User talk:Dekimasu/Archive1

Welcome!

Hello, Dekimasu, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Japanese

Hi, sorry, I had no idea about that template and I can't believe I didn't check to see that that link didn't point to the Japanese language! I'm working on changing them now. Any chance you could give me some pointers in using that template, I've never seen it before. Thanks. --Timkovski 20:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

USS Arneb, etc.

Thanks for putting in the Imperial Japanese Navy links. I'm posting articles on a lot of WWII U.S. Navy ships, and I'm just learning about the appropriate links for U.S. stuff. I'm grateful for anything about the Japanese side. Lou Sander 19:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Katsuma Dan

Thanks for the comments and the edits! I am not an expert on Japan but I am writing a couple more articles with Japanese-American themes. I am sure they would benefit from a good critical reading.

By the way, I am a huge Tanizaki fan and I agree that the Tanizaki article should be expanded. I look forward to it. Actinman

Katsumeidan jiken

If you have time, please check out League of Blood Incident. I am not an expert on Japanese history but I found a reference to the incident when I was researching Katsuma Dan. It seemed appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Let me know what you think. Actinman 03:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm having some trouble finding further information on it in Japanese or English (I can't figure out what the kanji should be for the "katsu" in "katsumeidan"), but I did enjoy reading it. I'll keep looking around for more information. Dekimasu 03:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I have it. I just realized it's "ketsumeidan," where the "ketsu" is "blood." Now it makes sense and I can find more information for touching up the article. Dekimasu 03:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the help. My main source for this is an excellent article by Stephen Large from Modern Asian Studies (35(3):553-564). He renders the name as katsumeidan but it sounds like that might not be the best transliteration. Actinman 16:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Censorship

You edited the talk page of a rejected, and therefore inactive, policy proposal. First, editing others' comments is widely frowned upon. Second, inactive policy pages are often on watchlists, in case anyone tries to revive discussion. Edits tend to confuse the record and make the discussion look active.

No great harm done, but I thought I would mention it. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarification (but not an excuse): I made this edit to fix a disambiguation link. Dekimasu 11:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I assume you were using "what links here" to do multiple fixes. I generally avoid talk space when doing that. Not that I haven't screwed up. As I said, no real harm done. Robert A.West (Talk) 14:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was doing. Anyway, now I know. Dekimasu 15:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thx

Just wanted to say thanks for fixing my profile XSpaceyx 22:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Me too! DruidArena 06:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I too thank you for taking correcting a mistake I had made in my profile *bows* Lord Metroid 10:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Haskell change

I left a question related to your recent edit on Talk:USS Haskell (APA-117)--J Clear 01:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

(Copied over from the talk page, in case you're watching this space.) This was a mistake on my part - I generally think that the Navy was involved in the battles on the Pacific islands, whereas the Army was responsible for the campaigns in China, the Philippines, and other places where most of the fighting wasn't amphibious. Since Okinawa is actually part of Japan, that wasn't the whole story. The Navy page says Kamikaze planes were particularly effective during the defense of Okinawa, in which 1,465 planes were expended to damage around 250 American warships, but this wasn't the bulk of the planes that Japan lost according to the Battle of Okinawa page. The Japanese page on the Battle of Okinawa says that most (86,000 of 116,000) of the force protecting Okinawa was from the Army, and of course, there were air bases in Okinawa. While I still think it would have been the Navy in this case, I'm not confident, so I'm changing the link to Empire of Japan. Dekimasu 02:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I was watching both. Thanks. The original reference was from DANFS, and I just wikied it. Since the Haskell left, they avoided attacks by both, so Empire of Japan is probably a good link.--J Clear 04:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Totsuka Michitaro

If you could take a quick peek at this bio stub Totsuka Michitaro and if nothing else can you comment on the two spellings I found (see its Talk page)? Thanks.--J Clear 01:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

(Same as above.) His last name is Totsuka, so those should be switched, but Michitaro is correct. It took some work, but I found him at this link (in Japanese). It has his name kanji, his dates, and even when he was promoted to each rank. I'll add in his dates and kanji and move the page if it's possible. Dekimasu 03:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved the page and added that information, though I didn't really add to his bio. Dekimasu 03:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Just dropping a note, thanks for the disambiguation link repair on my profile. akuyume(Adam) 03:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

Hi there how are you going? Apparently some contributors have edited the section you've tagged with the cleanup tag. Please see it, Tourism in Indonesia and tell us what you think. If you think it still need the tag, umm, please point which part of the section that needs major edit. Cheers, take care -- Imoeng 10:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the info is much better, so I did a little editing and I took out the cleanup tag. Thanks for the friendly note. Dekimasu 07:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Shigemi Hagihara

Konnichiha, dekimasu-san.

Thanks for the heads-up on the copyright violation. The person who wrote the text and took the pictures on the website is very likely to be the author of the wikipedia page, and claims to have released the pictures into the public domain.

However, the external website has a copyright notice on it. Accordingly, the text is copyrighted. I've removed most of the content. Thanks for pointing it out. - Richardcavell 12:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Prester John

G'day from Australia, Thankx for fixing my link to Japan. Konichi wa?

Simon Woodroffe

Hi there, you marked Simon Woodroffe as being contradictory. Just passing by, but couldn't see where it was contradictory, and wondered if I was being dim? You didn't leave a comment on the talk page explaining it anyway. TheMoog 09:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence and the fourth sentence disagree. Was the chain started in 1997 or 1998? I myself don't know, so I added the tag. Dekimasu 16:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see - someone seems to have fixed that now, but thanks for clearing up why it was tagged for me. TheMoog 21:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Soul Society image

Could you add a line to the description that says which episode you took the screen-cap from? Otherwise, that blasted orphanbot may tag it as unsourced. --tjstrf 06:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I added "Screenshot of the Bleach anime, episode 25, as broadcast by TV Tokyo." Think that's enough? Dekimasu 07:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, thank you kindly. I hate having to invent guesstimated sources for images after the orphanbot starts whining. --tjstrf 08:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

I know, that link is tiny. I may be able to fix that, since I was able to at least improve it from the default (compare with Rurouni Kenshin). I disagree that it creates any POV issues, since this is the enwiki. If I'd left out Canada or something, that would be POV, but putting all the non-english non-original publishers in an extended list shouldn't be a problem and was the entire purpose of that field to start with. I didn't create that field, I simply made it not impossible to see. --tjstrf 10:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you read it now? If not, how much bigger do you need? I'll deal with POV issues and whatever else after I get the size fixed. --tjstrf 10:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Now I can read it, but the "More:" text is larger than the Bleach text at the top of the infobox. The "show" link is the right size, but when I expand the list, the names of the other publishers are still smaller than anything else in the infobox and hard to read. It seems to not be scaling with the rest of the infobox for some reason. If it helps at all, I have my browser set to default text size. Dekimasu 10:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, the size issue is fixed. At least for me, the text size is identical to the other infobox text. --tjstrf 10:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Still not the same for me. I can read the "additional publishers" part, but upon expanding the list, the names of the other publishers are illegibly small. Dekimasu 10:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Seriously? For me those are exactly the same size as the others. What browser are you using? (It works for me in both Opera and IE6) --tjstrf 10:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I must go to bed now. Sorry, but you'll have to talk to me about this tomorrow. Hopefully it's only effecting you. --tjstrf 10:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm running Firefox 1.8 (the up-to-date version). Good night! Dekimasu 10:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, good night. I'm asking everyone to tell me what it looks like on the Bleach talk page right now, so discuss there. --tjstrf 10:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Nick, remember me

I'm 99% sure this is Nick, Eddie H.'s friend (no full names; I like staying anonymous on here, too). I was hanging out with you and Eddie in Kobe. If I'm wrong, please disregard.--Nobunaga24 12:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"Confused why you did that"

Yes... it was an error when copy-paste fixing the huge number of double redirects we just created. Sometimes the page would redirect without me noticing and I'd edit the wrong one. Oops --tjstrf 03:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for creating them. I'm working on them as fast as I can but that happened to be the one that popped up on my watchlist. Thanks for the help. Dekimasu 03:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No, they were a good idea, or at least better than having that many articles... they just make link repair an absolute terror. On the bright side, it's good for my edit count! ;) --tjstrf 03:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

sjk categories

Yes, I thought I had removed the subcategories as well, can you point me which ones are still alive? -- Drini 20:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

They appear to have been emptied, but the ones listed on the CfD page (except the overarching category) are all still there. The categories are [[Category:Sjk 2005]], [[Category:Sjk Houston]], [[Category:Sjk Katrina]], [[Category:Sjk September 2005]], [[Category:Sjk blather]], [[Category:Sjk carpentry]], [[Category:Sjk cats]], [[Category:Sjk entries]], [[Category:Sjk love]]. Thanks for the answer. Dekimasu 00:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Language disambiguation

Thanks for the disambiguation link repair on my page. You missed all of the Russian -> Russian language ambiguous links though. ;) But thanks to you making me aware of the problem I fixed it now.　お疲れ様でした～。 Truncated 12:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sora Inoue

The book that revealed Sora's name came out in January 2006! [1]

Be glad it came out as soon as it did, I guess. Also, I expect VIZ to revise its newer printings of Bleach Vol. 1 soon. WhisperToMe 02:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact, which volumes had "Kakei"? I'll check my bookstore and see if VIZ edited the printings. WhisperToMe 02:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have that book, and I read all of the Bleach things in Japanese anyway, but I never read SOULs closely enough to catch that. Why did VIZ feel like they had to give him a first name anyway, if the originals avoided it? Considering that they went ahead and made up a name before it was revealed, I doubt that VIZ is concerned about consistency enough to go back and fix anything. I don't have access to English versions of the manga here. It still seems like Sora Inoue should redirect out of Characters in Bleach since the links aren't related to Bleach. Dekimasu 02:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I see you've handled that already (^^)b Dekimasu 02:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"VIZ isn't known for being good about things like that. Under what circumstances did the English manga and anime have to reveal his first name anyway, when the originals didn't? This after people were complimenting the dub on its respect for Japanese naming issues. Dekimasu 02:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)"

When a younger sibling addresses an older sibling in Japanese, he or she calls him or her "honorable older brother" or "honorable older sister" - I.E. Orihime called her brother "Brother" in the Japanese originals. VIZ did not want to have Orihime call her brother "brother" all the time, so VIZ had to make up a name for him. WhisperToMe 02:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what I'm objecting to. If they wished to maintain the original flavor they wouldn't have subverted the "older brother" denotation (and I don't feel like san has as such an "honorable" connotation here, since it's more something said by convention). "Big brother" is in standard English usage and having Orihime say it would have reinforced her somewhat childlike image. I don't think they had to do it. Dekimasu 02:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

EDIT [2] - Sora first appears on October 2005, so the guidebook actually might have been released earlier than Feb. 2006 WhisperToMe 02:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the source of the name was, but the first printing of the guidebook (I have it right here) was on February 8. Dekimasu 02:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

EDIT [3] - The Japanese Amazon page also says 02/06 - Maybe some copies were given out early? WhisperToMe 02:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt they would have been out that early. There must have been a third source, probably related to Jump merchandising.... Dekimasu 02:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure the date on the Amazon page is right, since things tend to come out about five days before they're supposed to here. Dekimasu 03:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As for a circumstance for when VIZ corrected naming for newer printings, remember Maito Gai of Naruto? Turns out his name is actually Might Guy. VIZ got a hint and edited their older printings :) WhisperToMe 02:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Disambiguation Talk Request

This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I may have found your page based on your contributions or your link repair user box on your user page. If you are not a member, please consider including your name on the project page. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 22:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Dekimasu! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 20:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm still having problems logging in. Please let me know if you have any suggestions. Dekimasu 08:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I are you using VP 1.3 if not please see [[User talk:Betacommand/Sandbox|this for the download. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Highcliffe School

What is it about the Highcliffe School wiki that is not notable? Electrology

I know that the school itself may be notable, but the article does not assert or explain the notability. A description of the Blackboard system at the school isn't really helpful in that regard. Dekimasu 02:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Sorry for causing a back-up, didn't realise that some of the pages were doing that. How do you add these disambiguations and know which pages will need them? Ichi-o 12:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If you have popups enabled, you can hit preview before sending your edit through. Then roll over the links you've made in the article and see which ones come up as disambiguation pages. That's a lot faster than checking each one individually. You can add popups using the method here if you don't have them: Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. I fixed all of the pages that had problems at the Japanese disambiguation page, so don't worry about what's in the past. (^^)b Dekimasu 12:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

