |
Given your prior assistance with Talk:Japanese destroyer Harusame (1935), I wonder whether you might be able to help with Talk:Kirin Company, Limited. I think that article needs to be both renamed and forked. — BarrelProof ( talk) 19:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the edit today. I also noticed you made some pretty good points back in December that the user in question then went ahead and flagrantly ignored. There's a discussion about this and other abuses on ANI at the moment, in case you want to have your say. I pinged you and the others whose consensus he has been walking roughshod over a few times already, but most of those are not particularly active ( one somewhat troublingly so...), and your contribution seems to have been treated with particular dismissiveness, so I don't think I'm violating WP:CANVAS by sending you a specific message about this discussion.
Or maybe you decided not to revert back because you came around to his side and you really believe he was not "a devout Buddhist" but rather "a member of the Kokuchukai"?
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Dekimasu. I've made all transclusions of Template:Infobox cabinet point to Template:Infobox cabinet members, so this move can now be performed. Alakzi ( talk) 23:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
D, if you recall, just before your December time off you closed an RM that caused a lot of grief, which I'm still trying to resolve, to the consternation of many. I've got myself being accused of bad judgement, bad processes, and worse, which may be fair, at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Page_moves_of_DC_Metro_stations.. However this comes out, it leaves us with how to fix the mess that was caused by an RM nom changing the proposal from lowercase station to uppercase Station before you came along and closed it. Only 1 responder suggested uppercase; the rest supported the original proposal, as far as I can tell. Yes they moved to uppercase, and for various reasons getting this fixed has been impossible. So, I ask you to just agree that this is what happened, that you were unaware of it, and that it probably ought to be fixed since people were intending to support WP:USSTATION, which says to use lowercase. Dicklyon ( talk) 00:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Now at move review: Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 April#2015 April. Your comments could help resolve this mess. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of " Just Like Heaven", a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII 11:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi there,
I wanted to see if you were still an active Wikipedia editor and to invite you to discuss the renaming of the article Evidence of common descent. See: Talk:Evidence_of_common_descent#Article_Title and Talk:Evidence_of_common_descent#Requested_move_5_March_2016.
Cheers! A. Z. Colvin • Talk 01:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Dekimasu. 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:
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. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
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. 01:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
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) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu.
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) 13:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Dekimasu. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect North Korean. Since you had some involvement with the North Korean redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 04:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect South Korean. Since you had some involvement with the South Korean redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 04:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Information Radio is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information Radio until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat ( talk) 23:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.
13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Articles that you have been involved in editing— Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity—have been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Nessie ( talk) 15:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello Dekimasu,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Dersim Massacre for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
Sulfurboy ( talk) 05:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.
The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.
To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.
We really appreciate your input!
Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.
For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative ( talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Dekimasu. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Libyan Civil War (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libyan Civil War (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 20:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Natchez. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Bneu2013 ( talk) 05:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the RM you recently closed at Talk:United States presidential election in Connecticut, 1788–89 § Requested move 29 January 2018, shouldn't the pages have been moved to "... 1788–1789" rather than "...1788–89"? I believe there was unanimous consensus on that (apart from the nominator who didn't comment either way, as their first and to-date only edit was to make the nomination in the first place). 142.161.81.20 ( talk) 21:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
If you guarantee that you will unblock me and will block the administrator who blocks me, then I will withdraw the Move Review and open a new Requested Move. I do not want to be blocked. New2018Year ( talk) 22:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't have strong feeling for Trump or politics but I have strong feelings when there is a denial of due process. The Snow Close was manipulation and denial of due process to all of Wikipedia. New2018Year ( talk) 22:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, if you have a minute, would you please be able to explain why the move discussion was closed, even though none of the people who opposed it addressed any of my 2 points? I'm still just trying to understand how things work in Wikipedia. From you closing it, it seems to me that people can oppose something but then fail to address the reasons, and then it doesn't get done. My understanding of how Wikipedia works is that it's not a democracy, but a system when the merit of rationales is weighed. But this seems to disprove it. You can reply here, I've put this on my watchlist. Thanks very much! Dr. Vogel ( talk) 02:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, could you point me to the "discussion" you mentioned in this edit summary? Thanks - theWOLFchild 18:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I see it's been changed again. You going to get on that? - theWOLFchild 18:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
You will notice that User:23h112e has again trashed the list of school shootings article that you recently commented on Hmains ( talk) 01:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu. Would you mind moving Hiroshi Kobayashi (shōgi, born 1962) back as well until the whole shogi naming thing is resolved? I don't think page protection is needed, but this was one of the pages referred to at Talk:Shogi#Shōgi that was moved as a result of the name change. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
It appears you closed the RfC at Deadline Hollywood after only a week and just three comments, one of them neutral. RfCs generally last 30 days in order to generate a large number of comments and consensus. I believe this was closed remarkably early with nearly no one given an opportunity to comment. I would ask that the RfC be reopened and re-listed, since this appears to have been rushed through improperly.-- Tenebrae ( talk) 04:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I think it would have been better to relist this for a further period rather than close it as no consensus in a situation where there were two clear supports, one tentative oppose and one sitting on the fence. Shadow007 ( talk) 14:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu. Thanks for moving AAA Championships to its correct title. Any chance you can also move British Championships in Athletics to the now vacated British Athletics Championships? That is the official name of this competition [82] and was only placed at its current title for technical reasons. Thanks. SFB 22:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
With respect to your recent close of the United Kingdom general election, January 1910 requested move, can you please considering relisting the RM for wider input from the community? I should have given a more detailed rationale in the RM; not only does the article title fail WP:PRECISE, it gives the impression that the election only occurred in January. The proposed title perfectly qualified WP:CRITERIA. Moreover, it is worth pointing out that there are over 2,460 results for "January to February 1910" etc. and "election" in Google Books. Besides, it's not as if the proposal was to rename the article to United Kingdom general election, February 1910. Yet by the nature of the oppose arguments, it almost seems as if they misinterpreted the RM. Thanks.-- Neve~ selbert 19:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I made the edit notice for a specific purpose, and by all measures, it's been quite useful in that purpose. I have, for several weeks now, actually, been asking anyone who mentioned my edit notice for specific feedback on it. I even publicly asked for commentary in that ANI thread. I was -before this all started- and remain always willing to work with other editors. What I've always been stridently (and even rudely, I'll be the first to admit) opposed to is pointless accusations, endless litigation, and self-righteous recriminations about behavioral issues. In fact, the main purpose (and effect) of my edit notice was to cut down on the amount of that going on at my talk. I edit in highly controversial areas, and as a result (and as anyone else who focuses on pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, religion and culture wars will agree) it's extremely common for editors who are new to WP or new to the subject area to take the sorts of disagreements that go on there very personally. It's understandable, really, as beliefs regarding these things can be very dear to an editor's heart. I used to get 4-5 accusations a week of being a bully, a shill, a pseudoskeptic and more because I declined to implement an edit request or explained to some editor why their edit violated our policies. I would frequently be dragged to ANI after reverting these accusations, with much the same complaints the editor I reported made about me. Those ANI cases would, invariably, be quickly dismissed. But they got tiresome, real fast.
As a result, I made that edit notice. In the months it's been up, I've only been reported at ANI twice (again: complaint dismissed both times for being obviously baseless), and I've encountered a shockingly decreased number of such complaints at my talk. On top of that, only about 2% of all the editors who've commented at my talk page said anything negative about the edit notice. About the same percentage said something positive about it. The vast majority never mentioned it. When it was deleted today, the immediate result was a thread full of recriminations, pointless litigation and bad faith accusations immediately appearing on my talk page. If anything, the events of today have gone a long way to convincing me of the utility -if not the appropriateness- of that particular edit notice.
Yet for all of that: nobody really made even the slightest effort to discuss the edit notice. They merely put me on blast for making it. So far, your comment at that thread was quite literally the only productive comment I've gotten. So thank you for that. I've told Bbb23 that I would replace it with one lacking the middle finger, and possibly lacking the cursing, as well. I will bear your comment in mind as I create a replacement edit notice. And if you have any further productive commentary on it (even if it's criticism), then you are more than welcome to do so.
