Copied from the page above:

Hi Brian, well fancy meeting you here! The point that I was trying to make (although apparently not very coherently!) was that IP is a major consideration to companies investing in development AND in the World of jigsaw puzzle accessories it is extremely difficult to acquire. Let's be honest, none of the accessories are rocket science and patents on such basic ideas are virtually out of reach. Having said that, if you let me know which sentences you would like to see changed I will be pleased to go along with you (or argue violently depending upon how the mood takes me at the time!!) By the way, this four tildes jobbie seems to work a treat! Talk to you soon, Colin ColinKing 19:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello, Imaginatorium. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 15:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template). reply

Johann August Just, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office ^connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 23:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Hey Imaginatorium; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 21:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Stupid article that mentions nothing about the physical and mental ability of toughness in humans and solely focus on materials. - WikifixerSOS

Please participate in the debate. Solomon7968 ( talk) 12:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply

The name meaning for Danball Senki is just nothing but a waste of space. I don't care if it's reliable or not, that breaks WP:TRIVIA. Don't you dare add this again.-- BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) ( talk) 02:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC) reply

In my Italian books of history of art I discovered that the dimensions are omitted. Thus I searched on Google Books a reliable source and I found only the one that I edited. I don't know where else to look, so feel free to change and modify as you like. Happy editing. -- Mauro Lanari ( talk) 19:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC) reply

I don't know what happened but you seemed to have cleared it up, thanks for your clean-ups on the article. Hope to see more of you. FourTildes ( talk) 07:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC) reply

It's true that "newly-formed" isn't a grammatical error, but like a lot of publications, Wikipedia's house style is to omit the hyphen after an -ly adverb. Per MOS:HYPHEN: "A hyphen is not used after a standard -ly adverb (a newly available home, a wholly owned subsidiary)".

I'll restore it for now, but don't intend to edit war if you have more sustained objections. In any case, thanks for your work! Always glad to run into another editor interested in the fine-grained detail. Cheers, Khazar2 ( talk) 13:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC) reply

No, that's fine. I think "newly-formed" is correct, but "newly formed" might be even correcter. I see that's what Chicago says. Imaginatorium ( talk) 13:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC) reply

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxnTdFyd0l0

Hello, this song is in F major or G-flat major ? 198.105.102.113 ( talk) 15:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply

It seems to be in F-major, if my piano and You-tube are not going wrong somewhere. (I wonder why you think I would know, other than by listening...?) Imaginatorium ( talk) 17:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Do you hear the difference ? 198.105.102.113 ( talk) 19:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello, the "Hunt Cantata" thing was a major (and rather silly) mixup on my part; I've corrected that. I've also made it far more clear that the ref is from 1937 (the page numbers match in this case between the 1937 and 2005 editions); the 2005 ISBN works on Amazon, for what it's worth, but it's probably better to present the ref without it. Graham 87 08:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Why are you removing this from WP:MOS-JA? Nothing on the talk page (as you claim) remotely reflects that it should be removed. In fact, no one has given a shit about that discussion since August and no change has been made to the guideline which would be to remove that whole section in the first place.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 07:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC) reply

I was merely tidying it up. See my comment on the talk page. Imaginatorium ( talk) 07:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Stop "tidying it up" because I clearly disagree with you. Once you're reverted that does not mean you institute your change again. Why do I keep coming across people like yourself who refuse to keep in line with this piece of etiquette?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 08:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC) reply

( talk page stalker) "Why do I keep coming across people like yourself who refuse to keep in line with this piece of etiquette?"

It's best just to ignore Ryulong. He questions why any number of people who can calmly and reasonably discuss matters seem to become argumentative when they interact with him. He does not appear to understand that there is a very simple explanation for this. It's what Nathan the Prophet said to David in 2 Samuel 12:7 -- Shirt58 ( talk) 13:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC) reply

I have replied to your query on my talk page. PMLawrence ( talk) 02:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure what's wrong because it makes no sense. I put in a change and it didn't work, so I reverted the template back to its old value, but for some reason the changed version is being cache-locked, and despite the fact I changed them it's locking the cached version in place and even though the template was changed it's ignoring the changed version and using the prior change. But editing a year page does get the corrected template and it's correct. So I have no idea why when I make a change it takes it and applies it immediately but when I change it again the change is ignored.

Look at the following for 2020: 2020 ( MMXX) was a leap year starting on Wednesday of the Gregorian calendar, the 2020th year of the Common Era (CE) and Anno Domini (AD) designations, the 20th year of the 3rd millennium and the 21st century, and the 1st year of the 2020s decade.

Yet go to 2020 and it's wrong. But edit 2020 and it's correct, but cancel edit and it's back to the old one. It's like it caches the old, incorrect format and won't go back. So even if I edit it ignores the edit and keeps the change. But then a new change is not incorporated. It makes no sense at all. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) ( talk) 17:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply

It looks like the caching problem has cleared, it's probably on a medium schedule, i.e. to keep from having to keep reloading an otherwise stable (or unstable) template, it has to be quiescent for 1/2 an hour to "stick." I also know why there was such a horrible problem, I was using a template that had the wrong information. What I will do is build a new set of templates to do testing, then once I know it does work I'll replace the original ones with the ones I know work. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) ( talk) 20:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Actually there are a lot of articles like this, even for well known composers, see: String Quintet No. 2 (Mendelssohn) for example.

My philosopy with articles like this is what Wikipedia's philosphy is supposed to be, namely "...write it and they will come...", the information exists, someone just needs to make the effort to supply it.

Graham1973 ( talk) 14:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Please understand first, I'm in favour of your contribution, not against it. But I do not think one can really consider a description of a single work (movements, tempo, duration, basic stuff really) as being an encyclopedia *article*. As you say, there are many pages like this (though this is the weakest of arguments!) and for large-scale, or super-significant works there may be a page and a half (as it were) of article to be written about them. For major composers, descriptions of all the works would obviously not fit in a single page, but even then I think a well-written article on Mendelssohn's chamber works would be better (though much harder to write) than lots of bitty pages like the one above. And for minor composers, the significant works could easily fit into a main article.

So I think this would be better merged into the composer article. Incidentally, I noticed it in the "New pages" list because it is an "Orphan", so currently it is almost guaranteed not to be read. I don't know how to do a "merge", other than by copying the content into the composer page, then suggesting deletion of the work page... perhaps I should look around the Music Project pages for suggestions.

Please reply here, to keep the discussion together. Imaginatorium ( talk) 15:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply

What happened to this page? It is interesting... Would like to know what it means....please undelete it!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.8.79 ( talk) 07:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply

I don't know that speedy deletion is really needed here. The article would be a valid redirect to Maya the Bee if only Asylum would not vandalize the content after the redirect syntax. I have engaged them on this matter to no avail, and so have opened an issue at WP:ANI. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 17:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I did not understand your message as it got deleted. Can you repost?? Hugs and love....