STS-120

You have recently vandalized the article STS-120. This is really not a good idea and could result in your being blocked. Hektor 11:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This was due to a bug in loading the page in CorHomo and I wasn't aware of the problem. You can see from my edit summary that I was in the process of disambiguating links to the word Japanese, one of which is still on the STS-120 page and which I will fix now. I'm not sure why it loaded the arc page instead of STS-120, but if you had looked at my contributions it would have been clear I was editing in good faith. Vandalism and human/machine error are not the same thing. Dekimasu 15:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, perfect. Hektor 16:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Article Creation and Improvement Drive

– ClockworkSoul 04:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

AzaBot 16:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

AzaBot 03:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

AzaBot 01:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

AzaBot 01:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Category Osaka

Hey, just thought I'd point you in the direction of a new category I created: Category:Wikipedians in Osaka. Figured there might be enough Wikipedians living in Osaka to make it worthwhile. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 03:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Disamb Maintenance

I have reverted your edits to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 August 26. When doing disambiguation maintenance, you should not change links that intentionally point to a disambig page. You should also avoid changing archived deletion debates. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 13:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I believe I was confused because in the nomination I had not pointed it to the disambiguation page in the first place (you can see that the pointing was done in the September 2 edit after the discussion had ended). I was intending to make it the way I originally listed it and ended up taking out the redirect's link as well. I do notice that they are linked in the other nominations on the page. Why are both of them usually linked when they redirect to the same place, anyway? Dekimasu 06:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I missed that you were the one who originally nominated it. You are correct that someone else added the linkage, but it was actually done prior to the closing. Both the redirect and the target are linked (and the {{rfd2}} nomination template will automatically do that for you) to make it easier on reviewers. When a redirect is nominated, it is tagged with {{rfd}} which breaks the redirect. Having both linked on the WP:RFD page makes it easy to open the redirect and the target for review. Also, sometimes the redirect gets changed after the nomination has been opened. -- JLaTondre 12:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirection of Higashi-osaka election

How come you redirected elections in Higashi-osaka to the main page of the city. Other cities have separate pages for elections. Also the Higashi-osaka page looks clutterd with all thoose tables. --Jonte-- 20:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, this must have been a month ago. I didn't redirect it with thought to election pages of any cities except for Higashiosaka. I did it because they were singleton residents of their categories and there were no real prospects for further development of the page... but most importantly, I did it because there is almost no information on the main Higashiosaka, Osaka page, so it doesn't require daughter pages. I think any impression of clutter is due to the fact that there is very little other information on the Higashiosaka page so far. It wouldn't seem to be cluttering anything if it was a smaller percentage of the text of the article. Dekimasu 04:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've not been on Wikipedia for a while. Thank you for your explanation but I still think the election should be on a separate page. Mainly because that's how it's done on all other articles regarding elections. Also some one might add other elections in Higashi-osaka and then that section would take up a lot of space. So I think that in order to fit with other similar pages we should change back. --Jonte-- 22:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Kitsune in popular culture

I replied to your comment on my talk page. Thanks. Shimeru 07:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

JA user Shortie

Great! I'm glad that she didn't make any damaging edits on JA Wikipedia. Has any action been taken against the account there? I really can't tell because the Japanese characters all come up as a box.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 23:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no indication that any action has been taken against the account. The blankings of the talk page and the user page were done by the user herself, so she may have just given up on JA. Dekimasu 01:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 05:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Henna gaijin

You removed some data from Henna gaijin as being copyvio: why, and where does this material come from then? The phrases seemed quite simple, so why not paraphrasing them instead? LHOON 10:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It's displayed in the first few paragraphs on hennagaijin.org. Also, the information isn't really information. This article is about a non-notable neologism. It is defined by its website, and that isn't encyclopedic. Dekimasu 10:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Correcting Japanese to Japanese People

Hi. Thank you for pointing the mismatch in Japanese links that should have been Japanese People. From now on, I'll make sure to point to the correct page. --Pygenot 10:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Disambig Prussia

As it clearly said at the relevant place on the relevant page -on which I have also left you a note - I have been working on this for the last 4 weeks, and it is very discourteous of you to cut in once the great majority of the work (103 links out of 109) has been done. Even on Wikipedia, famous for its rudeness, some basic standards of behaviour are necessary, and I see from your page that you are quite old enough to understand this. HeartofaDog 20:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I did note that I completed very few links. Actually, I assumed that you had already finished working on the page and had forgotten to move it to the bottom, and that since that time, six new links had accumulated. I remember being offended about something similar that happened to me in August, but please remember that everyone is working together towards the same goal. I was working to further that goal, just as you were. Dekimasu 01:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you would like to consider adopting the Prussia (disambiguation) page. If you can keep it off the maintenance list then my attention won't be drawn to it anymore. Dekimasu 01:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have indeed added it to my other adopted pages, and have now stopped being offended, although these small irritations are very frequent, and periodically build up. Nevertheless, you are right. HeartofaDog 12:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Dekimasu, thanks for your work on Prussia and other disambig pages. No one "owns" anything on Wikipedia, and your help is greatly appreciated. By almost everyone. :) --Russ (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for that little edit on my userpage. ^_^ DrowningInRoyalty 01:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

International Celestial Reference Frame

Hi! That one is tricky; I'm not even sure what is meant by the relevant sentence ("Although relativity implies that there is no true inertial frame..."). :-( I left a note on the article's talk page hoping that someone will clarify it. Thank you for the disambig advice, by the way! It's my first time trying my hand at it. HEL 12:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I hereby confer upon you this Working Man's Barnstar to thank you for your tireless disambiguation work! Russ (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It means a lot to me to be recognized by a user who I respect so much. Please continue to help me when I ask uninformed questions about disambiguation. (^_-) Dekimasu 04:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Japanese ethnicity picture

Hi there, I just wanted to point out that while the new picture may be of lesser quality, what's more important is that its licensing is not in question at all. The previous image had a highly dubious fair use justification and very vague sourcing. I think we shouldn't have to rely on dubiously sourced/fair use justified images, especially as we clearly have English-language Wikipedians in Japan. If you really object to the quality of the new picture, I suggest that we don't use either picture until a better image can be found. Bwithh

I had just clicked on your talk page to send you a message with almost the same contents. You may have noticed that I didn't readd the old picture. I intended to suggest that we look for a better picture together. Dekimasu 03:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay cool, I'm happy to try to find a better image together too Bwithh 04:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible pics from Wikicommons

with your preference for traditional dress in mind:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Shinto_married_couple.jpg (could do with some cropping)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Shinto_wedding_shrine_tokyo.jpg (cropping needed)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Morioka_Kinder_3.JPG

Bwithh 04:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible CC-licensed pics from Flicker

http://flickr.com/photos/76162070@N00/39589492/ (good profiles but needs cropping especially to remove the face on the right)

http://flickr.com/photos/nandemo-ii/158581109/

http://flickr.com/photos/bnittoli/213176729/ (well... I thought we might want a modern/traditional fusion)

http://flickr.com/photos/geoff_leeming/27740478/

http://flickr.com/photos/taminator/304772947/ group shot (traditional and modern) with um, bonus gaijin (location is Vancouver however - but that doesnt matter for ethnicity template?)

http://flickr.com/photos/taminator/301744479/ group shot "japanese" (shinto temple in Vancouver?} interior with same family as above but without gaijin... I think this is one of my favourite ones - I like the way the younger couple is in traditional clothes and the older people are in modern clothes. I would crop above their hands though. Bwithh 05:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the last one looks really good. There's a range of ages, both sexes, different styles of dress, and the background isn't too disruptive. If it can be cropped to fit well, I'd definitely say it's good for the template. And good job! I hadn't gotten around to searching yet. Dekimasu 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Glad to do it... I checked the picture and its Creative Commons licensing is of the "some rights" form[4], which means that we can use the picture in an unmodified form without asking permission. But if we want to crop it, we will need to ask the copyright holder's permission. I will test the picture using a cropped version and if it works, I will ask permission from the copyright holder. Bwithh 02:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I tested the image, and it works fine as a cropped image, I believe. I emailed the copyright holder - it looks like Wikipedia requirements would need us to ask permission even if there was no cropping (due to differences between CC limited license and GFDL). Let's see how the photographer replies Bwithh 02:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately,the photographer has not yet replied to my flicker email to him , and he has definitely been active on flicker (uploaded new photos) during the time. On the other hand, someone else has uploaded a public domain set of photos to the template, so it's all good Bwithh 05:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, on the other hand, is the new photo uploaded by someone else really valid? Its labelled as their own creation, released into public domain, but it seems to be four professional photos stuck together. Bwithh 05:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not a valid tag. I think there was also a previous discussion on Talk:Japanese people that resulted in removing Shinzo Abe (I may be wrong). These photos are somewhat worse than the woman in the kimono, because they are some of the most well-known Japanese citizens. It makes it harder to make it clear that the article is about Japanese ethnicity. Maybe I should start to look around for photos.... Dekimasu 06:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. They were all taken from the articles on their respective subjects and pasted together. If the woman in the kimono wasn't fair use, though, this isn't fair use either. In particular the photos of Nakata and Utada are questionable in that context. I checked and it looks like the discussion was about Koizumi, but it still applies to Abe. I think there shouldn't be anyone widely known as a Japanese citizen in the picture. Dekimasu 06:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

your message

Hi,

Too busy to do dab page stuff at the moment, but may be ready soon. I notice you do TEFL, presumably in Japan. I'm a Taiwan TEFL'er currently in the US getting a PhD. Also your remarks on my talk page that began, "As an aside, I certainly agree with your idea..." sound like something I might say, but I don't remember saying them. :-) Where did I say that? Later, --Ling.Nut 05:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It was at your second user page, if I remember correctly. I noticed that you have a lot of philosophical discussion of Wikipedia processes on your main talk page, and I found it by looking around to see what had prompted it. I've been thinking that after five months around here I should get more involved in those kinds of discussions myself. Dekimasu 04:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Japanese people image

The photographer who owns the flickr image has replied - he's interested. I am currently clarifying the licensing situation for him. We'll see how it goes Bwithh 06:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Great. That was the best image anyway; I failed horribly at finding one, although in the process, I did find a good street image for the middle of the ganguro article. Dekimasu 04:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

NPWatcher welcome

You've been approved to use NPWatcher. Please give me any feature requests or bugs. I'm also happy to help if you have any problems running the program, or any questions :). Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if I've made a new release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Finally, enjoy! Martinp23 14:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the approval! I'll let you know if I have any problems. Dekimasu 04:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Spring

I'm new to Wikipedia, but I'm glad to find a project I can help with! I'm going to work on the "Spring" disambiguation page as much as I possibly can until they're all cleaned up. Kaiwynn 02:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It looks like the collaboration is almost done now. When it's finished, please look through the list for any other pages you might be interested in helping with. Dekimasu 04:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Hinduism page

Hi, I moved a recent comment that you had left on the Hinduism talk page to the Hindu Notice Board where it is more likely to be seen by all editors working on the Hinduism project. I hope you will not consider this rude. Thanks. Abecedare 04:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the misformatting on the move. I was about to correct it when I got into an edit conflict with you! Abecedare 04:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I was only looking for an active talk page, and the place you moved it seems to be a better place to find assistance. It's outside of the usual scope of my edits, so thanks for the help. Dekimasu 04:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Genzō Murakami

Thanks for that translation. I really owe you one.--Maison mere des rumeurs 05:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'm happy to see the French page too. If you have any other requests (from Japanese), just let me know. They don't take me long, if they are about that length. Dekimasu 07:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok :). I will, thanks.--Maison mere des rumeurs 10:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits

Thanks for your edits to User:Sam ov the blue sand/Ace Combat X Fictional Aircraft they are greatly needed.Sam ov the blue sand 18:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

History of Sheffield

Hi! Thanks for reviewing History of Sheffield. I have made the MoS changes that you requested—in my line of work we always put citations before punctuation, so it looks odd to me this way, but that's OK. Thanks again, —JeremyA 19:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism

{{Hindu Links}}--D-Boy 11:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. I am going to disable the large template so it doesn't take over my talk page. If you can help with the Vedic religion problem, please do. Dekimasu 16:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:ADOPT

Hi there,

As a user looking to Adopt with the Adopt-a-User program, there has been some ongoing developments that we would like to bring to your attention, as well as request help with the backlog at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user.