tldr; You were -quite literally- the only person to offer a productive critique of my edit notice and I both appreciate it greatly, and will take it to heart. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
A move request regarding Deadline.com / Deadline Hollywood, an article you have edited, is taking place at Talk:Deadline Hollywood#Requested move 11 March 2018. It is scheduled to end in seven days.-- Tenebrae ( talk) 19:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Dekimasu. I was wondering if you could lessen the protection on Yuki Hayashi (composer) so that his fans can add more info. If not, is there any way you can insert the info for me? Or if that's not a possibility, can you allow me to edit and if there's anything that doesn't look right, you can let me know? Thanks!-- Ghostory ( talk) 19:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for splitting this out. Now it would be nice to make that into a article that is comprehensible to someone who isn't a specialist.... -- Macrakis ( talk) 18:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello Dekimasu. Would you please start a new move discussion to replace the one you closed while we were still discussing it? 28bytes ( talk) 19:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, just a heads-up that you forgot to add a hatnote to the Startup company page after you redirected Startup there. I am sure this is just an unintentional mistake, though do be careful in the future. Thanks! feminist ( talk) 12:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the move requests! I put both of them up for RM (and not RMTR) because I wasn't sure if there would be any discussion on them. Natg 19 ( talk) 06:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar |
Thanks for moving Chattagram to Chittagong P32929 ( talk) 11:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC) |
Not sure on how this needs to be organised, but perhaps take a look nonetheless: see here KVDP ( talk) 11:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
ok, thanks. Did the request. KVDP ( talk) 13:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Just as an FYI, you don't need to move technical requests to the contested area. If you think it will be controversial, you can just start the discussion unilaterally by hitting the discuss button. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, hope you don't mind a question about this edit [83], removing the 90% font size from horse racing results. What is the issue with accesibility with the reduced font size? I have edited a few horse race articles today and made the same change, taking out the 90% - am happy to carry on doing that as each article comes up for its 2018 update but I'm interested in what the actual problem is. All the best. -- Bcp67 ( talk) 20:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
1. Why did you reject the move since the new journal has a new title and needs to have the English part as a bi-lingual journal. The founding editor of the old journal (Jacques Taminiaux) is still the founding editor of the new one. The Secretary of the old journal (Danielle Lories) is a co-editor of the new one. 2. Do you suggest I create a new entry with the new name of the journal? Gerard Ghislain ( talk) 02:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For closing the particularly difficult case of Requested mass move of TV specials Ribbet32 ( talk) 20:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC) |
Hello! Thanks for moving the MBTA pages! However, I'm wondering why you moved Watertown Yard (MBTA station) to Watertown Yard (MBTA) instead of just Watertown Yard. Thanks! – Daybeers ( talk) 06:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Please can you review again for me how you concluded that this discussion had no majority consensus, so I can understand the process better.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Please know that Kelly Sadler is NOT salted. Sandstein salted it but unsalted it today. Sandstein originally salted it because the draft on Kelly Sadler was crap. However, there is no need for a draft because Kelly Riddell is an established article with lots of citations and written better. Cowding Soup ( talk) 05:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I see that you are an administrator who does RM. After looking at Kelly Riddell, why don't you close the RM and move it. It is not controversial. Kelly Riddell married Mr. Sadler several years ago and now goes by the name "Kelly Sadler". The only reason I listed it as a RM was to be sure that I wasn't doing anything wrong. Cowding Soup ( talk) 05:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi I recently saw how you helped someone by moving Hina Khan page. I just want you to please conlude these articles VJ Andy ( Talk:VJ Andy, Chandrakanta, Brahmarakshas and Shastri Sisters. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by VarunKhurana326 ( talk • contribs) 07:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, a while back you rejected to move Kristiani Herrawati because I don't give much evidence, so this is the evidence:
-- Hddty. ( talk) 21:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I ask you to reconsider your behaviour towards IP editors. I have better things to do than to spend much time editing Wikipedia. But that shouldn't prevent me from jumping in and making the odd edit to something that stands out to me as a reader. That's the point of Wikipedia. The dismissive attitude some editors show towards IP editors is offensive and serves only to emphasise how unwelcome many parts of Wikipedia are. Please don't contribute further to that. 87.210.99.206 ( talk) 10:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I feel like you have closed the move discussion on Talk:Parsons Green bombing too soon. I was certainly expecting at least several more opinions before the request would close. Is there any way you could re-open it? -- Gateshead001 ( talk) 16:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for moving it to a title that is at least properly capitalised. However, the consensus was that Remington ACR is the more common name, and I had been meaning to add my support to that name, though rather unhelpfully didn't get around to it. As such, would you please move the article to Remington ACR. Thanks, RadiculousJ ( talk) 23:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I saw that you removed the "retail location" and "supporters" section of B&E. I based the re-write on the basis of this article, where there are separate sections for the information provided. Why is it okay on one article page and not okay on another? Or is this something that has been overlooked? Jesstan01 ( talk) 22:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
DEFAULTSORT, which you have added for several airline destination lists, is in the form of {{DEFAULTSORT:Example}}, not {{DEFAULTSORT|Example}}. Note the colon. HotdogPi 00:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the closure conflict; but nice to know I was on the right track in my close. Happy editing! -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 01:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Dekimasu (and Cameron11598). The tropical storms moved were closed as no consensus, but there is a consensus. The broader consensus of the tropical storms naming conventions ( "If a name was used only once, no year is needed (e.g. Hurricane Rina or Typhoon Zeb)." Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones) and the even broader consensus of the articles titles policy WP:PRECISION ("titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that.") both show consensus for dropping the unneeded disambiguating qualifier from titles that are not ambiguous on Wikipedia, and that's why the tropical storms naming conventions were updated to stop conflictng with WP:AT. The oppose !votes in the discussion had no guidelines or policies to support them. I'd like to suggest that you re-close the moves in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Cheers! -- JHunterJ ( talk) 13:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
日本語を母語に近い状態で扱えるとのことで、日本語で書かさせていただきます。日本版のタイトルは 東芝川崎ブレイブサンダースから川崎ブレイブサンダースに既に移動してあります。これは、Bリーグ2018-19シーズンから、同チームの経営が東芝からDeNAに移行することが既に発表されているからです。だから記事名から東芝を削除したいのです。宜しくおねがいします。 Ntsctalk ( talk) 10:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Dekimasu. You have new messages at Talk:President of China#Redirect or disambiguation. -- Bejnar ( talk) 17:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I think you have misunderstood this edit by IP editor 46.200.143.183. The long list of links are his/her arguments for why he/she supports the move.
That was why I added a signature block using the{{subst: unsigned IP}} template at the end of his/her post.
You have tried adding a second signature block in the MIDDLE of his/her post. [84] and [85].
I hope that you do not mind, but I have attempted to fix the problem.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
There is no support in any guideline for the googling technique that you are using: "Hit counts reported by Google are only estimates, which in some cases have been shown to necessarily be off by nearly an order of magnitude, especially for hit counts above a few thousands." ( WP:GOOGLELIMITS). When the hit count is over 100 million, I would say more like two or three orders of magnitude. Two academic studies of the Google algorithm are cited to support this claim. In my opinion, you would profit from reading them both. Google trends and ngram were created to replace the result numbers, so we must assume they are superior. Why do consecutive searches yield the same result number? At one time, the result numbers changed in consecutive searches. Users wondered what was going on, so Google rejiggered things to make the earlier number come up again and again. Nine Zulu queens ( talk) 01:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I have noticed you have closed the request on Talk:War in Donbass. One again I think you have prematurely closed this down, after just one response. This is clearly not reasonable enough. I would like you to re-open the case so that at least several more opinions are added before a consensus. -- Gateshead001 ( talk) 13:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Dekimasu, in regard to the debate at Talk:List of Vice Presidents of the United States#Requested move 21 May 2018, forgive me because I disagree with that outcome. The list title must be changed to be in accordance with MOS:JOBTITLES, which represents the community consensus on the subject of whether or not to capitalize common nouns in article titles. If you disagree with that guideline, then you should open a discussion to change it on the talk page of the style guideline. If you choose to abide by the community consensus that shaped the style guideline, then please overturn and rename the list. Paine Ellsworth put'r there 15:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Subtropical Storm Alpha (1972). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. B dash ( talk) 02:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu, You have recently closed the article move discussion for this which was initiated by Accesscrawl. In this relation, you might find this interesting. I have heard of paid editing, but not paid discussions: [86]. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 12:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I checked out the result of move discussion! Can you merge these articles? (Title is List of Kerala Blasters FC head coaches). Do we have a discussion again? I think that discussion is waste time! I hope that controller deal with it without discussiaon.
Hey, can you relist this discussion please? Actually, there's just one oppose with the other opposes being mirrors of FactStraight's comment. Moreover, I think this support comment brought something new to our eyes and we can work on it. Regards. -- Mhhossein talk 11:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Purely for my own learning... what does the addition of relisting mean to the move proposal. Did I do it incorrectly, or does this just mean it's been proposed before? Cheers, Basie ( talk) 23:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I posted the following to Wikipedia:Move review regarding the page move of MP-443 Grach before I realized that I should discuss with the closer first. Well. Here are the contents of my move review post:
During the discussion, it was stated that "The Latin-looking "МР" is actually the Cyrillic letters "М" (Em) and "Р" (Er)". However, in reality, the letters are in fact Latin, and not Cyrillic. They stood for "Mechanical Plant". This fact can be found on the Russian version of the page: "Буквы MP следует читать как латинские буквы, которые являются сокращением от Mechanical Plant (Механический завод)" (Machine Translated: The letters MP should be read as Latin letters, which are an abbreviation of the Mechanical Plant), with this page as its citation. Relevant paragraph from citation follows:
После долгих работ над возможными вариантами конструкции, многочисленных усовершенствований и доработок, готовый пистолет на ИЖМЕХ-е получил наименование MP-443, при чем MP следует читать как латинские буквы, которые являются сокращением от Mechanical Plant (Механический завод). Однако для официальных испытаний оружию был присвоен индекс 6П35. На научно-исследовательском полигоне Министерства обороны России пистолеты проходили испытания на ресурс, надежность функционирования в нормальных и затрудненных условиях (стрельба без смазки, при температуре – 50 до + 50 градусов по Цельсию, в условиях запыления, при дожде). Всего во время таких испытаний было произведено около 1500 выстрелов.
