User talk:Nihonjoe

日本穣 may not always respond swiftly to queries, so thank you for your patience

Please place new topics at the bottom of the page

Archives

Generally, I'll reply here if you post here, so please watch this page if you want to see my reply. If I don't reply within a couple days on another page where you replied to one of my comments, feel free to drop a message here. I have over 5900 pages on my watchlist, so I don't always catch everything new. Thanks! ···日本穣

Would you contribute your opinion?

Hi, Nihonjoe -- would you comment on the new image just added by User:Beyond silence to the Manga page? There's a discussion on the manga talk page -- the last item at the moment. Thanks. Timothy Perper (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the meantime User:SeizureDog removed the image. So maybe this is moot. But if you want to take a look, your opinion would still be valuable. Timothy Perper (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Neoseeker Deleted?

It was clearly within the WEB, as it is a website with massive forums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guticb (talk • contribs) 02:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having massive forums does not make a website notable. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WEB clearly states that FORUMS can have their own article. Neoseeker is one of the 100 biggest forums in the world. It has 300,000 members, yet you claim it's "Not notable"? Hell, by your logic, GameFAQs should be deleted. It has 84 references. How many are from a Non GameFAQ or GameFAQ subdomain? About 10? Delete it too, as unreferenced. The point is, Neoseeker is an insanely notable site, with massive forums, and is well known for it's unbiased reviews in the PC world. It should have remained undeleted, so sources for some stuff could have been added.Guticb (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your enthusiasm. If you disagree with the decision, feel free to take it to Deletion review. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you

I hate to bother you with this again, but Darin Fidika has began posting Japanese history articles again taking them from the Samurai archives, basically rewriting them with poor grammar and throwing in flashy bits of video game and anime inspired drivel - he is currently using this account: User:Exiled Ambition. Part of his agreement to get out of his justified permanent ban was to stay away from those article permanently. I have to protest this. I find this situation unacceptable. I appreciate your help in this matter. As you can well imagine, my patience with him was already utterly gone after 6 months of dealing with his mess, and I can imagine yours is as well. I look forward to a speedy resolution. Thanks. --Kuuzo (talk) 06:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please post a list of allegations here. I'll look into them as I have time. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just a thought

If your real name is actually Joe, then your username would be even more clever. Pandacomics (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's my name. (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

heads up

See User talk:Mangojuice and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Darin Fidika. Seems he might be back. Mango juice^talk 16:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Kuuzo posted a couple sections up about it. I don't really see anything worth going after right now other than general cleanup and reference issues. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I wasn't sure if you were a pain, a butt-in-ski, or what but your addition of the cyber chocolate chip cookie on Mango's page made me literally laugh out loud and told me everything. You're a good person just looking to help! Thank you!! Stress free holidays to you too!! Thanks for the smiles!! CelticGreen (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spots

Given the strong emphasis on verifiability, can you please explain to me why this was merged? Both the source article and the target article (and section) are unsourced. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because that was the consensus on the discussion. If you think the target article has problems, that's for another discussion. Feel free to nominate it for AfD if you wish. I just process the deletion discussions. :-) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shiokombu

Do you know what shiokombu is? It's mentioned in Red bean soup but isn't described. Badagnani (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like it would be some sort of salty soup made with kombu (a type of seaweed). The Japanese wiki article mentions it (塩昆布). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lum Invader Real World Notability

Found this piece of info on the net http://www.arikah.com/encyclopedia/Lum after remembering having read about something about Lum and the Hanshin Tigers in the past. "From August 12 to September 15, 2003, pictures of Lum supporting the Hanshin Tigers (drawn by Takahashi herself) appeared in the magazine Daily Sports." I figure that since you have actually lived in Japan, you might have a better chance of verifying this in order to help produce real world notability for the Lum Invader article. Regards. Showers (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've seen that rumor, but never found any evidence of it. Thanks, though. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hey, Japanese boy. No synopses for the Branden Sanderson article. You understand that? They should be used only in their own articles. The article is being damaged because of folks like you. Do not revert me any more without acknowledging me? Get that in the thick skull of yours and sort yourself before editing. I don't come from nowhere to see some editor with milk on his mouth reverting me.

Regards: Painbearer (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being an ass. Do you have anything you wish to discuss in a more mature fashion? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is every reason to be rude. Every fucking reason. Because everybody is reverting everybody without the slightest acknowledgement.

I saw nowhere that putting synopses is encouraged. Untill you put some validated rule by Wikipedia that putting synopses is encouraged - I won't tolerate it.

Oh, and I don't care about you and your fucking accomplishements. To be bragging about it is stupid and immature. I let my edits speak for themeselves.

Regards: Painbearer (talk) 12:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who brought up accomplishments by implying that I knew nothing about editing here ("some editor with milk on his mouth"). And I acknowledged you (whetever that's supposed to mean) by putting in a very clear edit summary when I replaced the synopses. Did you bother to read that. As for policies and guidelines which strongly suggest using synopses (also called "summaries"), please go read Wikipedia:Summary style. I should also note that I'm not actually Japanese. Go figure... ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-huh, I have read it, and there's nowhere written concerning synopses in authors' pages. So untill there is specifically written that synopses should be put on authors page, there won't be any. Thus, synopses will remain only on individual book's articles.

Sorry for calling you Japanese. Frankly, I don't know what you are. Also, my snapping wasn't meant individually for you. Strong portion of the editors revert without acknowledgement.