You should know that the way the adoption process works has changed slightly. To decrease workload at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user on offering adoption please change the {{Adoptme}} template to {{Adoptoffer}} on the user's user page, and this will add the user to Category:Wikipedians having been offered adoption. Users that have already been offered adoption can always have a second or third offer, but by separating out those users that have not had an adoption offer yet, it is hoped that no one will go lacking. Once adoption is complete please use the templates found here on the Adoptee's and your user page.

Also numerous Adopters have been adding their details to a list of users available for adopting, to offer a more personalised service and allow new users to browse through and pick their own Adopter. The quickest way to adopt though, is still to contact users at the Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user.

Furthermore a new Adopter's Area has been created where you can find useful resources and other Adopter's experiences. Please feel free to add any resources you have and if you know of any useful resources for new users / Adoptees then you can add them here.

So I hope you get adopting soon - and if you have any general questions or suggestions about the further development of Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User please bring them to our talk page. Cheers Lethaniol 15:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

J-ska

Re: J-ska, this is an inquiry for my own edification rather than a challenge to your edit. Can you refer me to the guidelines on this matter so I can know which from what in the future? To make communication easier, I'll just watch this page for now and you can answer me right here. Thanks. House of Scandal 12:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The basic guidelines are at Wikipedia:External links, although I think you might want to look at the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:External links/YouTube. Whether or not the proposal passes, the general take remains valid. Since the two links I removed were music videos, it can be safely assumed that the creators hold the copyrights for those works. The person who posted them on YouTube is not likely to be authorized to post them, and YouTube doesn't normally scan its submissions for copyright violations unless it receives cease-and-desist letters. Conversely, I think that most Wikipedia editors place the burden of proof on the contributor of the link to show that it is legal. Hope this helps; let me know if I sound muddled. Dekimasu 12:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No, that's cool; I understand and appreciate the help. I like adding audio and video links to my articles when possible. I see it as an extention of the "don't tell, show" philosophy. I will avoid linking to probable copyright violation stuff in the future. BTW, you may not have noticed that J-ska is listed at AfD right now. Give an opinion there if the spirit moves you. Thanks again for the guideline links. Have a good Sunday. House of Scandal 13:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Dekimasu, my apologies for the error on disambiguating Nomenclature. Thanks for setting me straight about correct procedure for disambiguation, and thanks also for fixing my changes to the disambiguation:Done section. Clicketyclack 12:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, and no harm done. Plus, the links you fixed are still fixed... thanks for your work! Dekimasu 13:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Re : AfD/University of Wisconsin (disambiguation)

I've restored the talkpage of the deleted article and moved back to its parent article, as it was previously moved by you. Does all the current links to University of Wisconsin meant for University of Wisconsin-Madison? If so, then perhaps it may be a good idea to seek help from WP:DPL (or a bot if possible) to cleanup all the links from articles to point to University of Wisconsin-Madison directly. That may be tedious, but that should solve the problem once and for all. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I came from WP:DPL. That's why my attention was drawn to it in the first place. This is basically a primary use claim on University of Wisconsin - when people link to it, they mean University of Wisconsin-Madison more than 99% of the time, so it should be a redirect. That is simply standard practice. The problem is not only the preexisting links, but the fact that more people link to that page all the time.

As I said, I can't see the "consensus" from the old disambiguation page, but it's become apparent from User talk:Miaers that recreating the disambiguation page at University of Wisconsin does not reflect that consensus. In the light of those facts I see no reason not to add the redirect to the page again, and based on the AfD deletion of the dab page (which still mystifies me) to leave University of Wisconsin-Madison without an otheruses tag this time. Does that seem reasonable to you? Dekimasu 15:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I realized that now that the talk page is moved back I can see that the reconstitution of the dab page at the current location lacked consensus. I still feel that the dab page should be located at University of Wisconsin (disambiguation) rather than being located nowhere, but that was the result of the vote. For now, I will turn it back into a redirect unless I hear otherwise from the trusted innocent bystander (you). Dekimasu 15:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No objections from me here, just that Miaers has reverted you just minutes after. You may want to have a talk with him to have this resolved. - Mailer Diablo 15:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I haven't done it yet. I was explaining myself on the talk page first. It would be helpful if you could close the overdue move discussion, as that would present us with a stepping-off point for further discussion (I don't think it should be necessary on the weight of the arguments, but you never know). Dekimasu 15:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my bad; I thought the timing in the history page was in GMT (a frequent mistake)! I'm not in the position to set decisions in stone for move-related discussions, but from what I read some form of consensus may well been reached already. - Mailer Diablo 16:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The referred to consensus was over a year old, and it's apparent from the vote that that consensus has expired (looks like there was a sockpuppet on the plus side in the debate). Anyway, I can understand why you don't wish to close the debate. Thank you for your input and I hope that things will go smoothly. Dekimasu 16:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Erm... one last thing. The sequence of events has resulted in the loss of the history of the prior University of Wisconsin page (since that was the one that was deleted at University of Wisconsin (disambiguation)). If it would be at all possible to restore that history, it seems like a shame to lose it. It now appears that there was no page named University of Wisconsin until last month. Dekimasu 16:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we have a cencus on directing University of Wisconsin to UW-Madison. I've provided my comments on the University of Wisconsin talk page. Miaers 18:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you an administor? It is very unprofessional to move the page without any talk and no consideration of previous discussions. Miaers 01:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not an administrator. I am sorry that you were offended by the move of the disambiguation page, but the current discussion on the talk page does tend to support that move. The fact that the disambiguation page was subsequently deleted also lends support to the changes I made. My action was not based on the content of the disambiguation page, or the discussion of its contents, but the technical problems with having it there. In retrospect I'm sorry that I didn't leave an official note, but I explained myself in edit summaries and I expected my action to be uncontroversial. In all honesty, I still think it is uncontroversial. Dekimasu 01:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi - I appreciate your help in dealing with this situation. Unfortunately, Miaers has rarely ever listened to consensus on anything and prefers to argue with other editors. I see your latest comment on the talk-page, but would appreciate you checking back when you return as having an outside editor's opinion is helpful in this type of situation. Cheers, PaddyM 01:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll do the best I can. Dekimasu 13:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

I have asked for a deletion review of University of Wisconsin (disambiguation), at your suggestion. You might want to participate. --Orange Mike 03:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have left a long comment there and I will vote as soon as it becomes clear that Mailer Diablo has really left the encyclopedia and is unable to perform the undeletion himself, or rather that he is just understandably upset with problems on other pages. Dekimasu 03:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

A vote from Miaers there would be extremely helpful in showing that the consensus to delete has changed. Dekimasu 03:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

University of Wisconsin redirect

Hi there, I think if you still have further things to talk, it is better for us to do this through our talk pages. Miaers 19:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather keep the discussion on the redirect's talk page, where it is more likely to stay in the record and be seen by more eyes. I've noticed that you tend to delete sections from your talk page. Dekimasu 13:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I had him "archive" one today about three minutes after I posted the remark! --Orange Mike 18:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There have been a few instances of this at Talk:University of Wisconsin as well. The whole talk page was archived except for one post, and I partially reverted, putting two weeks back on the talk page. I was then partially reverted, putting a week back into the archive. I let that go rather than edit war over it, but I'm hoping that everything that's visible there now will remain visible for a while. Dekimasu 02:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Notification of arbitration case

This is to notify you that I am making an arbitration request concernining the University of Wisconsin redirect at [Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration]. Miaers 00:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute (although a long-standing one), and thus the arbitrators are unlikely to take up your request. I suggest you turn to Wikipedia:Requests for comment instead if you want to continue discussing the issue. Dekimasu 03:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have replied to the request for comment. Dekimasu 04:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Civility

In addition to NPOV, no promoting and no academic boosterism, I think you also need to be civil. You are not supposed to make orders here. Miaers 17:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have not made any orders... I really haven't got any idea as to what you're talking about this time. Maybe you can provide a diff? As I've said many times, I have no connection with the University of Wisconsin, and my reason for supporting the redirect is to conform to the disambiguation guideline. I am not sure why you initiated the request for comment from uninvolved editors if you intended to make a good third of the comments, but I have been civil with you throughout. Please try to be conciliatory rather than confrontational. Dekimasu 23:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I don't like to see suggestions that I am being incivil, but rather than remove this exchange outright, I request that interested outside users view it in the light of its context. Please see Talk:University of Wisconsin#Request for Comment: University of Wisconsin redirect. Dekimasu 04:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Editor previously involved

I think you previously heavily involved in the discussion on University of Wisconsin talk page. Your comments should be at the "Statement of previously involved editors" section not "Comments" section, which is for outside editors who didn't participated in the previous discussions. Miaers 15:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The point was that it wasn't a statement of any kind. It was a note informing other editors that you had changed the format of the RfC. Given that the response to your refactoring was negative that time, I don't see why you proceeded to refactor the comments critical of the refactoring. It was also the third time you did something like that so far in the RfC, and you did it earlier when we were talking about the history of UW-Milwaukee. If I reply to your comment, and then you change your old comment so that mine doesn't make any sense, please recognize that it's a bad thing. Dekimasu 07:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The comments section for requested comments are for outside editors. If you insist, it is no big deal. Miaers 21:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Kadokura Satoshi

I was about three minutes behind you, I guess. But, I'm not convinced that the Japanese article is for the same guy. None of the songs are credited to him as 作詩家, which is what you would expect from a poet. Neier 07:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You have me convinced. I wasn't thinking about it quite that deeply; obviously the current one-liner isn't what we'd want at that title anyway, but maybe an article about the songwriter would stick. Anyway, I found evidence of the existence of the poem and noted it back at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chikyunoinochi. Not that that the one Ghit of evidence made the poem at all notable. Dekimasu 07:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Guess we knew that already, and I should have looked at the English-language searches a little harder. Dekimasu 07:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance at Miriam Shear.

I've not been sure what to do about users blanking the page and whatnot, I've just reiterated Wikipedia policy over and over again. Any help you can offer expanding the article, including keeping it up-to-date and reliably sourced, is appreciated. Italiavivi 03:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:WikiProjectBanners

Template:WikiProjectBanners has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- Ned Scott 08:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, especially since you may have guessed that I would disagree with you on the topic. Dekimasu 08:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:Nate3000

No, not offended at all. I was just about to go and give him my reasoning myself when I saw your response, so I figured I'd explain to him why it was removed. ^^; Nique talk 14:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

RE Hatano Hiroko

もうかりまっか？？if you have a problem with the images isn't it ethical first to talk to me before going anywhere? I agree that the first photo is the same one in her official site.And I obviously knew it.BUT you also have to understand that,the given site do not have any authority over the photo..Certainly not to my knowledge..In fact photo was given to me by one of my Japanese friends ,and he had no idea about the site !! Remember as a super model, thousands of her photos were taken by various cameramen and many of them are definitely not copyrighted.

And the other two were not copyrighted at all..They were taken by her fans..I will re add the photos and if you can prove that these are actually copy righted, please go ahead with your deletion..if not please let the photos stay,as a super model she deserve to have them in wikipedia.Plus, Japanese people are not big boasters.And to find citation to prove "she is one of the most successful ever" may be hard,as neither she nor anyone say that..But that's a fact.ask any girl in her late 20's or early 30's and hear what she says..She was probably the best known model at her generation,and with 梅宮　アンナ　and RINKA probably the best ever produced by JJ. ほんならまたね　--Iwazaki 15:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

はい、わかった。I didn't delete the images myself; I only listed them for discussion at possibly unfree images as possibly unfree. I suppose by notifying you at the same time as the listings I was shouting across the room to you instead of whispering in your ear, but when there are more eyes on an issue, it is easier to tell whether concerns are well-grounded.

I probably wouldn't have tagged the photos but for the fact that you claimed the ability to release rights on all three, which clearly wasn't the case. I am always happy to have more content added to articles about Japan, and I work on articles about Japan all the time, but we have to follow Wikipedia policies. This means tagging images correctly and trying to source unqualified statements: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." 怒らないでね。おやすみ。Dekimasu 15:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia is neither a democracy nor a dictatorship ..I like the term "free" which comes before Wikipedia..So,I preferred talk to people before even thinking about going to those "action" places..I am certainly not mad at you,But I would appreciate it if you could talk to me,before putting me to the swords of all mighty admins ..No hard feelings bro.