Machine translated:
After much work on possible variants of design, numerous improvements and revisions, the Ready pistol on Izhmeh-E got the name MP-443, at what MP should be read as Latin letters which are reduction from Mechanical Plant (mechanical Factory). However, for official tests the weapon was assigned the index 6p 35. At the research site of the Russian Ministry of Defense pistols were tested on the resource, reliability of functioning in normal and difficult conditions (shooting without lubrication, at a temperature of 50 to + 50 degrees Celsius, in conditions Dust, rain). In total during such tests about 1500 shots were fired.
The discussion simultaneously resulted in the renaming of MP-412 REX, MP-444 Bagira, MP-445 Varyag, MP-446 Viking, and MP-448 Skyph. These should all be reverted. -- Wuzh ( talk) 04:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Discovery Science (TV channel). Since you had some involvement with the Discovery Science (TV channel) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. jamacfarlane ( talk) 02:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Hey, from your recent moves of professional wrestling templates, Template:Infobox Wrestling promotion is double redirecting to Template:Infobox wrestling promotion rather than targeting Template:Infobox professional wrestling promotion. I cannot fix it myself due to page protection. Pre fall 21:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu
I'm thinking of requesting close of the RM at Talk:Giuseppe Pitrè.
You closed it and it was then reopened by an involved editor, claiming that the listing period had not elapsed (by 51 minutes).
I'm just wondering, was it listed at WP:RME at the time of closure?
Best. Andrewa ( talk) 08:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Amakuru has beaten us to it. They're good value. Andrewa ( talk) 11:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi can I get military aristocracy restored, you had previously deleted it per WP:G5, thanks.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 00:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I moved the page history to the more appropriate location of Jimmy Doherty (Third Watch character). I then kept the dab page deleted since I don't see any further value in retaining it. — Xezbeth ( talk) 05:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit summary comment on Naoki dates in the Miyuki Miyabe article. Clarifying conferral date vs. award time frame is important. Following your lead I'll start using conferral date for the awards list and text, but also indicate the award time frame (e.g. 2003下) in the awards list. That should help clarify for readers why source articles say one year while the official list of winners sometimes indicates another. I've gone back through articles I've created or updated and made similar edits to keep things consistent. Good catch, thanks. Bakazaka ( talk) 20:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi - on the Bill Potts close, would you mind a little more meat on the bones of your rationale and maybe weigh the strength of the arguments? Seems to me like the !opposes were largely based on a faulty premise - that articles on fictional characters have to meet a higher standard to be primarytopic. I and a few other editors noted that that is not the case in any WP policy, guideline, or essay. I'd appreciate a second look. Thanks! Dohn joe ( talk) 16:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to come back to you because you closed my move request: /info/en/?search=Cyber_and_Information_Space_Command_(Germany) I attached a new official source to the article with the official naming of the command. Please look into it and relist my move request. Schariez ( talk) 19:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions. However, regarding Talk:List of Persian Roman Catholic saints would you mind giving it a relist, since it is actually 2-2 stakes? WP:CONSISTENCY for article realm should perhaps merit at least one relist, shouldn't it? Thank you! Chicbyaccident ( talk) 19:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn't that have benefited from a relist. Even if "Luccombe" was the most common name then WP:NATURAL could apply, but I think the OS is a more appropriate source than Google Maps. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 07:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Disambiguator's Barnstar | |
The Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who are prolific disambiguators. For piloting to a solution for the James Addison Baker articles. Oldsanfelipe ( talk) 19:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC) |
Today you changed the title of the Casma/Sechin culture article to Sechin Complex.
Apparently you requested the move on August 17, but my watchlist does not indicate any changes in the Casma/Sechin article on that day or any proposal to move the article. Had I known of the proposed move, I would certainly have commented, and probably opposed the move.
My problem is that the title Sechin Complex is not inclusive enough to describe the topic. The several archaeological remains of the culture are found not only in the Sechin River valley, but also in the Casma River Valley. The title Sechin Complex might be interpreted to exclude the ruins in the Casma Valley. The title Casma/Sechin culture makes clear that all these ruins were similar in culture, existed contemporaneously, and were possibly politically united for part of their 2,000 year history.
Yes, the name Sechin Complex is often used to describe this grouping of ancient settlements. However, as several of the ruins already bear the Sechin name ( Sechin Alto, Sechin Bajo, and Cerro Sechin), I also thought it would be better if the article bore a more encompassing and less confusing name than Sechin Complex.
There is also precedent. The culture found about 100 miles distant is described in the article titled Norte Chico civilization. One reason that title was chosen was that it is more inclusive than other possible titles such as Caral and Caral-Supe civilizations.
I'm not going to wrestle you down to the mat on this issue, but I am irritated that the watchlist system failed to notify me of the proposed change. Smallchief ( talk) 02:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello, because you were the closer of the move request on Talk:Zakarid Armenia, I would like for you to reconsider the result in order to avoid the lengthy WP:MR process. I had established that Zakarid Armenia is by far the more WP:COMMONNAME. Considering that "the debate is not a vote" and "valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements", this should've been convincing enough to move the article. And even if you do not believe it is sufficient, please consider the article had been named Zakarid Armenia for years until it was recently moved with no discussion taking place (and articles can't be moved back to a previous name by regular users). So if you still consider there to be no consensus, then reverting the article back to Zakarid Armenia should've still been the correct result. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 16:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Armenia within the Kingdom of Georgia. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 17:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, when you move a template, please check whether there is a "name" parameter within the template. If so, this needs to be updated to match the new page name.
This applies to all stub templates and navigation templates, and probably others too.
I mention it because you did not update the parameter after doing the requested move of Template:RC-society-stub to Template:Catholic-Church-society-stub.
I hope this is helpful. Thanks for all you do here! – Fayenatic London 09:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Corn, N64 Emulator. Since you had some involvement with the Corn, N64 Emulator redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu. You protected the page Template:Lookfrom. It was subsequently made a redirect after the template was moved, and thus the original basis for protection, that it is a high-risk template, no longer applies. Could you unprotect the page? It would also facilitate a pending edit request. Thanks. -- Bsherr ( talk) 21:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey, I just noticed this. I don't recall, but was the version of the page you deleted a separate (content fork) article created by me during 2017 Asian Month? The article appears on my list of articles created, but the live version of the page has no edits by me; I suspect what happened is someone created an earlier article at the wrong title without leaving a redirect at the right one, and I accidentally concluded that no article existed and created my own (this is what happened at Talk:Kanikōsen, and I actually recall venting to User:Curly Turkey about inconsistent naming order of modern-but-dead Japanese authors at around that time). If you don't mind, could you restore my version and put it in my user space as User:Hijiri88/Fusao Hayashi so I can overwrite my version (which unlike the present version was almost certainly fully cited) and keep whatever of the existing article is worth keeping? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 23:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Dekimasu. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Dekimasu: The hospital article Frank R. Howard Memorial Hospital had the sockpuppet User:Frayae illegally rejected the move of Frank R. Howard Memorial Hospital to Adventist Health Howard Memorial. So the article should be moved to Adventist Health Howard Memorial. I greatly support this move since it makes sense to move Frank R. Howard Memorial Hospital to the new name Adventist Health Howard Memorial. Catfurball ( talk) 17:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi!
I'm wondering if you would consider reopening/relisting the move discussion at Genesis flood narrative you closed as "no consensus"? [87] I would argue that there needs to be more time and perhaps more attention brought to the discussion as there are outstanding questions that are unanswered by some of the participants and the quality of the arguments is rather uneven up until now.
I would be curious if you had any ideas of how to more widely advertise this discussion to get more input if you do find occasion to reverse your close.
Thanks.
jps ( talk) 10:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Similarly, it seems indecently brief for you to have closed this move discussion within 15 hours of the first response, and with the !votes at 2-2. Please explain how you consider the requirements of WP:NOTMOVED section 2 in such a short (in both the temporal and extension senses) discussion. Kevin McE ( talk) 00:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu
We're working to measure the value of Wikipedia in economic terms. We want to ask you some questions about how you value being able to edit Wikipedia.
Our survey should take about 10-15 minutes of your time. We hope that you will enjoy it and find the questions interesting. All answers will be kept strictly confidential and will be anonymized before the aggregate results are published. Regretfully, we can only accept responses from people who live in the US due to restrictions in our grant-based funding.
As a reward for your participation, we will randomly pick 1 out of every 5 participants and give them $25 worth of goods of their choice from the Wikipedia store (e.g. Wikipedia themed t-shirts). Note that we can only reward you if you are based in the US.
Click here to access the survey: https://mit.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eXJcEhLKioNHuJv
Thanks
Avi
Researcher, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy -- Avi gan ( talk) 00:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
1.129.104.218 has asked for a Move review of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Hhkohh ( talk) 02:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu, can we have your more detailed reasoning (policy considerations, etc.) behind the closure on Talk:2018 Leicester helicopter crash#Requested move 6 December 2018 please. Thanks. -- DeFacto ( talk). 21:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." I assumed that statements of support or oppose based on personal opinion rather than supported by Wiki policy would be disregarded. And WP:CONLEVEL (part of the consensus policy) is explicit that "
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." It also says "
Wikipedia has many naming conventions relating to specific subject domains... This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names.... So I would have thought from that, that WP:COMMONNAME policy should trump a Wikiproject naming convention, rather than vice-versa. -- DeFacto ( talk). 14:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Article titles should not contain the year of the incident unless needed for disambiguation." -- DeFacto ( talk). 17:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I have initiated a discussion specifically about the redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 18#Christian. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019! |
Hello Dekimasu, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. |
Hello, Dekimasu. Happy New Year to you! 2019 is coming soon. Can you creat the article "2019 in Japan" in English Wikipedia? Thanks a lot!