XOXXO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.8.79 ( talk) 07:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Thank you for correcting the names of the companies. What happened was that I mixed up the names (the Japanese ones) after obtaining them. I will be more careful in the future. Silver gasman ( talk) 18:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello Imaginatorium, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Yoroshiku Mechadoc, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It's in English. WP:A2 would apply if it was ja:よろしくメカドック copied without translation. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Shirt58 ( talk) 05:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Trust me, I would really like to have deleted this... but someone's probably got this in their DVD collection, all neatly arranged by date, genre and production house... -- Shirt58 ( talk) 05:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC) reply

There is this. -- Hoary ( talk) 05:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Koji Ruien, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meiji ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your work on this. (I just became involved when I tried to link to 'Cotswold escarpment' and found it didn't exist.) I very much support merging together of stubby articles like the one on "Cotswold stone", but just a couple of things I have noticed on this page, which you might be able to take into consideration.

• First, I really don't think that (unlike Wenlock Edge, for example) the Cotswold escarpment is usually referred to as an "Edge": there are more googits for "C Edge", but usually as the name of a golf club or similar. But the term "Cotswold escarpment" is very much used to refer to the large-scale geologic feature, with the dip slope going way to the East, Oxford or beyond. I think there could be a better geological/geographical overview of the shape. Perhaps a map...
• I also see some go.uk publication claims that the northern Cotswold stone is "darker". This seems an odd choice of word: it is very distinctly yellower, but this is done with the "Saturation" control, not "Luminance".

HTH. I grew up in Painswick, by the way. Imaginatorium ( talk) 09:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks for this. The wording is pretty much what I found in the Cotswold stone article. I haven't yet done any research on it, but will look into those aspects you mention. I'm having a long weekend in the Cotswolds next month, so thought I'd do some research on it before going there. I haven't looked very deeply yet, so there is something that is puzzling me - what is it that defines a place as being in the Cotswolds? I am suspecting it is the limestone bedrock. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC) reply

I just looked up Cotswold Edge, and found these: [1], [2], [3], [4]. It appears to be a fairly common usage. The article could do with a detailed geological description such as you mention, and perhaps mention Edge as the local name for the escarpment. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sapperton Railway Tunnel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sapperton ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC) reply

The article Alexandros (band) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence this band passes WP:BAND.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Bearian ( talk) 22:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi Brian! Tom here. I added a comment on the nihongo template to your comment on the Ikiryō entry in Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. I think this the preferred method, in case people don't have Asian fonts installed, because in addition to the kanji etc. it displays a link to instructions on how to install the fonts. Margin1522 ( talk) 20:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello Brian, I'm an italian user of wikipedia ( Sakretsu) and I'm looking for someone who can help me translating this text from English to Japanese. It's an example request for permission to use copyrighted pictures, but unfortunately there is no japanese version available yet. I'd really appreciate if you could do this favour to me since it's really hard to find someone who knows japanese really well. I'm sorry if I have bothered you. Thank you for your attention.-- Sakretsu ( talk) 10:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello Imaginatorium, I am a user of the Italian Wikipedia (too) and I'd like a translation from Japanese. Unfortunately, there are no more many users who can speak Japanese on the Italian Wikipedia. Could you please translate into English what this page says? The four boxes on the left are the most important part, but I think the two lines on the top, the things said by the two guys and the last lines coul be useful too.
I've already made this page about the movie, but I've written that it's only a film based on Inazuma Eleven that lasts 50 minutes. However, from that officiale website it seems that the film is made of four parts based on different anime, and the Inazuma Eleven part only lasts 23 minutes! Since I'm making some pages about Little Battlers Experience too, I need to know about the other parts.
Can you also give me some clarification about ダンボール戦機, the original title of Little Battlers eXperience? Is ダンボール "cardboard" in general or "cardboard box"? Is the translation "Cardboard War Machines" right? In Italian "Cardboard War Machines" sounds like "War machines made of cardboard", that's not exactly what can be seen in the video game. If I could translate it with "War machines in a cardboard box" it would be better. Or should I translate it with "War machines in cardboard", without "box"?
Thank you very much in advance
P.S. can I correct some things written in bad Italian on your Italian user page?
Please answer me here -- Lombres ( talk) 21:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much for your help. Problem is the "battlers" are NOT made of cardboard in the video game: they are made of plastic and metal! So it necessarily refers to the material the boxes they fight in are made of! I know the Italian word order is just the opposite of the Japanese one, so it can't mean "una scatola per le macchine", but there are things like "macchine nella scatola". As you can see here, Because they fought within the cardboard, they came to be called “Cardboard Warriors." (that I think is a translation of "Danbōru senki"). I'll translate it with something like "Le macchine da guerra del cartone", because "di cartone" would mean that they're made of cardboard, that's not true.

the other problem is "ball". We can't know wether it was written voluntarily or the person who registered the domain made a mistake. I don't think it is "unimaginable" that "danball" is meant to be a pun (gioco di parole), because there are many things like that in the titles of anime and video games, especially in the titles of anime and video games for children. Anyway, if we don't have a reliable source, only what we can see can be written on Wikipedia, so I'm forced to write "Danball" and explain everything with a footnote. I know it's ugly to see, but there's nothing I can do.

I don't need the other translations anymore because I've found it explained in a much simpler way. I'll correct your page (mi scuso di scrivere in inglese!) -- Lombres ( talk) 18:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Dear Imaginatorium,

One of the nice things about WP:RFD is that we don't have much "procedure" as such and tend to argue things on their merits. Of course, as everywhere, there are regulars and we get their style, and so we can argue in shorthand (maybe you can use musical notation) which is like any club.

But I for one are really pleased to see you here contributing. Don't worry about the "rules", there really aren't any, we all try to think "what would readers expect to find?" It is very interesting because there are such a range of topics. I am something of a linguist but really just a boring software engineer, others know about sport or arts and stuff, and it is very friendly, with the usual to–and–fro.

I don't think we have a music buff much, so please do look in. please, if we in our ignorance misunderstand some technical music term, put us right: we are just the boys in the band and we need a conductor! Si Trew ( talk) 15:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

(sings) We are the boys, who make all the noise, we never give the singers a chance/ Pick any key (we only know D) cos we are the boys in the band....

Stop accusing me of vandalism every time you don't like one of my edits. BassHistory ( talk) 05:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Oh yes, sorry I created Utente:Devbug/Sandbox/Giorgio_Starace by mistake. I now created it under my Sandbox. Can you delete the wrong one (I don't think I can do it)?

Thanks!