Regards: Painbearer (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS pages don't mention every specific instance of when something could be applied. That would be absurd. Given the length of the Sanderson article without the summaries, it makes sense to give a short taste of what the book is about along with a link to the main article for each book. That is infinitely better than just a list of works with no description whatsoever. I don't understand why you are so adamantly against it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that Wikipedia:Summary style doesn't really mention any specific type of article (though it uses World War II as an example). So, if we were to go by your rationale (it's not specifically mentioned, so it doesn't apply), very few of the articles on the site are covered by MOS page guidelines. The MOS guidelines are somewhat generic on purpose, as trying to list every possible application of them would take another full encyclopedia to do. Again, that's just absurd. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mainichi Shimbun sourcing

Hi, Joe. Due to the nature of my regular editing area, I check the "Wai Wai" section of the Mainichi Shimbun almost every day. Sometimes I'm lucky and find an article on Nana Natsume or someone. Other times I find articles on Japanese pop culture that don't really interest me, but I add a link to the news item on our related articles anyway. I've always thought of providing sources, especially at un-sourced or poorly-sourced articles as a good deed, but it's often reverted by editors of the article. The latest instance was when I added Today's article on Airbots to the Aerialbots article. It was removed. Doesn't really bother me that the editors throw out good sourcing, but it is kind of irritating... Who's right/wrong here? Should I refrain from adding new items to articles that don't really interest me? Dekkappai (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the vandalism. If someone else removes legit sources such as this, let me know and I'll be happy to do so again. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Seems like it usually happens at Anime-type articles that are made up of mostly, or entirely, personal observations... I've just shrugged my shoulders & let it pass before. I'll let you know next time. Dekkappai (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can point out any others, I'll be happy to fix the removals. Sources should not be removed unless they are obviously bad sources. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't recall any off-hand, but I'll keep this in mind. Personally, I look at these professional articles on pop-culture subjects as little pieces of gold. Sourcing for articles that are usually very hard to source. I'll continue adding them when I come across them. Thanks again. Dekkappai (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect hangon

04:43, December 20, 2007 Nihonjoe (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Omaliceo/Cuahutemoc Morfin" ‎ (content was: '{{db-bio}} {{hangon}} I will be adding more information. Cuahtemoc Morfin has been anything but insignificant with his presence in the city of Chicago. He has been in charge of many different movements involving immigration. Plus there ...')

Why did you delete a harmless page from a user space when it had a {{hangon}} tag? — Sebastian 04:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I realized I forgot "User:". Sorry about that! — Sebastian 04:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um...that's not in user space. User space has "User:" prepended to it. The article I deleted was Omaliceo/Cuahutemoc Morfin, which is obviously not in user space. As for respecting "hang on", there is nothing in the guidelines which says that "hang on" prevents a page from being deleted, regardless of where the article is located. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I said: I forgot "User:". Add "Omaliceo/Cuahutemoc Morfin", and what do you get? My dear fellow administrator, I know we all make mistakes, and I just made one myself, but it seems you're being rash. Please take the time to understand what others are trying to say. Likewise, even though there may not be a rule to obey {{hangon}}, it is a very basic rule of respect and politeness to at least allow somebody to do prove notability before insisting on hitting the delete button ~~like a mindless robot~~. If our task was that automatic, then we wouldn't need humans to do it. — Sebastian 05:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't being rash as there was nothing in the article which would lend itself to keeping it. I'm not a mindless robot, either, so please at least show me the same respect you are requesting. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean that you are a mindless robot. I only wanted to appeal to you as a human being. Please, do show some respect to such requests, especially when the page is harmless, like the one you deleted. — Sebastian 06:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we left all the "harmless" pages, we'd have 4-5 million articles with most of them being "harmless" but useless. It's a simple job to move a page to userspace, but there was no request to do so as far as I could tell (until you mentioned it being in user space here). I'm all for harmless pages, but they have to meet minimum requirements like WP:N and WP:V first. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who said "leave all harmless pages"? What I'm saying is - see the title of this section: "Please respect hangon". Please address that, and don't flee into distorting the request to the point of absurdity. So far, you have not provided a single reason for not respecting hangon. — Sebastian 07:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said "if". The hangon tag is generally used to say, "I'm going to add more, I promise", and then nothing ever happens. If he (or someone else) had requested the page be moved to userspace, I would have done that instead. As it was, there was nothing there which indicated any sort of notability, so the speedy tag was honored. That's moot now, though, since the page has been moved to userspace for now. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it does often happen that users don't follow up. Maybe then, the whole {{hangon}} concept is wrong? If you feel that way, you're free to bring it up at the appropriate place. But please don't let the the broken promises of some bad editors harden you so much as to punish those well-intended editors who really want to add more. As long as you keep doing that, it's not moot. — Sebastian 22:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would also help if those adding the hangon tag would follow the directions and put an argument on the talk page. 99% of them never do. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monty Hell problem

Hi, could you restore this to my user space? Thanks, Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 05:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone else already took care of it. Let me know if you need anything else. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was me. Sorry, I should have said so here to save you the time to look it up. — Sebastian 06:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, thank you also for this, which I should have done. — Sebastian 07:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I also whacked the cross-namespace redirect. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IFC Engine Series

Hello, Why do you consider the IFC Engine Series SPAM?

--Dustin Townsend (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to ask Orangemike, as he's the one who tagged it as spam. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]