123.150.182.177
13:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Just in case I've updated the main article for AMD's proprietary graphics device driver "Radeon Software Crimson Edition" (Formerly Catalyst) after the requested move. Maybe the weird overlong section title should be also fixed, e.g., drop the Crimson Edition detail, but keep proprietary + formerly Catalyst as is. – 84.46.53.87 ( talk) 02:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
You recently closed a RM at Talk:Hewlett-Packard. I'm wondering if I should merge HP Inc. into Hewlett-Packard then get an admin to do the move or if I should start a merge request. I thought the request I opened was suppose to be a merge and move request at the same time. I started the RM rather then a merge request after a discussion at Talk:HP Inc.. So, what should I do next? – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 21:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Dear Dekimasu, thank you for listing the "Universität Klagenfurt" discussion! Cambridge51 ( talk) 10:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC) |
Good day! Did you mention me at Wikipedia:Requested moves? Please {{ ping}} me when you reply. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 14:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey. Regarding Talk:Moscow Metro#Requested move 31 December 2018, I just wanted to let you know that you moved the Moscow Metro page to Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya line by accident. It was supposed to be the Arbatsko–Pokrovskaya line page that was moved. I've moved the pages to the correct title. Just a friendly reminder to please be careful next time. Thank you. epicgenius ( talk) 02:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
You recently closed the move discussion of Talk:Zayn Malik. As a matter of fact move discussions are generally closed after at least 7 days. And I do not know how to send a Move Review, so I discarded the close. 68.195.141.2 ( talk) 00:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Zayn Malik. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Neel.arunabh ( talk) 04:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
You are certainly right that renaming the page "Sarah Vaughn" would conflict with the existing page. Can we rename the page "Sarah Vaughn (album)" to distinguish it from the main entry on the person "Sarah Vaughn"? Dr.skim ( talk) 14:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello Dekimasu,
EPIC Church International is an official name change credibility verified by multiple sources locally and on the internet. Thank you. Yours truly, follow of Jesus Christ alwaysCite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page)..
John1427 (
talk)
18:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
From the love of Jesus, I admit it
John1427 (
talk)
18:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks TheSandDoctor Talk 17:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Please move my request [88] onto the main Wikipedia page please, thank you. 194.207.146.167 ( talk) 13:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Back in May 2018 I requested a simple name change, which you closed as refused. I recently found it had been renamed exactly as requested by a registered editor with no drama.-- 86.29.222.228 ( talk) 15:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Secondary sources were not supplied as being largely irrelevant - they do not determine the team name in any way, but can be keyed-in sloppily, or be copied from WP without acknowledgement due to the internet being unregulated, as you will know, so better to 'get it right'. I had actually looked at third-party sources, generally (and so found the comment "Do your homework first" to be condescending, as a registered username would not have had to supply substantiation). Accordingly I will not being re-submitting. Some website presences do show the name 'wrongly', but the majority are in accordance with the historic team name. A basic google search shows WP to be out of line in the initial results - note there are other (sometimes) unconnected businesses using Tech3 or Tech 3.-- 86.29.222.228 ( talk) 16:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Today you blocked this user, but I feel like that may be a very heavy-handed response. While they are self-admittedly associated with that company and did make some questionable edits in the past, those seem to have been over 5 years ago. Their main recent activity was contacting Wikipedia via the Help Desk and Teahouse (an acceptable way to engage with Wikipedia rather than directly editing), and at the time, they were given a standard COI message on their talk page. I feel like we can be a bit more diplomatic and offer them an opportunity to WP:DISCLOSE and continue to use methods like community boards and the article talk pages to contact us. -- Netoholic @ 16:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for catching and fixing this. But it's kind of a drag because it's nice to have references from a given section all co-located at the end of that section, instead of having one global References. Any way to fix that? -- В²C ☎ 01:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, regarding the recent close, there were three supports (including one as the nominator) and one oppose. This sounds like sufficient consensus to me. Would you be willing to reconsider the close? -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of 2019 Indigenous Peoples March Incident. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Jax 0677 ( talk) 18:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Why did you close the requested move at Talk:TVA this soon? There were only four comments, and one of them used a factually incorrect statement in his/her position, and we were still waiting on them to reply. Would you mind relisting it so we can possibly get a clearer consensus on whether or not to move the page? Bneu2013 ( talk) 06:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Regarding your
closure; The are 3 opposes the last two being the copy of Icewhiz's comment. I checked all the sources Icewhiz grounded his argument on.
NY times does not say it was an Iranian plot rather it says "The European Union penalized Iran on Tuesday over allegations that the country’s intelligence service orchestrated a series of assassination plots in Europe,"
and there's no sentence showing NYTimes is supporting the title.
The Telegraph article begins with "The Dutch government has accused Iran of..."
and again claims and allegations are reported and there's no text saying the assassination plot was made by Iran. Same is true for for the
the Reuters saying "Iran has denied any involvement in the alleged plots..."
and "as the Netherlands accused Iran of two killings on its soil ..."
. I think sources were misinterpreted to reach the conclusion that the current title fits and it's not an allegation, while all the sources mentioned by users are cautious and use terms like "alleged", "claimed", "accused" and etc. So, the only argument opposing the proposal was based on a misunderstanding/misinterpretation of the sources. That said, do you really think those opposes have the same weight as the supports? --
Mhhossein
talk
14:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I've actioned Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AmYisroelChai with CheckUser. NativeForeigner Talk 06:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
StraussInTheHouse relisted this discussion about ten minutes before you closed it as no concensus, specifically to avoid that outcome. Would you mind reopening? PC78 ( talk) 22:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits on
Talk:List of Sword Art Online episodes. I didn't know that a move discussion is kept for 7 days. I still have a lot to learn. Pardon me can I make a suggestion? You added an userbox stating that you have made more than 50000 edits. But your contributions number is 41827 at the moment. Please modify it. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Masum Reza
talk
05:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Why are you objecting to Anita Hassandani move. That is her name that she uses now. If you type up her name anywhere it will say she uses Anita not Natasha anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.178.72 ( talk) 11:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu, My page mover rights has been expired. Could you please reassign page mover rights with no expiry. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 02:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Is it possible to re-open this discussion. It's only been a week and it is a low traffic page. --Let There Be Sunshine 17:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cybele Palace (Madrid). Since you had some involvement with the Cybele Palace (Madrid) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. B dash ( talk) 16:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu,
I'm wondering if you would consider reopening/relisting the move discussion at IDFC First Bank you closed as "not moved"? The official spelling "IDFC FIRST Bank" is very important since this is how it would appear in Google's Knowledge panel. I am providing you with few reference links so that you can consider reopening/relisting the move request.
IDFC FIRST Bank Official Website See how IDFC FIRST Bank is written in logo used on this news publishing site Official Twitter Account of IDFC FIRST Bank Official YouTube Channel of IDFC FIRST Bank Official Instagram Account of IDFC FIRST Bank Official LinkedIn Account of IDFC FIRST Bank See how IDFC FIRST Bank is written in logo used on this news publishing site
Hope this helps!
Thanks & Regards, namrata.kadam 09:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu,
As you suggested, I had redirected the IDFC First Bank to IDFC FIRST Bank and it was reviewed by Narutolovehinata5, but today I found that it is again redirected to old one by JJMC89 with a comment "moved page IDFC FIRST Bank to IDFC First Bank over redirect: revert undiscussed move" though we have discussed this move. Could you please let me know what can be done in this scenario? Should i undo the changes made by JJMC89?