-- Devbug ( talk) 14:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks! I marked it for deletion, so I think it will happen eventually. Imaginatorium ( talk) 14:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC) reply

The WP:Also article reads, in part, "As a general rule, the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." I think the general idea is to keep articles as simple as possible, i.e, not repeat things too much. That is why I reverted the link from the "See also" section of Abelian group. Happy editing! — Anita5192 ( talk) 00:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply

on the encyclopedicity of that cogno-intellectually significant unit, the dash. See my apostasy. -- Hoary ( talk) 02:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

-- such as this: usually a bad idea, even if done scrupulously and politely. It may seem to the interpolator to be more efficient and comprehensible than any alternative way of responding, but it's borderline acceptable at best according to some guideline that I'm too sleepy to look for right now, and it usually gets up the nose of the interpolatee. You may wish to self-revert and find a different way to express this. -- Hoary ( talk) 14:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I considered that, but given that the only other way is to make a copy, I went to used the させていただきます form then realised it doesn't exist. Well, a peep of protest and can easily make a copy and restore the pristine original. I really cannot understand the tenacity of my interlocutor. Wonderful word that. Imaginatorium ( talk) 14:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I have trouble understanding the allegations of hostility against inexperienced but well meaning contributors. (And therefore this.) -- Hoary ( talk) 00:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

"Interlocutor" I meant. Well, well. Carping, indeed. I'm going back to green now. I begin to see why, except in extreme circumstances it's easier not to delete, but just redirect. Imaginatorium ( talk) 14:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Hope you don't mind my adding a note to User:Imaginatorium/Cardarelli. I could have just left a note for you on the talk page - would you rather I did that if I come up with anything else? NebY ( talk) 20:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC) reply

No, please go ahead and edit the Cardarelli page. Thanks for finding the TOC! Imaginatorium ( talk) 07:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks, will do when I've looked at the Greek, Roman and English sections a bit more, and I've added a correction suggestion on the talk page. NebY ( talk) 15:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC) reply

User:Imaginatorium/Cardarelli, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Imaginatorium/Cardarelli and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Imaginatorium/Cardarelli during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Andrew D. ( talk) 17:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Well Sir, what pray is " simply wrong" with this (or indeed this)? -- Hoary ( talk) 10:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Well, firstly, closed class words are all one-offs, so it is not productive to niggle about classification. How many errors do you want? Here's one, anyway. He claims that a property of a conjunction C is that <sentence1> C <sentence2> means the same as <sentence2> C <sentence1>, because for example "A and B" is the same as "B and A". Well, he is falling into the standard trap of thinking that properties of logical operators with the same name also apply to natural language: logical AND is certainly commutative, but is not (at all!) what "and" means. For example, these are completely different:

• I had my supper and went to bed.
• I went to bed and had my supper.

It's true that the difference is clearer in the case of "because", but that's all. So that argument is entirely bogus. (As is a lot of the rest.) Imaginatorium ( talk) 10:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes, because of a convention whereby "[subject] [VP in past tense] and [VP in past tense]" has an implication of time relation between what's expressed in the VPs. Ditto for present tense, too: "I get up and brush my teeth" is not the same as "I brush my teeth and get up". We can switch subjects, too: "Hoary turns up at Imaginatorium's front door and Imaginatorium reaches for his thoughtfully positioned crowbar." You're doing well. One from among "the rest", please? -- Hoary ( talk) 10:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply

But more, much more. Even if it were the case that every conjunction except 'because' were commutative, it still makes no sense to pull out this property. Being a conjunction (or not) is a matter of syntax, not semantics. Geoff Pullum is a well-known linguist, even if I always muddle him up with Steve Pulman, and as I read this I sort of decided it must be a test for students, to see if they are awake or whether they just swallow whatever is fed to them. Then I felt tired, and couldn't be bothered to play the bluff-unbluff game. Anyway, announcing that all the dictionaries are wrong just isn't what linguists do, in general. Perfectly plausible to suggest a better categorisation of function words, but given the rather woolly nature of the definitions you can never really argue anything like this is "just wrong". Imaginatorium ( talk) 15:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply

OK, this extraordinary idea that "because" is a preposition. Prepositions can take noun phrases ("of fish") or verb phrases ("of drinking"), but the verb phrase is always non-finite, n'est-ce-pas? (Or since I can't do the gerund(ive?) stuff, perhaps this is a verb nominal form.) Because normally takes a finite VP, because that's how English works. It cannot normally take a non-finite VP, because not thinking right.(*) Why not announce that "if" is a preposition too, and "But", and "not". Imaginatorium ( talk) 15:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Steve Pul(l)man(n)? A new name to me. Announcing that all the dictionaries are wrong certainly isn't want most linguists do, but then most linguists weren't edjumacated in the school of hard knocks sorry I mean the Ram Jam Band, don't introduce themselves via a portrait with parrot, and haven't written the funniest linguistics book known to Hoary. Anyway, he doesn't just fire off squibs; he also coedits large reference books and fires off papers (relevantly, this one). Because normally takes either a PP starting with of ("because of Hoary's stupidity") or a finite clause ("because Hoary's stupid"). But whatevs, it's a preposition (see this again, pp 263–270. And if? There are two ifs: a subordinator ("I don't know if Hoary's stupid") and yes, a preposition ("We'll all die if Hoary's stupid"). ¶ ("This new learning amazes me, Prof Pullum. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.") -- Hoary ( talk) 05:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Inspired by a couple of AfDs, I've AfD'd Lacta and Stupping ton, edited Lea (unit), and redirected Ocean-ton. What a trail of mess that one editor with one lousy source has left for others to tidy up. The current country-by-country articles are pretty dreadful too, and s/he seems to have a rooted objection to including a link to the googlebooks-available ICT page which sources a lot of them. Ah well. Must get back to some Real Life jobs - so easy to spend far too much time here! Pam D 11:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

And I've just found the rather splendid A Dictionary of Weights and Measures for the British Isles: The Middle Ages to the Twentieth Century published by the American Philosophical Society, 1985, which could be useful in clearing up some of the remaining British units. Pam D 12:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Ah, yes, Zupko. I found this recently, and at least Zupko has fairly relevant credentials. But I did find a review somewhere saying how he had some pet theory on something or other, so while the book should be good for corroboration, I wouldn't trust it absolutely. You are right about the country entries. Mozambican units of measurement‎ was PRODded, which of course is hopeless, so I just AfDed (if that's the correct spelling) it. I have also AfDed Australia, and Belgium is coming up as somewhere else with no genuine "Belgian" units. Imaginatorium ( talk) 12:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Participants had the membership roster, so you can ignore the following "form letter" I've been sending. But I guess one tip is that you can incorporate all your other User Box into your {{ Babel}} box using the specia-boxes field. -- Kiyoweap.

Hi. I have a discussion up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Membership Roll? which concerns users who display {{User WikiProject Japan}} on their user page.

If I can get consensus, I would like to list you all under Category:WikiProject Japan participants. As of now, you will not be listed unless you switch to (or add) the other User box {{User WP Japan}}.

And if you really do not want to get listed, would you still mind switching to the other User box and use the feature that suppresses listing?
If you don't want to be listed, replace {{User WikiProject Japan}} with {{User WP Japan|nocat=true}}, or on your {{ Babel}} replacing your |WikiProject Japan| with |special-boxes={{User WP Japan|nocat=true}}|
Thanks.-- Kiyoweap ( talk) 11:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello, you're invited and express your views on Talk:When Marnie Was There#Edits reverted without adding summary. Jotamide ( talk) 18:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC) reply

I think that if you make a vote after a note appears indicating where a deletion discussion page, you're supposed to place it under the note, so I fixed it in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double circulatory system That's how they do it in all those other deletion discussion pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science. The only time you're supposed to add a comment or vote that's not at the bottom of the page is when you're replying to someone else. See Help:Using talk pages#Indentation because its rules also apply to deletion discussion pages. Blackbombchu ( talk) 20:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

OK -- thanks for sorting this out. Imaginatorium ( talk) 04:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello, I got your message on Wiktionary last night. Please check out what I have said. Also, I have added citations to the Wikipedia article (the same ones I did to the Wiktionary entry). More citations along those lines can be found here. It appears that, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, deals were pieces of wood between 12 and 14 feet long that were traded as commodities and likely used in shipbuilding. I have removed the reference to firewood, and it now just reads "wood". p b p 15:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi, I think you misunderstood my edit to the above. Yes, a guinea (21 shillings) is divisable by 21, 7, 9, etc. but when used in calculating amounts dividing (mental arithmetic) by 7 was useful = 3 shillings. Dividing by 9 had no logical reason (= 2 shillings and 4 pence). Anyway, sorry if I offended. Denisarona ( talk) 10:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC) reply

What's the matter, you don't like a simple answer to a complicated riddle? I don't see anything wrong with what I posted? Angusbullet ( talk) 15:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC) reply

That's what I figured......a troll — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angusbullet ( talk • contribs) 15:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello Imaginatorium,

Do you believe that Mother Terasa was only criticized for her pro-life views, or do you believe she was also praised for these same views?