The argument for deletion is ,to be honestly, surprisingly weak..I know how wikipedia works but I thought this is a clear cut case..A fan has a photo ,taken by him ,and I just uploaded it..ahh,also you have deleted the link given in the article..I have read the link you gave, but that site doesn't belong to any of these..could you please tell me why it should not be given there??おおきに --Iwazaki 16:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the subsections talks about not linking smaller wikis, and another section further down talks about inserting foreign-language links as little as possible. I understand the value of adding her official site, but I don't think I agree with adding unofficial sites in Japanese, especially since there isn't any guarantee that their information are reliable. The one that was listed before also had a copyvio picture (it is noted as coming from the book that is linked on amazon.co.jp). I hope the article will keep getting better... Dekimasu 15:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Make Believe

How come everytime I try to do some good on wikipedia. I always get crapped on. It doesn't matter if the songs were not singles. Look at the Beatles albums. Every song that is not a single has it's own page. So I guess you will have to propose those for deletion too. : ( User:wikiwonka12

I think there probably are some Beatles songs that aren't notable enough to have articles, but as a fan of both groups I think it is a little bit overzealous to claim that recent Weezer songs have as much cultural relevance as Beatles songs. If you can show that the songs are notable, of course they can stay. If I can help you with that somehow, just let me know. Also, I noticed the articles in the first place because you linked to "producer", which is a disambiguation page. You may want to link those to "record producer" instead in the future. Dekimasu 15:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't see the point to deleting the song pages. I had suffient information on each song. I think at this point now it is simply a matter of opinion. I think if the song has suffient information then it should stay. I think you should remove the "deletion tag" for now at least. So we can continue to discuss this because I am not on wikipedia all the time. I am not on here often enough to defend my articles. User:wikiwonka12

I don't mean to deprive you of the chance to defend the articles (which are everybody's, actually). But anyway, if I nominate them for deletion at WP:AfD, we should be able to have an unbiased discussion with more members of the community, right? If you can let me know beforehand that you'll be around once in a 5-day period, I'll wait until that period to nominate them. There's no deadline around here and I'm in no rush. I'll take your comments as a sign that I should remove the prod tags, but actually, you can always remove them yourself. Dekimasu 05:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've come to believe that rather than nominate the articles for deletion, it may be a better solution to redirect them to the main article. The individual articles have one source, the song-by-song commentary, and I have now added the link to it to the article for the whole album. No one seems to have added more information to any of them in the last several weeks since our discussion. We are all allowed Wikibreaks, but if you don't return at some point, I may (as a preliminary solution) turn the articles in question into redirects. Dekimasu 12:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Aino (disambiguation)

(From User talk:Petri Krohn#Aino)

1. The MoS says the most common use should be first. Aino (mythology) may be the most common use. Aino (given name), most likely is not, there is not even an article!.
2. A missing article cannot be first.
3. Aino (given name) is derived from Aino (mythology).

-- Petri Krohn 13:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe you, although it appears to be a common first name given the other links. If you can point me to anything that says a missing article cannot be first, please let me know. I couldn't find it at WP:DAB or WP:MOS-DAB. Thanks for the reply. Dekimasu 13:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use

From User talk:Miaers, and copy-pasted here by User:Miaers: I came here to talk about the deletion review of the disambiguation page, but I noticed that you have a fair use image you uploaded on your user page. First, please note that it is never considered acceptable to display fair use images on your user page. I am also certain that this is a replaceable image and doesn't qualify under a fair use claim, but I don't want you to think that I am trying to attack your editing personally. Image:Chapman Hall.jpg should be listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, but you can remove it from the articles and ask to have it deleted yourself. Please let me know if you have any questions about this. Dekimasu 03:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The image you mentioned in my talk page can't be replaced by any free one. It is a fair use I have already provided the raionale. Miaers 05:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't like the fair use policy when I first started to deal with it, but it is a policy that we need to abide by for legal purposes. Per Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy, number 9, there is no fair use outside of the article namespace, so you really do have to remove the image from your userpage - there aren't exceptions to the rule. Beyond that, the image is replaceable (please note the "or could be created" phrase in the fair use template). You, or someone else, can go to the building and take a picture of it, upload it, and use it on the pages it currently illustrates. I am tagging it as Template:Fair use replace for now. Dekimasu 05:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even in Wisconsin. I can't take the picture. More importantly, I don't think anyone can take a picture as beautiful as the one that is being used. Miaers 06:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a reasonable expectation that a similar photo could be taken by someone else, and that the resulting photo could then be licensed under the GFDL. Fair use policy does not permit the use of images for purely decorative purposes. In both this case, and at the University of Wisconsin discussion, it seems that you want to argue against applying Wikipedia policies in the cases of specific pages. If you want to change the way Wikipedia works, you should really be attempting to change the policies themselves. I would advise you to go to Wikipedia:Disambiguation page and discuss primary topic distinctions or Wikipedia:Fair use and discuss the problems you have with fair use policy. I don't think you would have a good chance of having the policies and guidelines changed, but using a bottom-up approach to change the application of consensus-based policies and guidelines is even more unlikely to result in a change in the way we organize Wikipedia. I don't like protecting for-profit Wikipedia mirrors from legal liability, but it's what we do. Dekimasu 07:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I contacted the author of this photo, Allan Hong. He agreed to let me use this photo in Wikipedia. Could you please let me know what kind of license I should use for this image? Miaers 14:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately that sort of agreement isn't allowed for Wikipedia's purposes, because it would prohibit downstream use by the mirrors I mentioned before. The photo is still listed as "all rights reserved" on flickr, so it is unacceptable for Wikipedia use. You can ask him to release his rights to the photo, in which case we could use it and you could have it on your user page too, or else it is still unproperly licensed and an unacceptable fair use violation on your user page. Dekimasu 11:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Image

This is to let you know that there is no free replacement to the two UW-Milwaukee alumni photo I uploaded. There is nothing wrong with this There is no free replacement. There is nothing wrong with this {{promophoto}} tag. Please stop reverting. Miaers 20:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the speedy deletion tag offers {{hangon}} and the talk page as a route to solve problems with speedy deletions, but mentions in bold text: "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself". Please go to the talk pages of the images in question rather than adding fair use tags again. The fair use tag notes that it is generally not to be used for photos of living people, because there is a reasonable expectation that free images of the subjects can be obtained. I am not confident in your assertion that there is no possibility of obtaining free images, considering that you previously listed the copyrighted images as GFDL. Dekimasuよ! 20:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I usually put hostile remarks in archives. I didn't erase your message on my talk page. By the way, please stop removing the new license I put on these images. Miaers 20:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you considered hostile; however, what I said was, "Uploader has been notified and has archived the message pertaining to this photo." I didn't say you erased my message. It was a note to administrators looking at the speedy, because they are instructed to check whether or not the uploader has been notified of the tag and copyright policy. Dekimasuよ! 20:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry.

I have no apologies or retractions to issue with regard to those who have been attacking Miriam Shear and Talk:Miriam Shear whatsoever. User:Yisraelasper ought have been banned the second he engaged in repeat vandalism, including more advanced tactics like page-moving. Italiavivi 14:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that blocks on Wikipedia are preventative, not punitive. We could have reported the vandalism on WP:AIV at the time it occurred, and it's likely that the user would have been blocked. However, there is no sense in which a block is necessary at this point. It would be much better to defuse the situation than to perpetuate it. I'll leave up User:Yisraelasper's reply because that's definitely preferrable to starting an edit war on a talk page. I hope this will be the end of the matter, although not quite on the terms I desired. Dekimasu 12:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification from Dekimasu: This is aimed at User:Italiavivi, not at me:

So you take upon yourself to pick sides for Wikipedia. You sir are a vandal who had been warned about doing such partisan stunts before with other matters and accordingly threatened with banning. Since you refuse to drop your last slanderous nonsense as requested then I will put back my reply. yisraelasper

Further according to you then not taking sides means attacking Miriam Shear. Both supporting or attacking is partisan. If anyone should be banned it should be you for trying to terrorize other users. If you drop your last paragraph I will drop mine that I reposted. yisraelasper

I hope this will represent the end of the discussion. It is really not helpful for anyone's purposes to be intransigent in these matters. Dekimasu 11:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User Adoption

I found your name on the list of users wishing to adopt other users and wondered how one would go about being adopted. Thanks for your time. Rurouniyuudai85 18:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The basic way to go about being adopted is to add the text {{Adoptme}} to your user page. Many adopters are very eager and look through that list on a regular basis; they can offer you adoption by changing the {{Adoptme}} to {{Adoptoffer}} and letting you know on your talk page.

I don't look through the list often myself, but I'm on Wikipedia daily. If you think our interests are similar (based on my user page, or maybe my contributions), I'm certainly free enough to help you get used to the workings of the site. If you'd rather find another adopter, you can still feel free to ask me questions anytime. Hope this helps. Dekimasu 13:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Our interests do seem similiar, I'm very interested in many things Japanese. I'm actually about to join the navy as a translator, hopefully the language they'll assign me will be Japanese (but if not that's ok, I plan on majoring in Asian Studies in school anyways). But if you'd like to adopt me that'd be pretty cool. Rurouniyuudai85 17:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Then I'm willing to help you out. You can change the {{Adoptme}} to {{Adoptee|Dekimasu}} on your userpage if you'd like. To start out, if you let me know a few articles in particular that you'd like to help out on, I'll take a look at them and make some suggestions about what you might like to do. Also, please let me know if I'm going too fast or too slow in showing you the ropes. Happy to work with you... Dekimasu 13:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks a lot. The first page I really want to work on is the Armored Core 4 article. I think that a seperate article should be made for the characters, corporations, and their respective starting ACs. (One article for those as opposed to including them in the main one.) Rurouniyuudai85 15:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the extra brackets. I'll read through the article the first time I'm online tomorrow and let you know what I think (it's after midnight here, so I'd better get some rest before work). Dekimasu 15:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's all good, I understand. Rurouniyuudai85 15:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to do what I can to solve the disputes over the article on Sparta, currently it's a mess. >< Rurouniyuudai85 16:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this soon, too. Dekimasu 03:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've started to look through Armored Core 4 for you. Writing a new article is a big project, but if you're up for it, here's my advice.

I have some worries that an article on the characters and organizations would be susceptible to deletion, since some editors are likely to challenge the notability of the subject matter (you can see evidence of this in deletion debates like this one that was deleted; this one that was deleted; this one that ended without consensus; this one that was kept). It will have a much better chance (I can't emphasize this enough) if you can find reliable sources that talk about the characters or plot of the game. If it's constituted as a list (e.g. as "List of Armored Core 4 characters") it has a chance of becoming an established article. I think it would also benefit from being about characters in all of the games from the series, rather than one (i.e. "List of Armored Core characters").

You might want to structure your article like one that is recognized for its high quality. An example is List of Metal Gear Solid characters, which is a featured list. More on organization: since you want to talk about both characters and corporations, you can use the corporations as sections, summarize the role of the corporation in the introduction to that section, and put the characters into their respective corporations. You can also find some active support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games.

A last piece of advice is that instead of creating the article and then writing it in pieces, you'll want to put quite a bit of it together first. You can do this in an out-of-the-way place like User:Rurouniyuudai85/Sandbox, and ask for advice along the way. Dekimasu 03:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'll work on it tonight (I'm at work right now, heh.) Rurouniyuudai85 14:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Time for bed again. Good luck searching for sources. Dekimasu 14:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ad suggestion

From User talk:Qxz, and copy-pasted here by User:Qxz: How about an ad related to Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links? It's been hit kind of hard lately (see the link numbers at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages maintenance) and would have the sort of widespread appeal you seem to be looking for. I love the ads, by the way... especially the one on edit summaries. Dekimasu 13:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your suggestion. I'll see what I can do – Qxz 13:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

How's this? I've added it to the selection – Qxz 13:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. I'm really impressed. Dekimasu 13:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

MY GOD WHAT HAVE YOU DONE!?

Psyche.

Thank you very much, I like it. One suggestion is that it could probably stand to lose the notice image on the left since it's just taking up space and the notice is long enough that the image is obscured. But overall that's an excellent idea. --tjstrf talk 06:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

About Kentaro Noda

Kentaro's history is here.