Best Regards, namrata.kadam
Hello Dekimasu, just a quick courtesy note fyi about this page's recent copypaste move (I noticed you objected to this move at Talk:Vela Trading Technologies in 2018). From a technical point of view, it would be far easier to accept the change now instead of reverting the whole mess once again. But of course you could revert the move, if you strongly disagree with the recent changes - I have only cleaned up some tagging and linking afterwards, and have no horse in this race either way :). GermanJoe ( talk) 23:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello there Dekimasu, I hope your new year has been well. I'm writing to you about my page mover permission. As according to WP:INDEFRIGHTS: "In general, rights of editors blocked indefinitely should be left as is. Rights specifically related to the reason for blocking may be removed at the discretion of the blocking or unblocking administrators.". However, you removed my page-mover right in December. I'm guessing (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) the reason you removed it was the 7th reason: "The editor has been inactive for 12 months.", as I was blocked indefinitely. However, now I have completed the Standard Offer, that is no longer the case. I am now wondering would it be possible for me to regain my permission. Apologises if I seem demanding, this is not my intention. Thank you. The Duke 20:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Request translation: ja:烏丸家 ( Karasumaru family), ja:山本顧彌太 ( Koyata Yamamoto), ja:亀井重清 ( Shigekiyo Kamei), ja:片岡常春 ( Tsuneharu Kataoka), ja:伊勢義盛 ( Yoshimori Ise), ja:駿河次郎 ( Jirō Suruga), ja:鷲尾義久 ( Washio Yoshihisa), ja:富樫泰家 ( Yasuie Togashi), ja:大社駅 ( Taisha Station), ja:村田勝志 ( Katsushi Murata), ja:藤井恒久 ( Tsunehisa Fujii), ja:宮根誠司 ( Seiji Miyane), ja:諸國沙代子 ( Sayoko Shokoku), ja:世界一受けたい授業 ( THE MOST USEFUL SCHOOL IN THE WORLD), ja:にっぽん丸 ( Nippon Maru (1990)), ja:馬場元子 ( Motoko Baba), ja:生ハムと焼うどん ( Nama Ham & Yaki Udon), ja:さわかぜ (護衛艦) ( JDS Sawakaze), ja:いず (巡視船・2代) ( Izu (PL 31)), ja:かめりあ丸 ( Camellia Maru), ja:京都府警察 ( Kyoto Prefectural Police), ja:柳川次郎 ( Jirō Yanagawa), ja:花形敬 ( Kei Hanagata), ja:小林楠扶 ( Kusuo Kobayashi), ja:毎朝新聞 ( Maiasa Shinbun), ja:田中六助 ( Rokusuke Tanaka), ja:角田 久美子 ( Kumiko Tsunoda), ja:安村直樹 ( Naoki Yasumura), ja:三枝夕夏 ( Yūka Saegusa), ja:少年ケニヤ ( Shōnen Kenya), ja:チャンピオン太 ( Champion Futoshi), ja:ジャイアント台風 ( Giant Typhoon), ja:引田有美 ( Yumi Hikita), ja:松岡巌鉄 ( Gantetsu Matsuoka), ja:鈴木理子 (ホリプロ) ( Riko Suzuki), ja:谷内里早 ( Risa Taniuchi), ja:尾崎仁彦 ( Kimihiko Ozaki), ja:アーサ米夏 ( Aasa Maika), ja:ミスター高橋 ( Mister Takahashi), ja:吉村道明 ( Michiaki Yoshimura), ja:沖識名 ( Shikina Oki), ja:芳の里淳三 ( Junzō Yoshinosato), ja:SAKI ( SAKI), ja:MIZUKI ( MIZUKI), ja:万喜なつみ ( Natsumi Maki), ja:篠原光 ( Hikaru Shinohara), ja:沖野ヨーコ (漫画家) ( Yōko Okino), ja:徳住有香 ( Yuka Tokuzumi), ja:とみながまり ( Mari Tominaga), ja:堀内博之 ( Hiroyuki Horiuchi), ja:永野椎菜 ( Shiina Nagano), ja:諏訪道彦 ( Michihiko Suwa), ja:阿部ゆたか (Yutaka Abe), ja:渡部陽一 ( Yōichi Watanabe), ja:吉岡昌仁 ( Masahito Yoshioka), ja:グレッグ・アーウィン ( Greg Irwin). Thank you very much, if you can help me, because I'm too busy. -- 95.244.236.110 09:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Administrators
must secure their accounts
The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
|
This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, - Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Since you closed this Move Request of Chowkidar Chor Hai, the two discussion subsections below it; of Merger and Non-neutrality, also appear to look like they are closed. Can you please fix it? I tried; but wasn't able to. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 11:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks for your closure on this proposed move. TomHennell ( talk) 15:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello Dekimasu, I was wondering if you could explain to me the closing of this move request. There was barely any rationale given for keeping the name as it is. One user mentioned that I hadn't proven the real name was the real name even though I posted the official release of the policy. and One other user posted that this was an article specifically about the Trump administration's separation of families, which is untrue because the title mentions a policy name, and there are several other Presidential administrations mentioned in teh article itself. However, on the support side you had my explanations, and two other supporters who agreed and gave reasons for their belief that titling this by a made up policy name is wrong. I know that if this was a straight vote, the name change would lose, but as I understand it, it is not supposed to be a vote. I think the points made in favor of moving it far outweigh the minor points made in favor of keeping this fictitious policy name. Thank you. Doniboy71 ( talk) 20:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Since you were the blocking admin, this is a heads up that I've created an ANI discussion about OfficeBoy and his sourcing problems, if you want to weigh in. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() | |
Ten years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
この
ミラ
PはDekimasuたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます!
フレフレ、みんなの未来!/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラ
P
02:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Dekimasu,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-
Nahal
(T)
23:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Per this close, it's interesting that moving one redirect over another to the same article is perfectly OK to do manually, but is considered malformed by the bot. The move would have accomplished exactly what was intended; the redirects are not "identical" as you said, because one of them appears in a category and the other one doesn't. Don't you think it makes sense to use RM for this, to rename the item in the category? It seemed to me like the most sensible way to get some eyes on the question. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
You have relisted the move request at Talk:Mirroring (psychology). Two support and two oppose. One oppose is based on a refuted claim ("No primary topic"), the other is invalid per WP:NOTNEEDED. How does your close mesh with WP:NHC? Paradoctor ( talk) 12:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I generally agree with what you said when you pinged me at Talk:20th Century Studios/Archives/2020#Requested move 17 January 2020, I just got to the discussion too late to comment in it before it was closed. We should usually wait for usage in sources to change. That said, such moves are usually actually harmless as long as redirects work and the lead is clear, unless there's something potentially very reader-confusing about the case (e.g. the Kraft others instances in which the old company name remains the dominant brand/service name and all that's happened is a background change of the name of the legal entity, or a merger into a different one). I doubt that 20th Century Studios versus 20th Century Fox has much in the way os major user-confusion potential. If Apple Inc. changes its name tomorrow to Global iDevices Inc., then we'd have a different kind of case, because they'd continue to be referred to as Apple by almost everyone for several years, except in financial news, etc. It's been my experience that it's often actually easier to move barely-notable company names shortly after such a corporate name change, because COMMONNAME barely applies due to the lack of much coverage at all. I.e., there's not much RECOGNIZABILITY to even consider. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
PS: I also didn't notice your "living text" clarification at Talk:Das Kapital, Volume I#Requested move 6 December 2019 until after closure. Thanks for the pointer to the legal sense of a similar phrase, which I had not encountered (or remembered encountering), despite being a non-lawyer steeped professionally in several areas of US law as a policy analyst. It's a good usage to know, even if it's not terribly common. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Community view before Friday.
Only 100 or so words. It should be fun and serious at the same time.
All the best,
Smallbones( smalltalk) 00:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Of course you're right - a vaccine is not a treatment! Boud ( talk) 12:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the requested move of A Line (Blue) (Los Angeles Metro) and other Metro pages. Since you had some involvement with pages related to A Line (Blue) (Los Angeles Metro) and others, you might want to participate in the discussion if you wish to do so. Lexlex ( talk) 11:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Greetings. Not sure if this is the correct channel or whether if this is an appropriate request, but I've navigated to your page through Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and the "Want to skip the drama? Check the Recently Active Admins list for admins who may be able to help directly" option. As I've noticed your activity on 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak and thereby be fit to understand the context of the discussion, I've like to request your input in an informal DRR/3 for a stonewalled discussion thread there, if possible. The link to that is here: 1 Best. Sleath56 ( talk) 06:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your cleanup on Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). The same editor you cleaned up after also put 4 large edits in 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak that might contain similar material. Can you skim them for copyright violations? oldest, #2, #3, and the most recent. These were all made between 05:25, 3 February 2020 and 10:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC). davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 15:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Dear Dekimasu,
I appreciate your input. However, what you have been doing regarding the coronavirus webpages is a clear obstruction of free flow of information. I don't know your particular field of study. However, I can reassure you that there are no available review articles on the novel coronavirus at the moment. The publication added is a good source of information and blocking other people's access to this source does not make sense in any way.
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by StatWikiped ( talk • contribs) 07:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Bio-star | |
Thank you so much for your tireless and high quality contributions to 2019 novel coronavirus Mvolz ( talk) 19:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC) |
@ Amakuru, Doc James, and BD2412: Hi. Kindly excuse the title for this discussion. As you are aware, most of the articles directly related to the 2019 coronavirus are having move/merge/split discussions every day. Is there any way to make all these articles consistent with 2019 novel coronavirus, and split the current 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak to reflect one article regarding outbreak in Wuhan, and China; and other article about the activity of coronavirus in rest of the world? —usernamekiran (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Apropos the "corona thingy", could you'all decide on a standardize name for this virus? It has at least three that I know of. Use the WHO name? Cheers! Shir-El too 09:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Will leave the experts to it. God Bless! Shir-El too 07:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The adjustments you made to the entry were perfect and exactly what was needed, and you summarized the two entries to say the same thing. And thank you for the reference cleanup and additional information added there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan ( talk • contribs) 07:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Dekimasu, on that latest removal regarding the "pangolin identified as early as 2003 in a list of illegally traded animals" was added because, yes, as you say it is not been concluded yet and yet at the same time that research is being conspiratorially called a "red herring." It should be shown this "pandolin" connection is not a conspiracy but a natural evolution of focus and thought over the last 17 years, and not even as recent as October 24, 2019. The research in Vietnam, among many that could be cited from that time, began because the world started looking at a list of illegally traded animals as sources of zoonotic viruses. This provides a context for serious consideration and to encourage more to study this scientifically. Finding the reservoirs is the most important aspect of correct antivirus creation.