Currently, I believe this article has undue weight by claiming that Teresa was criticized for her stance (which is true), however it does not include the fact that she was also praised. Moreover, I agree with your earlier comments you made on the talk page, where you recommended that this section should be entitled reception (as opposed to criticism or praise which are both biased terms). I therefore believe we should follow your suggestion, and move this content to the reception section in order to avoid any unintentional bias. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd ( talk) 20:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Did you read source?-- Takahiro4 ( talk) 08:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Yes, of course I did. Imaginatorium ( talk) 08:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Consensus is not English.Please see this. [5].Explain this. [6]-- Takahiro4 -- Takahiro4 ( talk) 09:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Chinese influence on Korean culture is a work in progress. I hope to some day bring it to GA status similarly to Ariwara no Narihira, though. If you have any advice on how it could be improved, it would be most appreciated. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 10:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi Imaginatorium. Can you please explain why you deleted our external link calculate.plus? You have commented with: (Good faith, but not verifiable (or comprehensive) source). So, what is not comprehensive or verifiable? Calculate.plus is a unit converter. It would be very nice if you re-add our link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.186.173.202 ( talk) 09:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

The net is awash with similar sites. How should we choose one or two to add to this page, or should we have any? Anyone can make such a conversion site: there is no guarantee of even basic accuracy, and it is not very easy to use. Anyway, Wikipedia is not a showcase for this kind of contribution. Imaginatorium ( talk) 10:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

If this is your opinion, then you have to remove also the external link "Online Unit Conversion Website Convert any unit from and to other units."! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.186.173.202 ( talk) 11:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi there! Please don't delete third-party edits on other editors' talk-pages (as you did on mine) - that is a bit of a no-no. If I don't like anything, I'll delete it myself. Best, - -- Smerus ( talk) 08:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

There seems to be a bit of confusion here: as far as I can see I have never edited your talk page, and the deletion was done by User:Intelligentsium (hope I've spelled it right)... (There was a bit of other confusion because I forgot to sign the comment on the DYK proposal. Sorry about that!) Imaginatorium ( talk) 15:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Oopsie - 1000 aplogies!!! - I must learn to take a deep breath and check my coordinates before whingeing!-- Smerus ( talk) 16:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Don't Violate Trademark Act of Japanese Law. And stop reverting without any single reliable source, which is not existing in 2016. I added reliable lawful link. who wrote texts were not me but other writers. Shiho-Shoshi is registered as Solicitor since 2007. Here's those English link. I have improved Wikipedia with reliable sources.

^{[1] [2]}

If you violate Trademark Act, you are punished in Japanese Law of Trademark Act. http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/law/detail/?id=45&vm=04&re=01 Article 78　An infringer of a trademark right or an exclusive right to use (excluding one who has committed an act that shall be deemed to constitute infringement of a trademark right or an exclusive right to use under Article 37 or Article 67) shall be punished by imprisonment with work for a term not exceeding ten years or a fine not exceeding 10,000,000 yen or combination thereof. Legal8462 ( talk) 05:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Your interlocutor writes:

"Shiho-Shoshi is registered as Solicitor since 2007."

司法書士はソリシターとして商標登録されています。

The latter makes no more sense to me than does the former. (By contrast, 「司法書士は職業として商標登録されています」 would at least make sense.) But perhaps my poor Japanese is to blame. -- Hoary ( talk) 09:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Mind reverting that your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hebdo- as withdraw? Per WP:NACD: "Closing your own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep", is okay, "when all other viewpoints were for keep as well." A user suggested a merge, so that isn't the case. Further discussion may be beneficial, and could result in a different outcome.—  Godsy ^{( TALK} _CONT) 07:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your note; I was trying to be cooperative, but see I fell foul of a technicality. I'm quite happy to revert the closure (how would I do that?), but really speaking I would like to suggest either merging into the metric prefix article (as that user suggested), or moving to a separate stub hebdometre, which is all that there is actual evidence for. How do you suggest I should proceed? Imaginatorium ( talk) 08:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Simply hitting the undue button and leaving a note that you reverted the close is all that would need to be done to revert the close. You can suggest the rest of the things you mentioned there.—  Godsy ^{( TALK} _CONT) 08:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks! I only seem to have made 2 of the required 3 edits, so I reverted both. Imaginatorium ( talk) 09:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the help with the Japanese transcription. I've noticed that a large number of languages lack any article specifically on cannabis for their country. Would you be interested in doing a quick translation of Cannabis Museum (Japan) or Cannabis in Japan to help build up Japanese Wikipedia? That'd be helpful for me too since if the Japanese version expands, I can capture the new data/sources with GoogleTranslate and reciprocally help build the English version. Just a suggestion, thanks! Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney ( talk) 06:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Apologies for restoring the vandalism on the poem. I got my dates and edits wrong and thought the anon was *adding* the errors.

Thank you for catching my error.

KNHaw ^(talk) 18:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC) reply

No problem. The editor who first removed the vandalism used a witty edit summary, which unfortunately is probably not a good idea. Imaginatorium ( talk) 18:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC) reply

As far as I can tell you're a legitimate editor so I didn't challenge your reversion of my edit on Classification of the Japonic languages - I do, however, take some offense at your characterization of that one particular edit as "vandalism." As far as I can tell, while I can see how that particular edit could have added further confusion, it doesn't qualify under Wikipedia:Vandalism as vandalism. You could have even called it original research (which was also partly true, based on my own personal command of Korean and grasp of Japanese, though I could probably find references to demonstrate the validity of that particular statement) and I wouldn't have challenged it much. But vandalism it is not. Ecthelion83 ( talk) 21:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I think you missed something: I reverted two edits -- one was vandalism by an IP, the other was yours. But anyway I would be happy to talk about this on the talk page. Imaginatorium ( talk) 14:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Japanese_units_of_measurement&curid=2985420&action=history

We have a an editor new to this article who has taken it upon himself to make some major edits. Please help in the discussion, so as to reach a consensus. Rhialto ( talk) 16:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC) reply

for the passive aggressive and WP:CANVASSing way that you got roped in to the discussion at Japanese units. Thank you very much for your time and straightforward advice and corrections.