• http://kentaro-noda.hp.infoseek.co.jp/index-e.html
• http://www.concorsoviotti.it/
• http://www.jmevents.ro/index.php?page=youth_concurs_2006_compozitie_laureati
• http://www.ereprijs.nl/php/nws06031101.html
• http://www.ccmm.ru/j_3comp_res.html

--125.172.137.254 16:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The sources in foreign languages may be good, but they aren't in foreign languages that I can read well, so I'll have to leave them to another editor. Thanks for cross-posting at Talk:Kentaro Noda. As for his own site, I'm not convinced that it represents a reliable source. It certainly hasn't been reviewed or copyedited, or seen any third-party eyes. The problems this page is having on the Japanese Wiki are giving me qualms about developing it further through translation, as I think I said on the talk page. Dekimasu 08:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Third-party's writing is here.

• http://www.drehpunktkultur.at/txt06-8/0876.htm

--125.172.137.254 17:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Tzfootball

Thanks, the user is now blocked. (You might have received a faster response at administrators' intervention page, because I was busy editing a different article at the time.) - Mike Rosoft 09:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for the assistance. I'm aware of AIV, but I knew that you were online and had knowledge of the situation, so I thought that might be simpler. Of course I'll keep AIV in mind. Dekimasu 09:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA. I'm honored that you consider me one of your favorite editors. Here's hoping I can do some good with the new tools. Shimeru 15:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Aki Hoshino Page

I don't know how do you get the information saying that she was born at 1977 instead of 1978. As far as all the DVD's and related materials I have, they concerned me that she is a product of 1978. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scorto (talk • contribs) 08:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

She used to say that she was born in 1978, but then admitted that she was born in 1977. This month there was a television special about her 30th birthday. Here's an example source for that television show referencing her age (can you read Japanese?). You can also take a look at the Japanese Wikipedia, which explains「以前まで『1978年生まれ』と1歳サバを読んでいたが、2006年から『1977年生まれ』と公式プロフィールなどに掲載されている。」 I'll copy this note to Talk:Aki Hoshino and change the age back. I hope you aren't too disappointed. (^_-) Dekimasu 08:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You are damn right. I know that she celebrates her 30th birthday this year, however I still stick with the materials from her DVD....... I am disappointed about admitting both facts. She is 30 and born in 1978, that doesn't make sense. Thanks for correcting me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scorto (talk • contribs) 19:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Kansai-ben Userbox?

I noticed that in your userboxes, you had (what appears to be) a homemade "Osaka-ben" language box. I'd actually be interested in having something for Kansai-ben on my own user page, and I thought that perhaps it might be worthwhile to create an actual set of usable Kansai-ben templates. There is no listing as-of-yet at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Non-ISO_Languages, but I don't think it'd be that hard to create such. If anything, the tricky part would be putting the message in-dialect and making it sound natural... --Julian Grybowski 13:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, this was months ago. It took me a while, but I located my source for the text. It's at this page on JA. There are listings for several distinct kinds of Kansai-ben, but there's no listing for Kansai-ben as a whole. We could probably get an interesting set by mixing and matching (e.g. Kobe-2 is much more interesting than Osaka-2, and sounds like an Osaka teen: この利用者は神戸弁をばり喋んねん; fluent Osaka-ben is nice: この利用者、コテコテの大阪弁、母語にしとんねん; and I like Wakayama-1: この利用者はちぃとは和歌山弁を喋れるんよ). The 江州弁 set is fairly good too.

Writing them from scratch would be ideal, though. If a few of us can agree on some text for the boxes, it would always be possible for someone who comes after us to clean up the mess. I'll ask User:MightyAtom and User:Tigers boy for their input, since they pop to mind as users I see working on Kansai-related articles. And User:BradBeattie created the box for people living in Osaka, so I'll ask him too. Dekimasu 18:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

D, enjoy!

Trampton has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Trampton 15:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Thank you. Dekimasu 19:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Bleach references problem

Please see Talk:Bleach (manga)#References formatting problems. I'd never paid attention to that part of the box before, but on reading it I've noticed that your proposed format for the manga citations cannot give us consistent and accurate page citations throughout our articles. --tjstrf talk 01:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a format that I proposed, although I adjusted it slightly. I have responded to your questions on the talk page there. It would be great if we could get correct referencing for the citations we already have. The problem is that if we cite a manga volume, we have to cite the page number in that volume, not in the chapter. Dekimasu 01:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

A wholly perfect solution would incorporate both volume and chapter page citations, allowing lookup from either the tankobon or the magazine/scans. And you're welcome. I've been trying to give the most precise citations I can for each bit of information, which has basically meant rereading the series from chapter one. The really difficult bit will be that someone has to cite the Bount arc information, which means hours of rewatching filler. I'm hoping I can skip out on that particular task. --tjstrf talk 02:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Editing my own page

About the changing of Japan. I do not approve of people editing my own page. As it makes my head mad and I nearly have a fit. But I don't mind people correcting me. Thanks for that. JoshuaMD 15:40 26th March 2007 (GMT)

This looks to have been several months ago. Sorry to have caused a problem. People do not usually mind link repair because it doesn't change the appearance of anything on the page. Of course I don't edit grammar, etc. on user pages, but if I can see where a link is supposed to go, I may point it there as a courtesy. Some users put notes on their user pages that indicate they would rather not have them edited. Dekimasu 14:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:PROD

I almost can't believe how far I'm going for such an insignificant article. Anyway, maybe, and just maybe, you want to read (and then feel remorse for doing it) my answer to your prod. Also, I'm still trying to understand what's that WP:SNOW you dislike. :o

Just a side note, I've noticed you must like Bleach... If, by any chance, you are not an anime fan, and you also hated basically all the Bount Arc, you should try Full Metal Alchemist and / or The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya. I envy you so much you're both learning japanese and living there. --Caue (T | C) 02:48, Thursday 2007-03-29 (UTC)

Thank you for your well-thought-out response. I tried to write one to you as well, but it was eaten by my browser, so here's an imperfect rehash of what I tried to write.

Unfortunately (or fortunately?) my post to your talk page was mostly the result of Template:PRODWarning, rather than my own words. The project that might be interested in a transwiki is Wiktionary, but we wouldn't then leave a redirect to another website.

I'm willing to discuss PROD philosphy with you if you'd like. You asked me to consider improving the article instead; of course, I do add information to lots of articles. I proposed doki doki for deletion because I don't think that the topic has the breadth to develop into a viable article. I doubt that encyclopedic information could be added as to its significance, although it is an interesting word. Deleting articles of the kinds referred to in WP:NOT helps Wikipedia to maintain and improve its reputation (not really an issue here) and stops it from taking over the realms of other sites like Wiktionary and Wikitravel.

Hmm. I've tried to think of things that might make you feel a little better about this. How about a redirect to Japanese sound symbolism (i.e. gitaigo and giseigo), and adding dokidoki to the list of examples? With the breadth of gitaigo that's out there, I don't feel it's really necessary to have both kirakira and giragira in the box, so it could easily replace one of those. Dekimasu 05:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Having posted this, I can see it looks a lot more blunt than what I meant to write. Believe me that I'm sorry, and be thankful you don't have to use evil Japanese web browsers that eat your well-intentioned posts. By the way, I did hate the Bount arc, but I read the comics much more than I watch the anime. Manga is really good reading practice because the pictures give you cues if you forget a kanji. I hope you'll have a chance to try and learn Japanese. Dekimasu 05:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I hate when that happens, those damn starving browsers... On firefox I've even had a plugin where I could save a temporary file with a shortcut, just like I would do in a normal notepad, back when I used to use non-gmail browser text forms a lot. Maybe you should look into that kind of thing, since you do so many edits around here. It shouldn't be hard to find.

Anyway, yeah, redirecting to a "grouping" article sounds good. I'll take a look on it whenever I have the time. Maybe improving that japanese sound symbolism, maybe using another more relevant with the same grouping idea in mind, or maybe just moving it there as it is. Hopefully before those 4 days left.

I realised that it was a template just before I've answered it, but I don't like editing what I write too much. Specially not deleting (or losing). I choose pen over pencil. :P One reason I love wikipedia so much is not just the fact you can correct and clean up messed things, but you can also look at the mess (through history) and learn a lot from so many mistakes. I wouldn't mind any deletion at all if the article history was saved, i.e. basically setting a page to blank. It'd be just like deletion is really done on old disk partition techniques (which are the same used in domestic computers today), by the way.

About manga, I've never thought about it like that, although I used to read translated Ranma 1/2. I thought you'd say "I read manga because the story is better there", which is true most of the time, just like books are mostly better than movies. But I still prefer watching an animated story than reading it, for many reasons. Maybe I can catch the spoken language, just like I did with english... And maybe I can eventually learn the writing from games, closed captions and internet, again as I did with english. :o But I think that learning japanese would take me way more time than it already took me with english.

And don't worry, you don't look blunt to me. Specially after I realized how different PROD is from AfD. Plus, I still would like to discuss over all the fuss around deletion with ya.

--Caue (T | C) 18:14, Thursday 2007-03-29 (UTC)

Just to get back to you quickly: since the prod is expiring, I'm going to perform the redirect now and I'll change a few things on Japanese sound symbolism later. The history will stay around with the redirect in place. I'll try to reply to you in more detail later on. Thanks for the kind reply. Dekimasu 04:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

dekimasu

Hmm, I knew I've heard dekimasu somewhere before... It was from that (any) little j-girl joyfully screaming when she finished something. And now I wonder why you chose that codename! :P --Caue (T | C) 19:05, Thursday 2007-03-29 (UTC)

Disambiguation - Primary topic

At Talk:State university (disambiguation)#Survey - in opposition to the move you say I know we've had this discussion before. Did you have any particular discussion(s) in mind? Which? Andrewa 00:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Last month you asked me to consider reigonal bias in terms of universities and naming at Talk:University of Wisconsin, and we also discussed whether frequency of searches, or all searches, should be considered in page naming. I came upon the proposed move you mention here through Wikipedia:Requested moves. Knowing that you have previously expressed similar opposition to applying the guideline to universities, I thought it would be reasonable to ask you to move towards a broader discussion of the standard. Dekimasu 04:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, so that's Talk:University of Wisconsin#NPOV, around about March 9? Agree clarification seems necessary, and I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Primary topic.

It's actually a guideline rather than a standard. That's important I think. Andrewa 20:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is the discussion I was talking about. Of course we can violate guidelines when there is sufficient reason to do so, but in this case I believe we would see a move request in the opposite direction within a short period of time. By "standard" I meant "the criteria that cause something to fall under the scope of the guideline". Dekimasu 03:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Utada

Replied. - Neier 07:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note... thought my message might have gotten lost in the archiving. I've replied to your reply. Dekimasu 07:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Aha: "(removing sentence fragment that appears to have been added in error)". Thanks for fixing that. It's the text of my edit summary, and I must have dropped it carelessly into the article also. – Noetica^♬♩ Talk 08:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Dekimasu 11:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

By Japan

Note from Dekimasu: This was my original message to User:Radiant!, brought over here so that the discussion causing the nomination will be in one place: You recently closed a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 27#Category:Singaporean executions that resulted in the move of Category:Japanese executions to Category:People executed by Japan. I don't dispute the close or the applicability of the debate to Singapore, but a lot of the people in the category about Japan were executed "in Japan" (by warring factions) rather than "by Japan", as an action of the Japanese government. I was considering initiating another move request, but I thought I would ask for your thoughts first. Dekimasu 06:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm, that's an interesting complication that I was unaware of. But wouldn't "executions in Japan" also include people executed by, say, China or the US, as long as the execution took place in Japan? >Radiant< 09:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would broaden the category slightly over the previous meaning (I believe the only new additions would be Japanese war criminals from World War II). I thought that would be preferable to a name change that excluded articles from the category they were in before the move, particularly since the scope of the original title wasn't what was in question.