I will of course, yield to your considerations in the overall scope of the article. Thanks again for your tireless efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan ( talk • contribs) 08:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
The 99% issue. The math on the sequence is 98.6% and this second paper is a refinement of that 99%. Look at this quote that is the basis of Nature's page:
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-02/07/c_138763355.htm
They have refined it, and this link is a refinement of that immediate "shoot from the hip" statement back on Feb 7th. This second study you mention is the more relevant information. Perhaps the first sentence can be adjusted to indicate this "was an initial reaction." Depending on how many blocks in the genetic code have been counted, 100, there is only 1 differing! Thank you again for all your efforts. 100%, 98.2%, 96.7% and 90.4% amino acid identity with 2019-nCoV in the E, M, N and S genes, respectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan ( talk • contribs) 07:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Once again dear sir. You nailed it and your circumspection curbs my passion. And yes, not intending for Wikipedia to break it, but Wikipedia is a great source of information because of people like you. Thank you.
Dekimasu, we have a new study and possible addition to the Reservoir/Pangolin. "Continued examination of the receptor-binding domain of SARS-CoV-2, suggests suggest that the development of new variations in functional sites in the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike seen in SARS-CoV-2 and viruses from pangolin SARSr-CoVs are likely caused by mutations and natural selection besides recombination." Source: https://academic.oup.com/nsr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nsr/nwaa036/5775463
This is an acknowledgement of how a 60 amino acid sequence in the Sub Unit 1 98-99% match to Pangolin can end up being in the receptor binding domain of SARS-COV-2. "...likely caused by mutations and natural selection besides recombination." We will probably never find the intermediate source because of this explanation also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan ( talk • contribs) 04:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Dekimasu, thank you for referencing the discussion prompted by this academic.oup.com study. The L and the S "multiple strains" is insignificant, shown by Trevor Bedford by mutation history. However, the portion of the link cited still includes any possible manner of natural selection, i.e. selective pressure, recombination, mutations, et. al. therefore believed it was relevant. Will continue scouring scientific articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan ( talk • contribs) 23:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Dekimasu, patience has paid off. The 98-99% pangolin amino acid sequences of the Sub Unit 1 of the Receptor Binding Domain of SARS-CoV-2 is now being reported as a clear indication this of natural selection or natural origin. (based on the discussions above you recommended we wait for to be published). It is also now being reported in LiveScience.com
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9 https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-not-human-made-in-lab.html
This reality is the single most important questions about the virus, as it determines whether it will recirculate or not, and now a preponderance of peer review and professional journalism has established that. Therefore a final paragraph with citations to the article(s) above would be fitting:
The appearance of the 98-99% pangolin sequence in the Sub Unit 1 of the Receptor Binding Domain, including all six key RBD residues, "clearly shows that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein optimized for binding to human-like ACE2 is the result of natural selection."
I am very excited that the Nature.com link above cites all of these materials we had been finding and put it all together just like you recommended.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan ( talk • contribs) 19:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Furthermore, "The KD values for the bat and the pangolin SARS-like CoV RBDs indicated that it would be difficult for bat SARS-like CoV to infect humans; however, the pangolin CoV is potentially infectious to humans with respect to its RBD. " Without the pangolin reservoir, this novel coronavirus would never have become so potentially infectious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan ( talk • contribs) 19:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Dekimasu, I hope you and your family are doing well. Yes, I agree with you on the overall assessment of the preprint. The preponderance of scientific viewpoints is now that a pangolin sequence in Sub Unit 1 of the Receptor Binding Domain explains giving SARS-CoV-2 its infectious ability. It has been shown Pangolin involvement cannot be denied as a part of the Reservoir sections.
I am going to be more precise. Here is the 3rd paragraph under Reservoir section:
A metagenomic study published in 2019 previously revealed that SARS-CoV, the strain of the virus that causes SARS, was the most widely distributed coronavirus among a sample of Sunda pangolins.[46] On 7 February 2020, it was announced that researchers from Guangzhou had discovered a pangolin sample with a viral nucleic acid sequence "99% identical" to SARS-CoV-2.[47] When released, the results clarified that "the receptor-binding domain of the S protein of the newly discovered Pangolin-CoV is virtually identical to that of 2019-nCoV, with one amino acid difference."[48] Pangolins are protected under Chinese law, but their poaching and trading for use in traditional Chinese medicine remains common.[49][50]
Adding:
A metagenomic study published in 2019 previously revealed that SARS-CoV, the strain of the virus that causes SARS, was the most widely distributed coronavirus among a sample of Sunda pangolins.[46] On 7 February 2020, it was announced that researchers from Guangzhou had discovered a pangolin sample with a viral nucleic acid sequence "99% identical" to SARS-CoV-2.[47] When released, the results clarified that "the receptor-binding domain of the S protein of the newly discovered Pangolin-CoV is virtually identical to that of 2019-nCoV, with one amino acid difference."[48] Bats and pangolins are suspected as the reservoir and the intermediate host. The receptor binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 S protein plays the key role in the tight binding to human receptor ACE2 for viral entry." https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.15.991844v2
Furthermore, "The KD values for the bat and the pangolin SARS-like CoV RBDs indicated that it would be difficult for bat SARS-like CoV to infect humans; however, the pangolin CoV is potentially infectious to humans with respect to its RBD." Hence, the 98-99% pangolin amino acid sequence in Sub Unit 1 of the Receptor Binding Domain of the virus, explains how the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV2-2, gained its ability to infect a human host efficiently.
Pangolins are protected under Chinese law, but their poaching and trading for use in traditional Chinese medicine remains common.[49][50]
"The genome sequence of the virus isolate (GX/P2V) has very high similarity (99.83-99.92%) to the five sequences obtained through the metagenomic sequencing of the raw samples, and all have similar genomic organizations to SARS-CoV-2". https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2169-0_reference.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan ( talk • contribs) 04:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Again, the point of these entries is not to say the pangolin is the immediate reservoir, but that the pangolin sequence in the RBD is significant. And SARS-CoV-2 like viruses in Pangolins prove pangolins can be a reservoir of a human infectious strain. We believe this is noteworthy and applicable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan ( talk • contribs) 02:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for opening my eyes to several topics at the end of the SARS-CoV-2 move request. It had not occurred to me that there is no WP:MOS for something like viruses and that they likely should be separate from WP:NCMED. Also, thanks for the pointer to MOS:ALTNAME. Finally, I went back to the move talk discussion tonight after seeing a new Lancet letter suggesting the CSG's proposed name be changed. It may be weeks (or more) till the name is truly resolved in the scientific community. Best, Inkwzitv ( talk) 06:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I think you should have closed Talk:Planters#Requested move 17 February 2020 as "no consensus to move" instead of "not moved". Yes I realize that the arguments against the move were probably stronger than those in favour in the !votes, but I had provided provided a significant rationalization in my nomination statement with reference to the guidelines and conventions (previous discussions). While there were only 2 supporting (with 1 weak) v 4 opposers, only 2 of the opposers contained any substantial rationalization, the 1st originally being a personal attack (that was removed by another editor) and the 2nd only with a link to PLURALPT which usually (but not always) supports the singular and plural forms going to the same place. While the 2 supporters didn't contain as much rationalization they did appear to allude to the 2nd criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. While I realize that this change doesn't actually physically affect the outcome I think it would more appropriately reflect the discussion since "no consensus" to move is usually in between "not moved" and "no consensus", thanks. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 18:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Just wanted to know what your variety of English is so that I can replace the ugly {{ EngvarB}} template on Coronavirus disease 2019 with the correct regional one, like {{ Use British English}} or {{ Use Australian English}}. · • SUM1 • · ( talk) 09:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know the procedures for summarizing a Wiki discussion and actually performing a Move of "heat-not-burn products" to "heated tobacco products" now that it has been under discussion for a week and the consensus of support looks consistent. Could you perchance do so or let me know who can? thank you very much. DrNicotiana ( talk) 18:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
The bot is meant to free up whatever menial work the manual work entails, but if you think is fine still, let's put it in much later as you have mentioned.
The RM section can be pinned just like what's done with Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_outbreak#Semi-protected_anti-vandalism_request_on_3_March_2020:
<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message}}<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 08:46, 1 March 2030 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1898585168}}<!-- END PIN -->
robertsky ( talk) 11:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey,
I'm a journalist writing about the COVID-19 wikipedia page. Any interest in talking real quick? Thanks! Journo0000 ( talk) 16:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Hi Dekimasu, just a note of thanks for your ongoing work on the coronavirus articles, ensuring they're kept factual, on-topic, and free from spam and POV pushing. It's at times like this that we realise what an amazing body of editors we have working here, and how fantastic this project really is. Keep up the good work! — Amakuru ( talk) 19:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC) |
Hi Dekimasu,
I saw you edited my contribution to the Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2 Infection section. Unfortunately, the resulting paragraph features the early February WHO spread model which discounts asymptomatic transmission, but it has been superceded by the results March 16 article from Science, showing the majority of infections are from pre-symptomatic shedders. That is extremely important information. I am ready to update but figured you would have thoughts and want to avoid revision conflicts. Please let me know how you'd like to proceed as soon as possible.