You had asked about translating kan as "string". I can point you to some sources who used it since they had the same problem I did: how to tersely translate the idea of "the weight of a string of 1000 small coins". You're probably right that it's too misleading, even if we had a kan article to use for an explanatory link. I'll just gloss it as the "shaku–kan system" and, if you think of or come across a better way to phrase it, lemme know. —  LlywelynII 18:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC) reply

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC) reply

You just undid an edit I made with the summary "PLease discuss before removing material". There is never any requirement or obligation for anyone to discuss anything before removing anything. If you have a reason to believe the material should not be removed, you need to say what it is. You couldn't be bothered to think of a reason, so your edit appears to have been purely disruptive. 153.231.201.94 ( talk) 13:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC) reply

An article you recently created, Cyrillization of Japanese, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. New articles generally need at least two (but preferably more) references from reliable sources that are independent of the subject that discuss the subject with significant coverage (trivial mentions do not contribute to notability).^{( See Rule 42)} Information that can't be referenced to reliable sources should be removed from the draft because verifiability is necessary for information added to Wikipedia.
I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of Draft: before the article title) where you can work on the article with minimal disruption from other users while you improve it.
When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready to be published, you can move it back to the article space yourself. However, I recommend that instead of moving it yourself that you follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template that I have added to the page. This submits the article to be reviewed by experienced editors that specialize in helping new editors write their first articles. Edaham ( talk) 08:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Edaham: Thanks. Well, I did not really "create" this article; and I do not think that your changes help. The problem is this: there should (obviously, I suppose) be an article about the Cyrillization of Japanese (cf. Romanization of Japanese); there was an existing article with this title, but it was (a) not very good and (b) exclusively about the Polivanov system, which is just one specifically Russian system. User:Piznajko changed the title to "Polivanov system", and argued when I moved it back: I think it needs to be made into a decent article about the natural topic, and also this move meant that the Template:Cyrillization showed a list of language plus "Polivanov system", which is not going to be understood by most people with knowledge of or interest in Japanese. As a compromise I made this stub article, to which the Cyrillization template now links. Although the article needs a lot of work it is thus the vital link in the chain. Moving it to Draft seems quite inappropriate and liable to cause more problems.

Incidentally, I see you did the same to Multiscriptualism, but here I think a sensible discussion (do we have these on WP?) is needed whether such a term even exists in any real sense, and whether it is worthy of an article, since it is merely a statement of the utterly obvious. FWIW, I'm quadriscriptual, I claim, because I read Roman letters, musical notation, Japanese script, and (Russian) cyrillic, in that order, but so what? Imaginatorium ( talk) 09:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply

if you include two sources which demonstrate notability, you can move it back to the main space yourself. I have no idea about the subject you are talking about. Articles generally require a minimum of two reliable sources. Edaham ( talk) 14:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply

If you want to propose multiscriptualism for deletion you can do so via the instructions at WP:AFD Edaham ( talk) 14:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Oxford uses a slightly different scheme for English IPA than Wikipedia (the so called Upton's scheme). See this explanation by John C. Wells. Given the range of various dialects, it's a matter of convention mostly, and the phoneme transcribed by Oxford as /ʌɪ/ is the same one as the one traditionally transcribed as /aɪ/ (including by Wikipedia and by Wells's own dictionary). So I converted it to the convention for IPA used by Wikipedia. Ausir ( talk) 14:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I think you meant "[[Shan Shui ss|Shan Shui]]". -- Hoary ( talk) 09:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I've been looking through the other edits by everyone who's added or restored the bogus content, and I noticed a pattern:

• User:YodogawaKamlyn (and other content in other diffs)
• User talk:216.221.101.195 (from an earlier revision of User:theinstantmatrix)
• User:Benningfi (from ru:Участник:EmausBot)
• User:Truthspeakerknows
  • User:Truthspeakerknows (from: User:RichardWeiss)

An almost compulsive tendency to grab content from random pages to put in their own user pages (though nothing of the sort for Special:Contributions/95.216.142.196 or Special:Contributions/24.54.166.238). It strikes me as sort of like the way certain insects camouflage themselves with stuff they pick up from their environment. It may also help to explain the meaningless things they link to and say.

At any rate, if their all coincidentally appearing from nowhere in the past week or so and their bizarre common interest in a non-existent Japanese minor deity isn't enough to justify a sock-puppet investigation, this peculiar quirk might help. Of course, most may be blockable for copyvio and/or impersonation, but I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia rules. Chuck Entz ( talk) 22:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your comments. Please also look at the AfD for Torento-no-kami.. but in the latest development, our friends seem to have decided to give up, for now at least. I'm not sure whether to pursue this or not... Imaginatorium ( talk) 03:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Assuming good faith - Truthspeakerknows ( talk) 23:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Impersonating others is not good faith. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 06:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC) reply

My take on this is they thought they were operating under the radar and they don't like the exposure. As for whether to continue: I haven't used my checkuser tools on their Wiktionary edits because the privacy policy only allows it to prevent vandalism and similar damage to the wiki. I'm sure Wikipedia checkusers would be equally reluctant- unless there was evidence for potential for more like this in the future. Chuck Entz ( talk) 16:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Looks like you made a friend.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Natureium ( talk) 17:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Sorry to be harping on about this, but could you explain why you have !voted for keeping IPA a redirect to the article about the Alphabet while saying that "it is not entirely clear what IPA stands for"? It's not like I'm trying to change your mind but I just want to understand what I'm missing. Thank you. Nardog ( talk) 14:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Albert and Bernard just become friends with Cheryl, and they want to know when her birthday is. Cheryl gives them a list of 10 possible dates:

Cheryl then tells Albert and Bernard separately the month and the day of her birthday respectively. 

Albert: I don't know when Cheryl's birthday is, but I know that Bernard oould to know it.
Bernard: At first I don't know when Cheryl's birthday is, but I know now.
Albert: Then I also know when Cheryl's birthday is.

So when is Cheryl's birthday?

comments: I'm sure this enunciate have sense about the riddle. Anyway you are free to understand it right or not.

Nice to know you.

I've roughed out two restored sections for Daoism–Taoism romanization issue. If you have the time and interest, would you please look at them? Thanks, Keahapana ( talk) 01:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your note. I'm afraid that I do not agree with your currect editing strategy at all. The way language works is that when a word is "borrowed" (personally I prefer to say "stolen", because they are never given back in the original condition), its pronunciation is adapted to the phonology of the target language. So the syllable "tao" in "Taoism" is pronounced with an aspirated 't', because initial unaspirated 't' is not part of an English speaker's repertoire. Do you think that somehow English speakers should all learn to do an initial unaspirated 't' just for this word? Or do you think this word should be pronounced with an initial 'd' (just a different mistake; seems crazy)? Or do you think this word should be replaced with another word? Please respond to the comment on the talk page. Thanks! Imaginatorium ( talk) 03:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Please stop including insulting things in my talk page and please include the discussion in Article's talk page. Thanks for your contributions for my articles too. Shevonsilva ( talk) 03:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

There is nothing insulting in what I said. You do not have an adequate grasp of English to edit WP in the way that you are doing. I have asked the same question on the two NMI talk pages - it is up to you how to respond. Note that your answer, with your attempted "explanation" to me of what 'region' means did not actually respond to my question, so you might want to try a different response. If you make the same response I will repeat my earlier response, then go to AfD. Imaginatorium ( talk) 05:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