The current name has broadened the reach of the category in some ways as well. It appears that it should include executions outside of Japan but under the direction of the Japanese government, such as executions in Korea between 1910 and 1945, conflicts in Manchukuo, etc. Dekimasu 11:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have no objection to such broadening per se, but my point is that if there is a bunch of similar cats ("executions in <foo>") then they should all work the same way, otherwise it gets confusing to both users and editors. >Radiant< 11:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand that. In that case, I'd suggest that it would be better to slightly broaden all of these categories in the same way, rather than have some articles in incorrect categories as the result of the moves. I can, if we decide to keep the "by Japan" name, go through and remove all of the ones that no longer belong in the category. It seems like a shame and a pain, since the current members of the category are unqualifiably "executions in Japan", but I can do it. On the other hand, I don't know how many other categories have had similar shifts resulting in articles placed in the wrong categories, and I'd be less qualified and somewhat less willing to deal with those problems. Dekimasu 11:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good, but may require a new rename suggestion on CFD (esp. since the previous CFD didn't really have all that many participants). Note that the actual related CFD was closed by Vegaswikian, not me. >Radiant< 12:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that for me. The population of the new category was being done by a bot, and it only referred me to the log for March 27. I assumed that the move was a result of the close on Category:Singaporean executions, since that was the one I noticed at the very top of the page. I'll mention the issue to Vegaswikian and probably open a new discussion. Dekimasu 12:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to stop by since I did the close. I'll follow the discussion here for a few days, so no need to reply on my page. Maybe the solution is to add some categories that are not just by country. In the case of Japan, we could add a category for the waring factions. That way it would still be executions by someone. I have problems with this suggestion for other reasons, but maybe it could help with finding a solution. Vegaswikian 16:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Under the current title, at least eight of the fifteen pages in this category need to be pulled out. As I said, I can do the work in this particular category, which would include recategorization. I'd like to hear a little more about what you see as problems with the suggestion, though, because other categories from the move may be in the same condition. Dekimasu 17:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

My concern was with the types of categories that would be created and where they should go. However after looking at Category:Executed people I see that my concerns are not real. There are logical groupings there. I don't see any reason why adding your cleanup as additional sub categories would be an issue. Vegaswikian 19:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If you look at Category:Executions by country, two of the categories do fit the "in <foo>" setup (Singapore and the United States). Executions by the warring factions in Japan are not subcategories of the current Category:People executed by Japan, which prevents any of those executed people from being categorized "by country". However, other editors have pulled four articles out of the Japan category since last night, so I'll pull out the rest and then let it go. I hope that editors are looking at the other renames for similar issues. If you decide to change your mind, please let me know. Dekimasu 04:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Language ordering

Please note that the bot's language ordering in Bleach (manga) is actually widely accepted and also used by most other bots. There was a straw poll about it a while ago and the result was about 50/50. Basically the bot ordered the languages by their native name, which is easier to navigate for reader (and harder for editors, but you learn after a while). Some notable languages which are not as their appear are Hebrew (Ivrit), Japanese (Nihongo), Chinese (Zhongwen), Korean (Hangugeo) and Finnish (Suomi). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the information and for reverting my error. I was very confused, and now it's all perfectly clear to me. Dekimasu 09:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Haw!

Belated kudos for your very funny WP:POINT comment at Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive/Removed/Archive2#Godwin's Law. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Gypsy

Answered on my page. Cheers. MadMaxDog 04:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Mongrain - モングレイン ??

[French]
Bonjour, je prend contact avec vous afin d'éclaicir un article de traduction en japonnais. Au départ, j'avais créé un article avec les caractère エリック・モングレン, mais les wikipédiens on décidés que cela devait s'écrire エリック・モングレイン à la place, étant donnée que Erik n'avait pas de site officiel en japonnais pour déterminer quelle façon écrire son nom. Je suis Webmaster de Erik Mongrain, pour faire les pages en japonnais, le traducteur a épellé Erik Mongrain エリック・モングレン. Le problème que je rencontre c'est qu'il y a deux façon d'écrire son nom en japonnais et je me demandais quel était le bon pour que je puisse écrire son site officiel de la bonne façon (et l'article wikipedia)...

• エリック・モングレイン - Wikipedia
• エリック・モングレン - Traducteur

Ma question est : lequel parmi ces deux appellations vous choisieriez pour le nom officiel de Erik Mongrain en japonnais??

Merci à l'avance pour votre aide. Passez une bonne journée! --Antaya 00:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

First, I'm sorry that I can't answer in French. In advertising for his appearance on Japanese TV next month, NHK has decided to spell his name as モングレイン. This is probably a transliteration based on the English language pronounciation of the word "grain". Because NHK is generally considered a reliable source, I am not surprised that the Japanese page is in the process of being moved. However, the station is wrong in this case. The name should be spelled モングレン as transliterated from the French pronunciation, and I recommend that you use モングレン for your website.

Next, please take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I believe, personally, that these articles should be in the encyclopedia, but please be very careful when editing articles related to people you work with. If the article appears to promote or advertise Erik Mongrain, it can cause trouble for your editor account or the article itself.

I hope that these comments will help you. Please feel free to ask me if you have any other problems. Dekimasu 04:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Macronned article titles

Ah, thanks for reminding me; I suppose I missed that. I created a redirect for the name, and will be more carefull in the future.--十八 04:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I created the one I was asking about, but maybe you found others? Anyway, you're welcome. Dekimasu 04:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Counter-insurgency spelling

I agree with the conclusions, because of the "first major contributor" rule. However, the stub Counterinsurgency operations predated Counter-insurgency and was eventually merged into it. Does it make sense to have a rule like this? I mean, once the first person has chosen the spelling of counterinsurgency, wouldn't it make sense for everybody to follow that lead rather than discount it because it appeared in a stub? Of course, what I am advocating would involve rewriting the relevant guideline. Joeldl 04:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the "we came first" rule should only be applied as a last resort – for example, when the page been the subject of recent move warring. I do believe that the letter of the rule should prefer the counterinsurgency title (it did come first, which is objective, as opposed to trying to determine the first "major" contribution), and I'll make comments to that effect in any discussion about altering the guideline. But I really feel that the most important thing is to discourage this kind of move request. Analagous to how blocks should be preventative rather than punitive, this page has a stable British-English title now, so it shouldn't be necessary for us to check on the page's origins. Thanks for asking my opinion! Let me know if you raise a discussion elsewhere and you'd like me to participate. Dekimasu 04:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the "stable state" rule is important. On the other hand, somebody tried to change it to Counterinsurgency not long after it was created and was rebuffed. At some point in future, I'd like to clarify some things in WP:ENGVAR, and this would be a possible amendment. I'll let you know. Joeldl 04:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Help needed from a Japanese speaker

Hi Dekimasu, I've noticed your work at WP:RM and elsewhere, and I would like to ask for your help. Recently, User:Mackan filed a sockpuppet case at WP:SSP relating to edit warring going on at Joji Obara, Lucie Blackman, Asahi Shimbun and elsewhere. Basically, Mackan alleges that the 2ch forums are being used to recruit new users to edit those pages to reflect a certain viewpoint; if true, this would be a violation of Wikipedia's policies against sockpuppets, specifically WP:MEAT. Mackan has provided evidence of this at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vml132f and on my talk page at User talk:Akhilleus#Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets.2FVml132f. Unfortunately, I can't read a single character of Japanese, so I am unable to evaluate these charges fully. I would be extremely grateful if you could either take a look at Mackan's allegations and take a look at the forums he links to, to provide a perspective independent of the dispute, or put me in touch with an administrator who is fluent in Japanese. Thanks very much, and sorry to bother you. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a week of holidays in Japan, so until Monday I don't have as much time to review the diffs on the Wikipedia side as I normally would, but it's abundantly clear from its first 75 posts that the purpose of the referenced 2channel thread is to encourage meatpuppetry. The OP states that the English Wikipedia is an important site around the world and that it's important to control the contents in order to fight "Korean and Chinese propaganda". There is in-depth discussion of how to avoid being blocked under the 3RR, which articles to target, and recommendations for avoiding detection as a meatpuppet.

The only administrator I know of who is listed as ja-N is User:Tangotango, and a lot of the other active editors of Japan-related articles are a bit more on the academic side and probably wouldn't be open to running through abuse reports. I think User:Nihonjoe would be able to help you, and of course I can do more next week. Don't hesitate to ask... Dekimasu 05:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Dekimasu, that was extremely helpful, thank you. I hope you enjoy Golden Week, and if you have a chance to look at the on-wiki side of this disruption, I'd appreciate it--but it doesn't look urgent at the moment; some articles have been protected, and a couple of probable sock/meatpuppets have been blocked. So things seem calm at the moment. Thanks again for your help. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dekimasu, thanks a bunch for looking into this. If possible, I'd much appreciate if you could, ASAP, save the 2channel thread onto your hard drive, as the thread will become unaccessible when it reaches a 1000 comments (it's currently on 975). I've saved it onto mine but I'm afraid I could be accused of tampering with the files, if it's only me. Again, thanks a lot. Mackan 08:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Too late... I did look at it at the time you sent me this message, but not on my computer, so I didn't have a chance to save it. If you can e-mail me the file, at a later date I can (by and large) confirm that it's what I read on 2channel. Dekimasu 15:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Emergency

Hi there. I know you have shown an interest in the debate as to whether Emergency should be an article or a dab page. I have now created an article which I believe would be suitable for the 'Emergency' page, with everything else to be moved out to a separate disambiguation page. My suggested article is here (in my name space), and the debate as to whether this will be suitable is on the Talk:emergency page. I would appreciate you input! Owain.davies 07:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

RfA

I see I'm not the only one who's been holding off on a nomination until Bleach made GA. (I personally don't want to run until after I graduate, which is in less than 3 weeks.)

You belittle your own work there, by the way. I may be good at figuring out how to fulfill arbitrary criteria and referencing things to death, but you're honestly a much better writer. Without your help, we'd still be languishing at B if for no other reason than that everything will be put in the passive voice by me.

Have fun with your new wikipe-mop! :) --tjstrf talk 08:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind comments. Actually, how the two coincided was just serendipitous... I wrote my basic request and saved it to a flash drive about two weeks ago, but then I left the flash drive in my desk at work while I was off for Golden Week. I transcluded my RfA on Monday, just after retrieving the drive. I know I'm about to enter a more intense period of hunting for a job, so I figured that this was the best time to get this done, not to mention some good interview practice. Dekimasu 15:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with it, mate. I'm not sure I'd want to stand these days; back in my day the inquisition was tedious enough, but now on average it seems to be worse. Here's a word of advice for it. I'm appalled by the way nominees and self-noms sometimes rather desperately respond to comments, to the point where any failure to respond or delay in responding looks like an admission, "Yes, you're right, you've got me by the short and curlies." At the outset of my own RfA rigmarole, I politely -- I think and hope it was polite, and nobody objected -- said that I'd try to answer any question but that I wouldn't respond to any other comment. And that's just what I did: I might have been tempted to say "Wrongo!" once or twice (I don't remember) but if so I resisted the temptation. It all went pretty smoothly for a week or whatever and I actually had time to live a normal life during that period. -- Hoary 09:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've decided (though I didn't say anything on the RfA page) that I'll reply to questions once a day. For fun, I've been reading through the RfAs of several of the Japan-focused admins, and I see your unanimous promotion, Shimeru's, LordAmeth's, Tangotango's. Nihonjoe passed with two opposes, mostly because of his signature. Did I miss someone obvious? Anyway, it's clear I have a reputation to uphold. Thanks for the advice... 無事に済むように頑張ります。 Dekimasu 15:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

National varieties of English

I have made a proposal to amend the guidelines at WP:MOS. The proposal is in keeping with the spirit of those guidelines, but will hopefully lead to a technical improvement. Comment is welcome at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Joeldl 14:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Noted! I'll take a look at it in the morning. Dekimasu 15:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing something?