Thanks, Pablo Mayrgundter ( talk) 19:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi there! I noticed that you reverted my edit to SARS-CoV-2. However, I'm a bit confused as to exactly what was wrong. COVID-19 is the official name for Coronavirus disease 2019, and nCov-19 was it's provisional name (Novel Coronavirus 2019, as it was unclear as to if it was a disease or syndrome). Neither of which, are viruses, and simultaneously, you can't have a symptom of a virus be a virus, as you seem to indicate. In reality, the only change I made was change the symptom from it's provisional to its official name. ItsPugle ( talk) 01:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu,
Unlike the two previous deletions of the entry I wrote regarding LTB4, you've made an interesting point, that deserves some consideration. I think your reason for deleting my entry is a bit of a gray area because the conclusion that LTB4 may be worth considering for future research is a soft conclusion that in the current context I think justifies some slack with respect to the Wikipedia no original research policy (as stated on the page that you helpfully directed me to). I get the purpose of the WP:NOR policy, but in this instance I think it applies weakly and for the sake of the greater good (because of what is currently at stake) should perhaps not be so rigidly adhered to.
Regards,
Elariphe ( talk) 02:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu, you reverted [89] my edit [90] stating it would not improve the article.
Actually, my edit realized quite many detail improvements, so I'm a bit puzzled about your reversion.
Regarding 4-digit years, MOS does not require 4-digit years for consecutive years, but it recommends them unless there are strong reasons not to use them. Why should we use abbreviated years? This is fine for space-constrained areas, but otherwise it looks very unprofessional (after all, we are an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and this is about a virus, not a sports season or such). Regarding broken links, can you point me to one, I must have overlooked it. It was certainly not my intention to break anything.
Regarding the expansion of the citations, a reference not even properly naming the authors is almost worthless. I therefore changed it so that all authors are displayed and their forenames can be spelled out as well. Authors, for which we have articles, can be linked as well (already started, but requires more work). Also, this change significantly improves the produced metadata.
Some citations were using abbreviated Vancouver style names, others did not, that's why I made sure that all citations use the same consistent format. If there would be consensus to use Vancouver style it would be possible to add |name-list-format=vanc
to display the names in that style while still providing the proper names in metadata.
|year=
is a deprecated parameter kept only to support a special case (not used in the article), which should be replaced by |date=
.
In a few cases, the author was given as "World Health Organization"; we don't normally specify an author if none is given in the source (and the publisher is the same anyway). What we usually do is add a hidden comment "staff writer".
{{ cite news}} and {{ cite newspaper}} are the same, but specifying "news" could be confused with {{ cite newsgroup}}, that's why spelling it out as "newspaper" is better. However, this is only cosmetics.
|website=
is typically used for website names (like google.com or nextstrain.org). If the site has a real name / logo or such, this typically goes into |work=
instead (or into |publisher=
if it is the publisher). Periodicals like New York Times or Wall Street Journal go into parameters like |newspaper=
(or |journal=
or |magazine=
if we were using {{
cite journal}} or {{
cite magazine}} rather than {{
cite newspaper}}), not into |website=
. There's certainly more tweaking necessary here, this was just the start.
--
Matthiaspaul (
talk)
12:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
|vauthors=
is not deprecated (yet - some users want to ditch it), but it appears to be used rarely outside the context of medical articles. At least, I haven't seen it being used in technical articles for quite a while.|last=
/|first=
and then use |name-list-format=vanc
to override the output format, so that the template would still contain all information for metadata and other styles.|last=
/|first=
and |name-list-format=vanc
instead of |vauthors=
.|last=
/|first=
, |name-list-format=vanc
and list style instead of |vauthors=
appears to be a workable solution. If you are not familiar with this variant, I could demonstrate this for a test citation so you can see yourself. What do you think? (PS. Like you, I don't use tools or scripts for security reasons.)An editor has asked for a Move review of Planters. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 17:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for all you do...peace be with you... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100b:b124:b002:81d4:b3cc:32b2:7829 ( talk • contribs)
My edit was intended to render the sentence in concise English. The word "so" spells out what is already clear and obvious from the prose. If your native language is not English, I see where you are coming from. It's important to realize what the previous sentence imparted to the reader. If the reader is not generating their own "if...then" scenario based on the preceding sentence, how are they managing to understand the article's prose in general? My guess is that you are a native speaker of an Asian language, as the construction you employed is characteristic of the usage chosen by editors from Asia who are editing in English. I revert them all.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 04:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
"China virus" and "Wuhan virus".The discussion is about the topic
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Thank you. Sorry about this, but I don't think the discussion will be resolved until it goes to the noticeboard. Kind regards.
Hemiauchenia (
talk)
17:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
you've made article read worst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfdooger ( talk • contribs) 02:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Poll: 102,000,000 or 1.02 million Thanks! Feelthhis ( talk) 15:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu, [91] "undo de-capping, not mandated for piped links in this way" I'm surprised that's important enough to revert?! No edits are, in fact mandated, as it's voluntary. Is it an improvement? Well, not for readers no. For writers, arguably yes...my justification is User talk:Widefox/Archive 5#Caps in piped links . To me, it's a good indicator of a need for a copyedit of an article. In fact, I was suprised just how these SARS/COVID articles and dab were missing vital items in the lead, now fixed. Regards Widefox; talk 14:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu, I guess from your lack of editing that you're pretty burnt out by the whole coronavirus thing, especially around the whole "China virus" debacle. The NPOV noticeboard discussion suddenly started several days ago and has now reached concensus, that "China virus" and "Wuhan virus" shouldn't be used in the lead, after nearly two months it is finally over. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
About two years ago, you created the revert tag, do you recall the reasoning? I can't find a use at that time. It's basically unused and I think it's likely to cause confusion, especially as the devs plan to add a reverted tag ( phab:T254074). ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 21:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Coronavirus 2019. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 21#Coronavirus 2019 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Seventyfiveyears (
talk)
18:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Dekimasu,
I hope you're all good. I'm writing about a podcast documentary series I'm making about Wikipedia and the people behind it, and am looking for someone who's been active on the Covid-19 page. I came across your name and was wondering if you'd be happy to chat to me a bit about your work on the page and what it's like working on something that's a constantly changing, breaking news situation? Would be really interested to hear your thoughts.
Let me know what you think. Thanks! Wearecrowd ( talk) 16:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
The article Phil Salt (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Disambiguation page not required ( WP:2DABS). Primary topic has hatnote to only other use.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
20:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Good to see you back editing again! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 19:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi!
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Thank you. / Johan (WMF)
18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Hey, please don't delete a redirect just because a RM closed as move. If that was the result, the redirect should be moved, including all incoming links. As it stands you not only deleted a redirect, but left incorrect incomings link that are meant for the Arrow TV version of the character. Gonnym ( talk) 10:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello...I appreciate your quick attention to my addition of the "Triangle Daruma" section on the "Daruma Doll" page. Rather than make a separate page for this folk art form, I added it to the main page for "Daruma Doll." I would like to have the section return to the page, and respectfully ask that you reconsider.
I get over one million results when I search Google for "三角だるま" or "三角達磨" and over two million when I search for "三角ダルマ". There are over 3,000 English results for "sankaku daruma," but only 200 for "triangle daruma." If you prefer that I list and identify it as "sankaku daruma," I certainly would be glad to edit the section to reflect that header.
Also, I am very willing to add more information and attributions from deeper sources, as I had done in adding the Nikkei.com newspaper article. The source from 2004 did assert that Imai's son was the only maker of these figures at the time, but since 2018 they are crafted by a contingent of women in Agano City, where they are listed as a cultural property. This is from Japanese Wikipedia, where these dolls have their own page: 三角達磨
These figures are an historic folk art form in Japan, which I believe is evidenced by their extensive presence in online articles found through native Google searches. I feel they are significant cultural adaptations of the Daruma doll phenomenon and a relevant folk art form in their own right.
Thank you so much for your consideration... DDDnfl ( talk) 17:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Dear Dekimasu, I'm writing you regarding the discussion on the page Talk:Kharkiv Collegium. I've been very busy the last three days and haven't had time to reply. I have more arguments and I would like to have the opportunity to continue the discussion. I didn't know that in three days it would be closed. Can you please reopen the discussion or should I start a new one below? Ушкуйник ( talk) 07:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I am raising a concern there that your closure there was a pile-on supervote; the opposers operate entirely on the basis of rejecting definite articles as a good enough small detail, but I believe that is against our consistency policy due to longstanding precedent supporting the definite article as sufficient disambiguation. Much evidence that this is the case is cited this other RM I closed. Consideration of policy outweighs headcounts; doing otherwise is like failing to delete articles on blatantly non-notable things just because a majority voted to keep. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 16:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Dear Dekimasu, I realize that you have closed the RM discussion of the page Kriyananda. I would like to suggest that the arguments put forward by me endorsing the RM were entirely aligned with Wikipedia:CRITERIA, while OP's arguments lacked the reasoning on the same criteria. I would like to quote WP:TALKDONTREVERT : "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever."