Hi. Just wanted you to know I added some comments on the Guanyin article page re: the addition of 菩薩 in the translations for Japanese, Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese. Since you are fluent in Japanese you can read the Japanese wikipedia article on 観音菩薩. Thanks. Hanbud ( talk) 20:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Strange changes to Japanese romanisation I have reverted a few of your edits, mostly because you keep changing Hepburn romanisation, which is what WP uses, to irregular versions. In particular, you keep adding either apostrophes (') or 'h' characters where they do not belong. Please do not do this. Please also note that WP is supposed to be written in formal (encyclopedic) English, not internet shorthand, so we use words like "or", not slashes, for example. Non-native speakers are welcome to help, but please do not change existing text with is correct English (e.g. "also known as") into incorrect text (e.g. "= commonly known:"). (Are you a Japanese speaker?) Imaginatorium (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Followup: please also write an edit summary explaining each edit. If you do not, it is more likely that your edits will be reverted. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Opinion: To the respectful user, thanks for the comments. I am not Japanese but multi-racial, no need to get personal as we are all global citizens here. As to your points, pardon my poor English:

The apostrophes (') as you kindly mentioned refer is to properly pronounce the name(s), e.g. Susanoo is actually "Susano-o/ Susano'o (スサノオ)" or it will give a misunderstanding. I do not understand on the part which you said I added "h", as I recall one example, the older spelling of the kanji 大 "Ō/ oo (おお)" is actually "oho (オホ)" in Old Japanese. As Shinto deities have innumerous or countless names for identification, by the way, the slash "/" indicates the same pronunciation but written in different form in kanji (do you agree? check in the Japanese websites if most Shinto deities has one or more names to be identified or "commonly referred or known").

My intention was just to improve the article for the viewers to get a better understanding and in-depth but if you intend to change it, I can understand your point of view. To be honest, most English articles either lack the proper source or spelling which only refer to English or Western known sources, sadly not from its original native language - which can be either confusing or misleading at times (what about the non-English speakers who do assist, do they not have a say on matters too?).

I am here as a global citizen just like everyone to do my civic duty/ role (pardon if you do not like slashes as shorthand for "or") - as everyone deserves their voices to be heard, whether small or big, academically sound or not - but if you are not content, everyone is entitled the absolute right to voice out their concern and importantly, amend the article to make it a better version of the existing one. (And big chunks of information added cannot be summarized easily even if I have to write a comment on the "edit summary" pop-up window before publishing, is it?)

Thanks for your concern again and appreciate your comment. Heshbi (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC) Heshbi ( talk) 16:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Heshbi: "oho (オホ)" is not Old Japanese; it is historical kana orthography and was in general use until at least 1946, when government ordinance standardized the modern spellings. That is why it went without saying, when the (now public-domain, and therefore most widely read) English translations of the Kojiki and Nihon Shoki by Basil Hall Chamberlain and William George Aston, respectively, were produced, that the names of figures appearing in the text would be romanized in that way. It has nothing to do with Old Japanese, an earlier stage in the Japanese spoken language that notably included several more vowel sounds than Middle and Modern Japanese (a fact which was not known in the 1880s when the Chamberlain Kojiki was first published) -- reconstructions of the OJ pronunciations of figures appearing in the Kojiki can be found in, for example, Don Philippi's translation. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 03:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

There is another data point at Talk:Units of measurement in France before the French Revolution for you. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard ( talk) 02:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Hallo again, Following up on this archived talk I've now merged the Mc and MacDowells as there was no opposition to my merge proposal - and then went on and did the same to the Mc and MacDowalls. And have proposed a page move of Clan Macdowall to Clan MacDowall while I was at it. I should be doing all sorts of Real Life stuff today but ... that's Wikipedia. Pam D 16:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Thanks Pam! I don't get much done on WP these days either, but try and chip away at some of the longstanding problems... Imaginatorium ( talk) 03:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I find it is very difficult to communicate with you, please stop trying to review my work for the moment. Thanks Shevonsilva ( talk) 19:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Of course I will not. Your "work", as you call it, consists almost entirely of the mass-creation of vacuous stubs; I do not think this improves WP. For example, why could you not add information about Angular Material to the AngularJS article? I also hope you have noticed that no-one else seems to support your theory that your broken English is somehow just as good as real English except for "personal opinions" about grammar. Imaginatorium ( talk) 03:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC) reply

There's a bunch of lists created by Shevonsilva such as Argentine units of measurement and Seychellois units of measurement which are sourced mostly or entirely to Cardarelli, Washburn, and Clarke. Aside from the usual howlers associated with those sources, I'm also finding mistakes such as units from different countries being accidentally listed. A related issue is that, for many countries, their national units actually originate elsewhere. For instance, the Baltic states contain units originally from Russia and the South American countries imported theirs from Spain or Portugal-- they're not actually specific to that country. I was thinking about nominating some of the worst of these for deletion but I thought I'd ask your opinion first. What do you think? Reyk _YO! 19:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Yes, this particular editor (now gone, as you probably know) created thousands of stubs by uncritical scraping. Many of these unit articles would be misleading if taken seriously. But the problem is the "Rescue" mentality: nothing to do with keeping information, just a desperate clinging to anything scraped from a "proper printed book". It's possible that a deletion discussion would provoke editing which would convert it from something transparently silly into an "article" which might genuinely confuse the reader. I dunno... I have certainly contemplated "old Belgian units", because there aren't any: only old French units from the territory of Belgium that was France before Belgium was created, and the same for Holland and Germany. But then, I prefer reason over uncritical scraping. Sorry, mustn't ramble - but if you want to, go ahead one article at a time. Imaginatorium ( talk) 03:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi Imaginatorium,

Thank you very much for your feedback, I was not aware of it. Yes, in that case the name should be corrected of course. Gryffindor ( talk) 08:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi Imaginatorium,

Could you please explain me, why do you think that circlyapp site is a spam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:29C1:1380:5CD2:740C:52:953F ( talk) 03:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC) reply

You are talking about the link you added to Circle packing in a circle to the site https://www.circlyapp.com. First, you got it wrong: it's https://circlyapp.com. Secondly, the page claims to be about a "Visual organizer platform for you and your team", not about mathematics, which is the subject of this article. Then it requires a login, at least giving some bunch of unknowns an email address, in order to see exactly what it is doing. This is not a helpful site to add to the article. Imaginatorium ( talk) 04:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Or anyway it was sent to the address you provide on your website. (Is this still the one you use?) -- Hoary ( talk) 08:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Would you mind commenting on the RFC? With all the trolls, hounds, and probable sock-/meat-puppets, the folks advocating for the bogus version of the article currently have 6/13 of a raw !vote count, which is actually a plurality when one factors in that one other has explicitly opposed what I and some others see as the "good version". (I.e., the "not version C" crowd is technically larger than the "not version A" crowd.)

Granted, of the six, one obviously followed me there and if the world were fair he would have been immediately blocked for doing so (check my most recent block log to see the double standard...), two more have hardly any edit history and yet showed up there for the sole purpose of harassing me (i.e., there is a good case for indeffing them and very little reason not to indef them), two more (including the OP) have hardly any edit history and appear to just be trolling, and one more obviously showed up there just to revenge-harass me after having not been able to do so for a year (because he was blocked for his disruptive battleground behaviour). So it's not a very solid support-base they have established for themselves -- every last one of them is one wrong move away from being blocked for the way they have comported themselves in the discussion.