Template:Active Wiki Fixup Projects, one of us is missing something not sure who, probably me. As I read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and readers' date preferences it tells me that linked dates should display in the readers preference. The default value in preferences is no preference, so when you use the format YYYY-MM-DD it displays in that format for anyone who has not set their preferences which would also include anyone not logged in. Due to cross ocean habits 2007-05-08 could also be read as 2007-08-05, when you include a named month it eliminates the ambiguity, 2007 May 08 is clearly the same as May 08, 2007. I should have not removed the wiki links when I changed the format. I think that would have met both of our concerns, but when I changed the format the links where red, so for some reason I removed the brackets. Unless you have other concerns I will redo them tomorrow. Jeepday (talk) 04:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from now (though I'm not sure which ocean I'm across!). I doubt there are many IP users around the parts of the encyclopedia that use this template, but it may very well be common to leave out a date preference. I think that using your format makes sense, as long as the dates remain linked for users who do have personalized settings. Thanks for your message. Dekimasu 16:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I put the change in. I am set to no preference so let me know if it looks weird or something. Jeepday (talk) 02:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I took out the zeroes, per my edit summary, but other than that it should be fine. Dekimasu 03:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The instructions for Template:Active Wiki Fixup Projects state, with good reason, Note: If adding or relisting an item, please add it to the *top* of the list,. I'd be interested in knowing why in this edit you decided to move geotagging to the bottom of the list. Please let me know. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I think I had intended to group together the entries that were category-based (because there isn't really a certain time when the categories are updated), but then I got sidetracked by issues with the dates. I have no problem with the move back to the top, although it still makes sense to me to group the categories together, since their entries on the template will never really be updated. Dekimasu 00:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you are both right. As time passes, things fall off (or an editor takes them off) and new stuff is added, it will migrate to the top of the "Category, Live up" group. Other new or updated stuff will be above it. in the mean time it gets top billing for a while. P.S. I am going to copy this whole section to Template talk:Active Wiki Fixup Projects Jeepday (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Contesting the Call For Help move

Hi there. My uncontroversial request for a move for Call for Help (TV series) is totally uncontroversial. I'm just trying to clean things up, and furthermore, the double redirects are in preparation for the move, not the other way around. It appears that you are just griefing me, as this is the second time you've pulled a simple move requests of mine. Is that true? I made a solid case as to why this should be uncontroversial, can you expand on what your objections are? Do I need the original objector to take his/her statement back? —Wikibarista 05:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any motivation to cause you trouble, and I'm sorry if it appears that way. I don't know what previous request of yours I objected to, but I go through the WP:RM move requests on a daily basis, so please don't take it personally. I remembered that the request was listed as controversial in the past, so I searched for and found the objection; having been objected to before, I don't think the change can be considered uncontroversial now. It doesn't necessarily mean that the request won't be fulfilled. The next step is to create a discussion space on the article's talk page and list it under "other proposals". Stemonitis, who previously objected, is a very reasonable person, and probably the administrator who will move the page if it appears there's a consensus. You don't need to worry about trying to change his mind. Dekimasu 05:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I see that the old one was related to Trillian, but I withdrew that objection of my own accord upon clarification. Please don't fault me for that. Dekimasu 05:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

AT&T Mobility issue

When Cingular Wireless was legally renamed AT&T Mobility in January, a user moved the page to "AT&T Mobility". Since Wikipedia rules generally stated (according to the talk page) that when things are known as one thing, the page should be the generally known name, even if the legal name differs. As a result, the discussion ended and everyone seemed happy for a month. Then, AT&T started dropping the "Cingular is now the new AT&T" logo from its advertising in newspapers, simply using "AT&T", and a user chose to move the page to AT&T WirelessLLC, then AT&T Wireless LLC. This raised a red flag with me, at which I then requested the page be moved to its correct place, AT&T Mobility, which is currently a redirect page created when Cingular was legally renamed. In the course of the 4 days since I requested the move, a user decided to move the page to another inappropriate titie, AT&T Mobility L.LC and then AT&T Mobility L.L.C., its current place. As I requested before, and you commented on, the page should be at AT&T Mobility, since most company articles here use the title the company is commonly known as, not including "Inc." or "LLC", etc.; in this case, "AT&T Mobility". KansasCity 20:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I've left my input. I think the other issues I mentioned at WP:RM have mostly been straightened out. Dekimasu 01:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"King Caesar" vs. "King Seesar" vs. "King Shisa"

Please see my recent comment in WP:RM.... procedure has not been followed here. Also User:Naruto134 and User:K00bine seem to be largely collaborating in the move-warring, in many Godzilla-related articles: an RFCU is in order if the decision is close. I think a lot of trouble can be spared if Naruto134 / K00bine can produce some kind of a source, but unfortunately they have refused and have resorted to personal attacks.

In any case, "King Seesar" seems to be a more acceptable alternative than "King Caesar", because it's also rumoured to be trademarked by Toho, and especially because it romanizes into the Japanese name "キングシーサー".--Endroit 19:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If I was going to guess (I haven't searched through the diffs at RM for this one), I would say that the April proposal was probably moved to the incomplete section for lacking a place for discussion on the talk page, and subsequently fell off the list. At any rate, WP:MOS-JP tells us to use the English spellings instead of katakana transliterations when they're available, so Caesar seems reasonable to me. I think it's probably wrong in a certain sense, but if it's Toho turning the thing into Caesar, and "Caesar" is the common name for the thing in the English-speaking world, I don't think it's our place to correct them. The information you pulled up wasn't very clear on whether both are trademarked or not.

This is clearly a case in which I'm disagreeing with WPJ regulars whose opinions I usually agree with, but I doubt (in light of the attitude issues) that the users you're worried about are going to be taken very seriously in the close. Is there something you'd like me personally to do? Dekimasu 01:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I started out writing my message above thinking that you were an admin. (Sorry, I believe I got you confused with User:Deskana). You've got enough class to be an admin though. You can ignore my message, I just wanted to explain where I was coming from, and the outcome of the WP:RM is not really that important to me... thanks! I'll see you around in the WP:J pages.--Endroit 01:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I will (possibly, probably) become an admin today... but I don't think it would be appropriate for me to close the discussion, since I've already become involved in it. And thanks for the kind words! Dekimasu 01:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Enfield

Can you explain how you arrived at your views on the "primary" Enfield and why you think structuring a disambiguation page by "prevalence" is preferable (in terms of clarity for the reader) to alphabetical order? We don't start our telephone directories with the "Smiths" because they are the most common. There would lie chaos! (Sarah777 23:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Order of entries asks us to "in most cases, place the items in order of usage, with the most-used meanings appearing at the top and less common meanings below." It isn't correct procedure to redirect Enfield to Enfield (disambiguation); either the disambiguation page should be at Enfield, or that name should redirect to the primary use of the term. The Enfield in London has over 280,000 people, which is by far the largest of all the Enfields, and almost all of the Wikilinks to the page are meant to link to it. This is grounds for a Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic link to the London location from Enfield - otherwise, editors have to go through and fix all the links to "Enfield", one by one. The “Enfield” redirects here. For other uses, see Enfield (disambiguation) text at the top of Enfield Town takes care of any problems with that setup. This was recently addressed, as well, at Wikipedia:Requested moves: see this edit. Does this address your concerns? Dekimasu 00:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really. There are about 450 Wiki links to Enfield, New Hampshire compared to 230 to Enfield in London. Google returns roughly the same number of hits for both (1.2 v 1.3 million) and the Enfield Gun gets a half as many as either. Also, a suburban area within a city is not as notable as a separate town by the same name. So I think there is no primary "Enfield" - if you type in Enfield you should get straight to the disambiguation page as 80% of queries will be for pages other than the London Enfield. (Sarah777 01:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

I wasn't referring to the links to the unambiguous titles. I was referring to the number of links to the ambiguous title (Enfield) that are meant to direct the user to a certain page. But as far as that goes, almost all of the links to "Enfield, New Hampshire" are the result of its inclusion in Template:New Hampshire. Also, I think you may have forgotten to include quotation marks in your Google test. A search for "Enfield, New Hampshire" gives 34K hits; "Enfield, London" gets 106K, and "Enfield Town" gets 140K (there's another 19K for "Enfield, England"). "Enfield Gun" gets around 700 Google hits. Dekimasu 02:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah well, the REAL Enfield, (Meath) gets FIVE HUNDRED hits. Good point on the redirect though - I hadn't noticed someone had zapped the article; I thought they'd just messed with the redirect. So I made a completely useless fix! Regards (Sarah777 08:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

"Enfield Gun" may only get 700 hits, but "Enfield rifle" gets 69K and "Lee Enfield" 221K. Sorry to butt in. Ben W Bell talk 08:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Administrator

Congratulations, you are now an administrator - with unanimous support! If you haven't already, now is the time look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Warofdreams talk 16:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Commiserations, you are now a janitor! But you do get to zap articles and block and generally annoy people. You can practice by blocking me, if you like: I need to get some real [paying] work done today. Hm, so that wouldn't be annoying. Oh well, block me some other day too and score an extra 10 points for annoyance. -- Hoary 00:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Niwa

Thanks; I put it up for DRV, but if that fails, I will rewrite. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Britain

Would you please look at this version of the Britain dab page? I thought it was better, but didn't want to argue when it was (mostly) reverted. I can see you do a lot of work on dab pages, so I thought I'd ask.

Congratulations on becoming an Administrator. --Steven J. Anderson 01:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier. Yes, I think it would be a good thing to have some of that information back on the page. It's very helpful for disambiguation pages to have one blue link per line, so I still think that the links to the dates and other phrases should be removed, but other uses of Britain would be great to have on the page. I'll support those sorts of changes if you'd like to readd them. And thanks for the note... Dekimasu 08:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your adminship

Dekimasu,

Well done on being sysopped. I know you'll do a good job. I have seen much of your work on Japan-related articles. I have quite an interest in Japan myself, and have been there twice. - Richard Cavell 13:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thriller

I put it up for WP:RM last night. What will happen about that as well as the people i've informed? Simply south 09:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that I forgot to officially close the discussion when I found the listing at WP:RM. The move I made was the one you requested, so I hope you'll be happy with it. I wouldn't have performed the move myself if I thought that it was controversial, so I hope that the other people you've informed will agree with us as well. Does that sound all right? Dekimasu 09:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. One main reason i was putting it up for WP:RM was that the redirect direction itself seemed controversial. Simply south 09:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That's usually an indication that there isn't a primary topic for the title. When I ran across it, the plain title had been pointing at the dab page for over three months without a change, so I don't think there will be any objections. Dekimasu 09:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. What should happen about the other people i've informed? Simply south 09:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not really necessary for them to do anything, but if there are serious objections to the change, I can revert my move, against my better judgment. Dekimasu 09:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Pu-erh

(3 revisions restored: move was reverted, but history wasn't restored):

• I was going to do this a few seconds after you did! Anthony Appleyard 06:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Need your expert opinion on disambiguation

Hello. I notice you have done some work with disambiguation pages. There is a discussion on Talk:ALF_(disambiguation)#And_again that could benefit from your expert advice. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 08:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've left some advice, although I'm not sure I can be called an expert. I hope that it will be helpful. For what it's worth, if there hadn't been previous discussion on the topic, I would have moved the dab to the plain title. Dekimasu 08:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Very helpful. Please keep the page on your watchlist. I will attempt to follow your directions for a RM. —Viriditas | Talk 09:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Sparkzilla COI

Hi, I posted about User:Sparkzilla and his undeclared CoI over at the CoI noticeboard [5]. Unfortunately, there hasn't been that much response from the admin's (except fro MangoJuice), so I was hoping maybe you could take a look at it. Heatedissuepuppet 12:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of disambiguation

I am concerned about the conduct of this user. He has reverted several disambiguation fixes [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] by Catneven. I'm about to re-revert them myself but want to give a heads-up to an admin since the user has a rather colorful history and is currently the subject of an RfC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven J. Anderson (talk • contribs)

Thanks for letting me know. Since he has reverted again, I have made changes to two of the pages and left descriptive edit summaries. I don't want it to seem as though I'm persecuting his edits, so I left the others alone for now. Let's see how he responds at Discover Magazine (TV series) and History's Mysteries and proceed from there. Dekimasuよ! 01:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

He reverted me. I have left a note at User talk:Eep²#Links to "mystery" and if such actions continue (including the incivility), a stronger warning may be necessary. Dekimasuよ! 11:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that revert about a minute after you did and decided to go for a walk before further discussion. In this case, I think chiming in at the RfC may be more productive than a stronger warning. He recently had a 24 hour block that doesn't seem to have broken his stride. Incidentally he recently did this and this at Editing reverting me both times (with that endearing little duh in one of his edit summaries). I also don't want to look as if I'm persecuting his edits, but that page is kind of important to my efforts to disambiguate "Editor." Please take a look at my comments at Talk:Editing#Links_to_disambiguation_pages and Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#disagreement_about_linking_to_dictionary_DABs and let me know if you think anything is too inflammatory. Incidentally, I think the first comment might make fairly good boilerplate for an editor who finds his disambiguation efforts reverted. --Steven J. Anderson 12:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reported Eep² for continued edit warring at Discover Magazine (TV series) related to overlinking, and he's been blocked for 24 hours. The next problem is the removals of {{disambig}} tags from articles and their replacement with Template:Setindexarticle, which he created today. The pages are clearly dabs. Dekimasuよ! 12:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested...