The OP is strongly opposing my RM, yet they are not supporting their arguments with good reasoning (rather tends to overweigh on personal preference, often masquereding it as a preference of the article subject himself (Kriyananda). I request you to re-look at the discussion from this perspective. Bluesky whiteclouds ( talk) 17:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Not sure if formal discussions are required, but there are templates and categories which should probably be moved, per the recent rename of January 6 United States Capitol attack. Are you open to moving these or submitting rename requests? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
FYI, I have added the Dictionary of National Biography as a source for Honywell (and his date of birth). Please see discussion at Talk:Robert Honeywood#Requested move 17 August 2022. Thanks. wjemather please leave a message... 16:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
It looks like mosdab was seriously undated recently. Thanks for pointing at it. Still, placing surname in "See aslo" is wrong. The policy says, in part, A list of name-holders can be included in a People section of the page, or alternatively in sections such as People with the surname Xxxx or People with the given name Xxxx below the main disambiguation list.
Loew Galitz (
talk)
16:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of President of Japan. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Privybst ( talk) 05:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
The reason of those here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here is because of the redirect links so I have to fix them. That's the reason, so don't block me indefinite while I'm fixing it. Obrigado (Thank you). Wildlover22 User talk:Wildlover22:WL22 27, September 2022 (UTC) Wildlover22 ( talk) 04:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
[[redirect]]
with [[target|redirect]]
. This is an editing guideline on the English Wikipedia, which means all editors are expected to follow it in normal circumstances. I do appreciate your communication, but you still must stop editing links that are working redirects.
Dekimasu
よ!
04:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Stop and how many times do I have to you? "DON'T BLOCK ME INDEFINITELY WHILE I'M FIXING IT!" Wildlover22 ( talk) 15:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello! On behalf of WiTricity and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I've shared a draft entry for Japanese Wikipedia, which is a translated version of the English Wikipedia article. I'm searching for an editor who is willing to review this draft and update the entry appropriately. Might you be willing to take a look? Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason ( talk) 18:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your work in dealing with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fuhitobe.
The editor in question for that has been active for nearly a year, consistently producing rubbish from multiple languages. From what I've observed, their MO appears to be 1) find an article on the JA, DE, ZH, and RU Wikipedias (and possibly others), run that through machine translation, and engage in some light copy-editing. I am a professional JA-EN translator, and I'm fluent enough in German to be able to assess their efforts in that language pair as well -- and it all shows a profound ignorance of the other languages, the translation / localization process in general, the subject matter of the articles themselves, and Wikipedia standards (particularly Wikipedia:Notability, with a side order of problems in understanding what adequate sourcing is).
I and other editors have tried advising them to change their approach, as documented in part at User_talk:Immanuelle/Archive_2#Dongyue_Dadi and User_talk:Immanuelle/Archive_3#Please_take_previous_comments_into_account, among other threads. Our entreaties have clearly fallen on deaf ears, as those threads concluded in August and September of last year, and the editor continues to create terribly incorrect content.
I spend most of my time helping to admin over at Wiktionary, where this user would have been blocked months ago for their persistence in adding misinformation. I am less familiar with procedure here at Wikipedia. What forum would be the appropriate place for nominating this user for intervention / censure? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
[94] Elinruby ( talk) 06:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Oops meant to show you this one: [95] Elinruby ( talk) 06:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice on page move perm. I saw that you changed the title of an article mentioned at perms. I made some comments there about how I came to use the lowercase letter in "life" Still life: An Allegory of the Vanities of Human Life. Thank you. Bruxton ( talk) 16:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello Dekimasu, Thank you for removing the spam site that replaced Jolliffe's expired website for his project One Free Minute which now directs to a casino. Jolliffe was an awesome Wikipedian, and I like to keep an eye on his biographic article. Re: his expired "Official Website" I found an archived version on the Wayback Machine and added it to the External links. But I'm not sure I did this correctly.
Two questions: 1) Is there a tool available that can help with adding archived links (I see this frequently in citations where the url expired)? 2) Can a link to the archived site also be in the infobox, or should that be deleted since it duplicates info? Netherzone ( talk) 17:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi to whomsoever it may concern. We cannot retain former names of cities, the current name is Gurugram and not Gurgaon. Why do we need rfc ? it is common sense? If that is the case, then we should retain the city names Bombay and Madras. The advise received in preceding section is some editor's personal opinion. Personal opinions doesn't work in this case. News paper articles can write anything, they just take info from wikipedia, it is called mirroring of wikipedia. Coming to books and articles, there are still millions of articles calling cities as Bombay and Madras before their official name change. You cant take it as a standard, and forcefully rub your opinions on other editors. Your personal interest with Gurgaon instead of Gurugram cannot be endorsed by other editors. The Govt officially designated it as Gurugram city in ( Gurugram District) - https://gurugram.gov.in/department/municipal-corporation-gurugram/ Fostera12 ( talk) 14:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Plip!
For
Special:Diff/1149326615.
–
CityUrbanism
🗩
🖉
18:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Please revoke TPA, they are somewhat violating NPA and are being disruptive. Thanks, Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 07:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I see undid my move of the german torpedo named Neger from Neger (torpedo). do you think when someone see the title of my comment here will think “ha, a discussion about torpedoes!” Neger is german for negro or to be more accurate the n word. Never heard someone using that word and discovered they were talking about torpedos! FuzzyMagma ( talk) 13:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi Dekimasu! Thank you for your kind help on my draft article for James E Ketelaar.
The 2006 version of Ketelaar, J. E. (1990). Of Heretics and Martyrs in Meiji Japan: Buddhism and its Persecution. seems to be significantly altered beyond a translation. The following is written on his Chicago uni page https://history.uchicago.edu/directory/james-e-ketelaar: "Jakyô, Junkyô no Meiji: Haibutsu kishaku to kindai Bukkyô. Tokyo: Pelikan, 2006. A substantially revised version of Heretics and Martyrs in Japanese with a new introduction."
to that effect I believe that they constitute separate books. What are your thoughts? Thank you! Coroz Coroz12 ( talk) 00:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Hey there, Dekimasu. I suspect the block evader who has been editing the Sailor Moon articles over the past few months (such as Black Moon Clan, Chibiusa, Sailor Pluto, List of Sailor Moon Crystal episodes, etc.) has returned, this time as EleventhBrother26.5 ( talk · contribs), 2603:8001:4a00:ca8:154d:5d39:1fe2:fa76 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 216.176.47.241 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). Can you please take a look into this? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 01:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I've just stumbled on talk:IPA#Requested move 28 July 2018 where you (very reasonably) closed the discussion with a "consensus to move". But it doesn't seem to have happened? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 09:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
In the discussion at Talk:Post-it Note#Requested move 13 August 2023, you said "Please avoid relisting before the discussion's initial week has finished; this can be interpreted as a sort of finger on the scale. Dekimasu よ! 09:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)"
Is that guidance stated somewhere? Isn't a relisting prior to the end of a week the only way to discourage immediate closure when the end of the week arrives? And as far as I can tell, the relisting was only 10 hours before the end of the week; maybe DaxServer needed some sleep or needed to go somewhere offline IRL at the time. I notice that DaxServer had not expressed any opinion in the discussion. I was surprised to see some discouragement of relisting in the WP:RM instructions; I had thought that some years ago it had said anyone could relist – even editors who had been involved in the discussion – but perhaps my memory is faulty.
— BarrelProof ( talk) 16:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Dekimasu! Remember your page move on 19 March? It seems I have to alert you first before I begin the process with this as you did it and you're an admin. It kind of drag me into what I've never been used to here on WP until now; see my talk page. It seems part of the community wants to move foward with this now so as to prevent this from ever happening again. Thanks! Intrisit ( talk) 20:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Please, can you help me with these Japanese translations? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.251.38.168 ( talk) 06:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
I have asked for a Move review of List of spaghetti Westerns. Because you were involved in the discussion, you might want to participate in the move review. -- В²C ☎ 04:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Short version when we move (at least at WP:Plants) we mostly follow Plants of the World Online (POWO) (except for ferns, World Ferns for them), but check with other major sources like World Plants, World Flora Online, USDA, VASCAN, etc. to see if they are the one source that says something different than everyone else.
Longer version example. The discussion at Mahonia came to the conclusion that since both POWO and WFO say synonym of Berberis, even though World Plants says valid and there is a very persuasive paper, we're going with them for now since there is not yet a complete survey of everything that "should" be in Mahonia or the two new genus proposed. We're going to move and then wait and see if everyone changes their mind in five or ten years. Or not. Also most new serious botany books like Flora of Colorado by Ackerfield are using Berberis so this seems to be the way the wind is still blowing in the botanical world.
I changed my position on this one after discussion. I wanted to stick with Mahonia, but I opened the discussion because I was not sure if I was right after seeing NatureServe using Berberis for a species I was working on. Edit to add: I could not avoid the thorny issue. (joke) 🌿MtBotany ( talk) 15:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I noticed you reverted a lot of edits from an ip editor just now. Were they long term vandalizing Japanese pages? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
I am working on a draft on the Kobe Watatsumi Shrine, also more intuitively read as Umi Shrine (海神社) but I've been hitting a major brick wall. I can't find english book sources on it. I think this is rather strange for how highly ranked it is.
It is currently the highest ranked shrine in the Modern system of ranked Shinto shrines without an article, being an Imperial shrine, 2nd rank.
I'd like you to search a bit through google books or a similar service for any book sources about the shrine and determine if you think it is notable or not.
My leads are as follows to start
Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 08:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024! |
Hello Dekimasu, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
🛧 Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 05:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)