But it is really weird -- in fact, it's mottainai! -- that a Japan-focused, good-faith, experienced Wikipedian showed up and posted a comment in the section below the RFC, clearly expressing disagreement with one side of the RFC and agreement with the other, but never actually cast a formal !vote.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Imaginatorium, Sir, I suspect that you could improve on this. (Why this, now? Because reasons.) Got a spare half-hour? -- Hoary ( talk) 01:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I didn't also point you to the "Music" section of the same article because its inadequacy didn't jump out at me. I now realize that there was an extraordinarily simple reason for the lack of leaping: there is no such section. No mention of Thomas Tomkins, no ... um, whoever else I think of turns out to be too early (Byrd, Gibbons) or too late (Blow). I've forgotten so much. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply

...figured it would be less self-filibuster-y to post it here.

The whole affair is bizarre.

I gave a somewhat-detailed breakdown here, but it's not just most Japan specialist editors who have tended to agree with me -- it's everyone with more than 700-or-so edits. The fact that so many of the editors supporting the present RFC have almost no editing history outside a string of minor edits to random articles makes me near-certain there's some sockpuppetry afoot. (I have IBANs against a number of editors who would have strong motivations to create accounts solely for the purpose of coming after me, and have made it clear that they are still well aware of my editing patterns; additionally, at least one editor who followed me to the page back in February 2018 is not subject to an IBAN but does have a history of engaging in some pretty slimy off-wiki behaviour and e-mailing other editors specifically to badmouth me, so it wouldn't surprise me if those who aren't sockpuppets are largely meatpuppets recruited off-wiki to do some dirty work.)

Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Also, if I'm understanding our article on the etymological fallacy correctly, technically you are wrong to refer to what's going on on the mottainai article as that. It's actually somewhat the opposite: people (both Wikipedians and real-world "scholars" producing "reliable sources") are ignorant of the historical meaning of the word, but they assume that it is the same as the present meaning, then when they hear that the historical meaning has something to do with religion, they derive from that the present meaning ("wasteful") is also rooted in a religious aversion to waste. If it were a case of the etymological fallacy the ones engaging in the fallacy would be trying to ignore/deny the modern meaning in favour of a revival of the historical meaning, but what they are actually doing is ignoring the historical meaning by insisting that it is the same as the modern meaning.

Also, the present version of the etymology section of the article is largely free of this nonsense thanks to the work Nishidani, Ryk72 and I put into it. Obviously the issue is that some of the problematic content remains and a small cadre of editors are pushing to restore all of it (and possibly remove the more reasonable material), but still.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 02:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi. I'm a Reform1028. I came to your talk page because if you didn't put my talk page on your watchlist you won't notice. I studied how to write shop names in Roman letters, so may I write "味の大王" as "Ajinodaio"？-- Reform1028 ( talk) 16:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply

There is no reply, so I'll change "味の大王" to "Ajinodaio". Please don't remand.-- Reform1028 ( talk) 12:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC) reply

It turns out that you are right about the plural abbreviation for opera, to confirm. I searched opp. in Wiktionary and now I have a palm mark on my head. 69.246.122.149 ( talk) 01:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC) reply

P.S. What is a good faith edit?

It's easier to say what "bad faith" is: basically vandalism. "Good faith" means you just got someting wrong. Imaginatorium ( talk) 03:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Ah, I see. 69.246.122.149 ( talk) 13:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Dear sir,

Regarding your undo of an addition done to the Group (maths) page. I must recall you the wikipedia rule "do not delete, improve":

Consider carefully before reverting, as it rejects the contributions of another editor. Consider what you object to, and what the editor was attempting. Can you improve the edit, bringing progress, rather than reverting it? Can you revert only part of the edit, or do you need to revert the whole thing?

In fact, your comment to the undo has been "not necessary, and not acceptable English": it is obvious bad English is not a reason to undo, just a reason to improve.

About "not necessary", it is something opinion based. Another wikipedia rule: the balance should be tilted towards keeping it. It is best to have a phrase that some users do not need or miss a phrase that some user needs ?

In concrete, currently the page states a fact without any explanation, something to correct always if possible in a easy way. You can say you do not need the clarification, but some others users could need it (me, when reading this paragraph, I spent an hour wondering why they were these ones and only these ones symmetries). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.183.73 ( talk) 19:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Your edits have been reverted, in part, because they were redundant. They added little more than what was stated immediately before. If you think the text you added is important, then please continue this discussion on the talk page for Group (mathematics).— Anita5192 ( talk) 19:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

As you are taking an interest in the List of islands article, please could you look at my recent comments on the article's talk page and see what you think, with a view to making progress in tidying up this article. Thanks!--- Ehrenkater ( talk) 19:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Ehrenkater: Thanks for your interest in this... The IP editor, presumably the same user, although the address changed occasionally, was adding to this page almost continuously for about four days! I do not think the result is an improvement, but experience suggests it is almost impossible to discuss with an IP. I will make some comments on the talk page, but fundamentally I think the article is misconceived. What would be interesting would be a list of pieces of land entirely surrounded by water, ordered by the height of the highest point of the land above the surrounding water. The problem is that attempts to do this have been frustrated by people who simply do not want to know, or to allow anyone else to know that Australia is 61st in this list. Another problem is the "highest islands in the world" nonsense: the altitude of the island summit is not interesting, because of all the islands in Lake Titicaca; rather the prominence should be used. I am about to remove the "highest islands in the world" claim, because I have debunked it (see Talk:Orba Co), and I will try to write a little piece somewhere on the fundamental absurdity of looking for something so ill-defined. (If you are interested in fundamental absurdity, there's another one: Talk:List of places on land with elevations below sea level#Rusnė Island. If this island is 27 cm below "sea level", it must mean that the Baltic is also "27 cm below sea level".] Imaginatorium ( talk) 18:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Heya - I saw your brief italicising edit over at shaku (unit). It seems like you edit a lot of Japanese language articles, so I wanted to ask if you'd use the {{ transl}} template for transliterated words in future - it marks the text as transliterated Japanese, ensuring that readers using screenreaders can hear it said properly, and automatically italicises text anyway.

For kanji and such, there's the {{lang}} template, and I learnt recently that I'd been using the wrong {{nihongo}} templates based on how I wanted the text presented - not to imply that you've been using them wrong, but I didn't realise that the template layout is important in sending the right information to the page, and thus the screenreader. If you've not read them in a while (like I hadn't(!)), it's worth brushing up on.

I'm trying to make more editors aware of {{transl}}as a template for use, so I thought I'd let you know. Thank you! -- Ineffablebookkeeper ( talk) 11:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC) reply

What is "WYSIQPSEE"? Is it anything like What you see is all you get (WYSIAYG)? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 11:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC) reply

No, it's "What you see is quite possibly something else entirely". Imaginatorium ( talk) 13:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC) reply

The question isn't whether Midgley was mainstream, but whether her views on Sheldrake advance a fringe position (and of course they do, because support for Sheldrake is inherently fringe). We should never include primary opinion sources, and especially never when they advance fringe positions. "$PERSON said thing about $THING, source, $PERSON saying thing about $THING" is always a bad idea even when $THING is not some batshit theory that causes its originator to go off the deep end when everyone tells them it's batshit. Guy ( help! - typo?) 08:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC) reply

The IP made the perfectly valid point that it's not the subject of "Pi" puns because of its shape (or just because of). See the talk page. Meters ( talk) 07:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi Imaginatorium, at Group_(mathematics), your wording "relationship" is an improvement over "kinship", though what I was really aiming for (and maybe you can think of a better way to implement this) was to eliminate the vagueness in "share a fundamental relationship/kinship" and say directly what the relationship is. I think it is simply that many groups arising in practice consist of symmetries of some object. Any ideas for a good wording of this? Ebony Jackson ( talk) 08:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi Imaginatorium, I wanted to let you know that I reverted back your revision to the Pound (mass) article. The facts that you stated are not supported by any source. In addition as I live in Europe I can assure you that the term 'Pound' to indicate 5hg is not used (not even in Britain anymore). If I went asking someone how much a pound was in kilograms no one would know. To indicate half a kilogram people use either 0.5kg, 5hg or 500g. Of course I have not lived in every country in Europe therefore I am speaking for the ones I know: France, Italy and the UK. If this is used in other countries and you can find appropriate sources backing that up please do let me know and we can write something that would include that as well. Fra098 ( talk) 16:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Just for what it's worth: your experience may be a lot more recent than mine (like half a century). I can only say that when I wandered the continent in the 60s and 70s it was very common to see things sold by the half-kilo, as "pfund", "livre" etc. On the contrary I would be very surprised to see it in Britain, where a "pound" still means 454g, both informally and legally. Imaginatorium ( talk) 10:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply

According to this, you can clearly see that I was clearly confusing 𡆠 with 囝. Thanks for quickly checking over my mistake and reverting it. Otherwise, some mobile users might accidentally be confused. A self-trout for sure. Thanks again, Mat0329Lo ( talk) 04:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your note... really though I did not think it is a good idea to make rough descriptions of characters, as "something in a box", for example. Properly speaking it's kunigamae for a surrounding box, but none of the other characters have such descriptions anyway. Imaginatorium ( talk) 07:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

I have taken the liberty of re-inserting this, as its absence seems to have caused confusion. -- Soundofmusicals ( talk) 19:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC) reply

About a year ago you reverted my change regarding dropping the hyphen for ethnic/racial descriptors, that I thought reflected the talk discussion. I didn't revert or contest it back then because I have never modified anything in the MOS before and am cautious about edit warring, especially there. A year later, I'm still questioning the decision and see a lot of inconsistency throughout Wikipedia.

Two questions for you:

1. Did you not think there was general consensus in the talk? If not, should the conversation be continued?
2. Given your comments, would the following text be a better option:

Avoid using hyphen to connect racial or ethnic descriptors with two proper nouns, regardless of whether they form a compound noun or a compound adjective (
Aboriginal Australians, 
Asian American studies, 
Black British people).

Thanks. — Caorongjin 💬 09:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I do not remember this at all. I cannot see that the paragraph you added is very much help: it just lists an extremely specific case, of "ethnic descriptors" or similar, in which hyphens should not be used. But I cannot see any reason why anyone would want to hyphenate "Black British", for example, any more than they would want to hyphenate "green vegetable". I also cannot see any discussion on the talk page which is relevant, and for what it's worth I think that in almost all cases the MOS stuff tends to be bloated, so unless compelling arguments for it are provided, deletion is better. But I really don't mind; if you really want to add this back in, go ahead, and I will not remove it. Imaginatorium ( talk) 12:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I perhaps should have brought this up when you reverted my change… but I was feeling a little deflated at the time. I have now updated the page again. Hopefully it sticks! — Caorongjin 💬 10:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Hallo Imaginatorium, Could I ask you for a favour please and could you proof-read the spelling of the names here Sōken Kishō? Once it has been corrected you can remove the hiragana. Could you also check the source please if see if I captured all of them or missed someone?

Thank you very much for your help. Gryffindor ( talk) 23:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I had a quick look, and corrected a number of errors (there is no "jya", "shya" etc etc in actual Hepburn). Quite a few questionable bits, and I honestly find it difficult to see the point of this article, since it merely establishes the existence of a book, plus a list of names, which mean nothing unless you can read Japanese. So I will ask for comments on the Japan project page. Imaginatorium ( talk) 08:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC) reply

It looks like someone wants to delete the article anyways. I have incorporated the information, so your help was not for nothing. Thank you. Gryffindor ( talk) 15:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Hey, I wanted to extend an apology to you for responding to you the way I did. It's unbecoming of me, and of the editing and community spirit I'm trying to bring. Know that when I edit, I usually edit for hours, or am in its conscious space for an extended time - so mistakes do arise, which I do try to avoid. Thank you for covering for me there, and at 3 a while ago. My greeting to you, Radlrb ( talk) 20:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC) reply

sorry about the big removal at Kanji. i'm new here and just wanted to help Woworiginal ( talk) 18:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

I saw your edit on List of programming languages and thought you may also be interested in watching List of programming languages by type. Cheers. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 10:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I noticed a few years ago you noticed (message on talk page) that a user was misunderstanding and deleting a photo from this article. She's doing it again, but logged out as an IP. Do you know how to stop that? I've left a comment to try to explain it, but the user doesn't seem to understand or want to understand. Nesnad ( talk) 16:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

You recently removed the listing for エッチ, stating "no evidence it has anything to do with English or any other foreign language".

My understanding of the derivation of the term is as summarized here in the Nihon Kokugo Daijiten entry at Kotobank:

• 『(「変態」をローマ字書きにした hentai の頭文字からか)』

The Japanese rendering of the name of the letter "h" is エッチ, as borrowed from English, so while circuitous, the term is tied to English that way. Curious if that changes your thoughts any. ‑‑  Eiríkr Útlendi │ ^{Tala við mig} 23:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello, and thanks for your note. Of course I know that the Japanese names for Roman letters are largely taken from the English name, but once you are just using the name of a letter in a different word, this does not make that word gairaigo. This would lead to absurdities like claiming "NHK" as a loanword. Imaginatorium ( talk) 04:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Cheers, thanks for the explanation. That makes sense to me, and I'm happy to leave things as they are. 😄 ‑‑  Eiríkr Útlendi │ ^{Tala við mig} 18:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Hey there Imaginatorium.

You reverted a revision [7] from a fellow editor removing Freemasonry as a religion. It is not a religion as it does not follow any orthodoxy; rather Freemasonry, while it does demand on an initial "belief" in God, it directs people to learning that they are their own Goddess and God, and that Truth itself is the only dogma to be followed in and as the living Universe. However, faith is more technical and powerful; Freemasons inside Freemasonry will be of all walks of religious life, Christian, Buddhist, Islamic, Jewish, Sikh, Spiritual Native American, ..., and even, barely religious.

I hope you are alright with my revert, no harm intended of course. Have a great day! Radlrb ( talk) 15:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC) reply

P.S. The point that Freemasonry itself values the pentagram is valid, however, so we can reincorporate that with the right wording. Radlrb ( talk) 15:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC) reply