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of titles with "Darker" in them —Gaff ^ταλκ 18:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Disambig Help

Hello there! I got your name from the Disambig page, and I was wondering if you could assist me in something. I've been working on Groningen and there is one weird link that I can't seem to fix. It affects about 15 pages, so far. It's in the footer of these pages (example:Marquis of Namur) under Lordship of Groningen. I'm sure it should be Groningen (province) but after searching Wikipedia, I can't find how to edit this footer. Do you know how? Sorry to trouble you over something so small, but I wasn't sure who to ask. Thanks in advance! --Cabiria 20:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The page you were looking for was Template:Burgundian Circle. If you see text in fancy brackets in the edit box, it's usually indicating the transclusion of a template. You can do a search for "Template:Textinthefancybrackets" and edit the page you find there to fix the link. Hope this helps! I went ahead and fixed the one you were asking about. Dekimasu 01:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks! This is my first foray into the world of disambig and I wanted to do it right. I'm trying to learn all about the Wiki one small step at a time. I'm usually a vandal fighter, and they don't seem to mess with the templates much!  :) Thanks again for the great help! --Cabiria 11:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

History of cannon

"Cannon" serves both as the singular and plural of the noun, although the plural "cannons" can also be used." I don't know if it makes me stupid to not have known that.... or.... well, in any case, sorry for giving you more work because of my deficient English. gren グレン 07:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Dokdo poll

Dekimasu, I am responding to your comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Dokdo:

Dekimasu, on what grounds do you believe last year's "consensus" to be still valid?

First of all, last year's poll was very poorly conducted. And Sir Edgar (not an admin) closed that poll hastily, refusing to count any "oppose" votes, as the diffs show. This edit at 07:59, 29 May 2006 (by me) shows the poll was still open, with 15 "support" vs. 3 "oppose" votes. The poll was first closed by Sir Edgar immediately after that, although people kept voting. Anyways, last year's final count of 14 - 0 is scandalous. There were clearly 3 "oppose" votes that were omitted by Sir Edgar, that happened BEFORE Sir Edgar closed the poll. In addition, I counted 6 additional "oppose" votes from established editors AFTER Sir Edgar closed the poll... Many people were late, simply because they were never properly notified. There were no admins around to properly conduct last year's poll, which makes it (arguably) a sham.

Plus, last year there was the additional scandalous issue of voters being coerced to do a tie-in with the concurrent Senkaku Islands poll. Last year's polls being problematic was reason enough to initiate the current WP:RM poll, don't you think? I commend Philip Baird Shearer for starting this poll.

The discussion in Talk:Dokdo/Archive 9 shows that consensus was forming against last year's desicion anyways, and a revote was in order.

Now if the people at WP:RM can properly close this year's poll, they may even make up for their irresponsible abandonment of last year's WP:RM polls. Sorry, I know the people in-charge are different this year, but it's the same WP:RM procedure as last year's.--Endroit 10:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with your disagreement. I think you can understand why, as someone who works at WP:JAPAN, I shouldn't be the one to close the poll. Your frustration about the conduct of the last poll is understandable. Also try to understand my frustration about this one. When I specifically asked for the rationale for a move to be spelled out, I still wasn't presented with one. By framing the debate as "a poll to see where editors think this article should go", we have ended up with, frankly, a mess of people who chose whichever name they liked due to personal allegiance. It's not true of everyone, but it made what should have been a clean "NPOV or not"/"common or not" discussion into a war between 2ch and the Chosun Ilbo.

Second, although Philip Baird Shearer asked me to accept it in good faith, there is no written or unwritten rule that an RM request will stand for six months. 2006 Lebanon War is a good example of this. Any close here could very well "end" in a new request tomorrow. I think there are more productive, content-related ways that we can be spending our time. It seems to me that taking the naming issue out of the hands of those with direct or indirect conflicts of interest is the only way that this discussion will end. Dekimasu 11:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your need to recuse yourself from this case. However, I clearly don't want to see a repeat of last year, where ALL the admins just let the poll sit there and rot. Last year, if any admin was still tuned into the poll, he would've semi-protected it when the WP:SPA's from 2ch started their disruption... But no, that didn't happen. This year, I believe that a responsible admin (whether or not he's involved with WP:RM and/or other projects) must be brave, and step in to close this poll.

Also, I'm sorry that I appear to be providing that "rationale" on behalf of Philip Baird Shearer (after the fact). But if I were you, I'd look past the nationalistic votes, and see where the arguments actually are. And try to see where the combined majority of Koreaphiles, Japanophiles, and visitors from WP:RFC/HIST went. Archive 9 and this poll clearly show that the arguments have shifted since the last poll, along with the swing votes from Nihonjoe and Sekicho.

Regarding the 6-month wait... I'm surprised you don't yet seem to have a philosophy on that. Since I was involved during the closing of the last poll (I drew the green box and commented "The result of the debate was move"), I did my share of telling people to wait and/or follow rules here and here. Of course you can't force people to do so, but... perhaps it's part of your job to tell people to wait (and just hope that they listen). With respect to the Dokdo polls, people have always waited eleven - twelve months... for 3 consecutive polls, so I don't think it would be that bad.

Please don't take any of this personally; I'm just explaining this from a perspective of somebody who's been there last year. I'm confident that the admins at WP:RM will be more responsible this year. (And thanks for reading my long messages!)--Endroit 14:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Thanks for your comments. I'm happy to help, but it can be a lot of work at times. Don't worry, if I do retire (which is not outside the realm of possibility) I will leave behind the programs I use. --Russ (talk) 10:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 04:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have read through the RfC and I've chosen to remain neutral at this time, although I did endorse one statement to the effect that opening the RfC shouldn't be held against you. I remember my original statement in your RfA, relating to the fact that SlimVirgin was asking for oppose votes based on deleted diffs - that is, for RfA voters to oppose your candidacy without the ability to judge the facts of the matter for themselves. Since that time I've gone through my own RfA, and I have access to the information in question. I haven't reviewed all of the diffs concerning the article and its deletion discussion, but I did note the diff that was removed from your RfA, where you attempted to repost the name of the site when asked about it. All else aside, I don't fault you for attempting to inform RfA voters of the circumstances of the dispute in that limited context. Depending on time constraints (I will be away on vacation for the next four days), I will look at the article and AfD to get a better picture of what happened and may endorse more summaries at that time. Thank you for telling me about the request for comment. Dekimasuよ! 02:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to look into it and your consideration and comments on the issue. Please don't hesitate to express your opinion in the RfC on any of my actions with regard to what happened, whether negative or positive. I want to get everything that happened and as much opinion on it expressed as possible in one place, not only so that I can learn from it to not repeat the same mistakes again and to have a single site for reference if anyone asks questions about it in the future, but to hopefully help put the whole incident in the past. Thanks again. CLA 04:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

My deleting

Apologies for my overzealous refactoring in the discussion section for the article "JLPT". I'd like to come to a consensus that perhaps everything before the heading "Clean Up" can be archived or deleted. (I took a quick look at WP:Archive and it looks like an investigation topic in it's own right - when I've got a spare hour I'll try and figure it out ;-))spurrymoses 13:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. The general idea is to retain a record of all of the discussion that used to reside on the page. This particular talk page (Talk:Japanese Language Proficiency Test) isn't very long at the moment, although some of the discussion is very old and of questionable usefulness. Most of the time it's frowned upon to edit the talk page comments of other editors, although you have slightly more leeway on your own talk page. If you'd like, I can start an archive for the JLPT page. Just let me know... Dekimasuよ! 02:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Dab

Hey, thanks! That makes a lot more sense then what I was doing. I was wondering what exactly I needed to do on that page. --Milton 02:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dekimasu!

I'm glad to talk with Dekimasu.In English,cool and sophisticated argument will be expected.By the way,my favorite is Chopin.Not only in wikipedia,but also in virtual piano and violin play,his masterpieces should be researched! Naotyan 01:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sinmiyangyo

You thought this was dormant, at least for a week or so? Me too. Seems we were wrong. As ever, your cool and sophisticated input would be welcome! -- Hoary 12:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

One-day poll, eh. Dekimasuよ! 11:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Alf DAB

Could you explain your revert to me, please? No sense edit-warring on the matter; if you can explain your reasoning to my satisfaction, we are good. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, please give me a moment to link all the pages. I wouldn't leave it unlinked, okay? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I was writing a reply on the talk page just as you were posting here, and hopefully I've explained myself well enough there. I know that there are enough edit wars going on there already, so I'll be glad to stay out of them. Sorry if my revert bothered you. Dekimasuよ! 11:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it didn't bother me, I think we just disagree which part of DAB the page relates to better. It isn't something that's unresolvable, or that we have to edit-war over. There's enuff clownage going on there with that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I left another comment on the talk page over there. I won't edit the dab page without you on board again, though. Dekimasuよ! 11:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should discuss the matter here - far too many people seeking blood in the water on the page to let anything constructive happen. I replied ont he page, but we can continue the discussion here, to save time and static. Sound good? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss things here if there's anything more to discuss. SlimVirgin made a small change to the page this morning, and I agree with it. I think it retains the spirit of your efforts at categorization and makes sure that the page can be used easily, as well. I'd like to stay out of the discussion entirely if possible, but I'm worried that I'll be needed to intervene if someone decides to move the page unilaterally again. Dekimasuよ! 00:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think most of the disruptive stuff is out of the way, at least for now. You shouldn't feel nervous about someone jumping down your throat. At least, I won't. I agree witht he chancges Slim made as well; she took the time to explain why she thought the edit made the DAB better, which I rather appreciated. Anyway, all seems well in the page, so if you think there's something nifty to contribute, please do so. You are an interesting person, interesting viewpoints are always good to have in a discussion. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Your involvementy with Energy

It is indeed very heartening that you have decided to undo, whatsoever I did in many months. If wikipedia encourages people like you who without sufficient experience go about demolishing the efforts of other serious editors, I can foresee that very soon it will be limited to the small present ( a small mansion in Japan) you claim you have gifted to Wikipedia.Hallenrm 04:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You might prefer to get angry at someone else; I wasn't the one who made the change. In fact, I only made sure that you can still see the history of the work you did. All record of it was deleted when Energy (physics) was moved to Energy, and I restored that history to Energy (Disambiguation). Had I not acted at all, the history would have been wiped from Wikipedia entirely. Several serious editors (eight, the last time I checked) agreed with the changes to the page, and you were the only one who opposed the move. Perhaps reflecting on the reasons behind that would serve you better than venting your anger on others. Happy editing. Dekimasuよ! 04:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Japanese people

Oops, sorry, thanks for fixing that :-) My monobook.js clearly needs fixing :-( Cheers, Tangotango (talk) 09:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Navy Ships

I saw your changes to "Empire of Japan" on U.S. Navy warships, so in the future I will follow your lead on any other ships that need that phraseology. Wikited 18:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! The main issue is just that links to "Japanese" go to a disambiguation page. If you know which Japanese forces were involved in battles with the warships, you can link more specifically to Japanese Imperial Army or Japanese Imperial Navy, but it's usually hard to determine those things from the information we have available. I wish you luck continuing to work on the U.S. Navy articles. Dekimasuよ! 23:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sivaji: The Boss (soundtrack)

The purpose of the article was so it could hold the large amount of information while the main article had it summarized in a few paragraphs. Work on the summarisazing has begun slowly. Currently I am not working on the article but UH and the others are. Could you please contact them at Talk:Sivaji: The Boss or on their respective talk pages. I have reverted your edit.

Thank you,

AVTN

If the summarizing takes place, that's a valid solution, and I can agree with the revert. The fact that the same information appears in the main article and the daughter article was what I found to be a problem. Since the version in the main article appeared to be more thoroughly checked for grammar and style, I turned the soundtrack page into a redirect. I hope that the talk thread you've started will prompt editing to the pages that will cause them to turn out the way you want. Thanks for the note. Dekimasuよ! 23:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It is very sad how the article has turned out to be a potential edit war in the time I have being taking off for my exams. I would like some guidance on how to "summarize" the soundtrack. If it isn't done by next monday then I will do it. AVTN 09:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Translation Request

Good Evening Dekimasu!

Thanks for your help in correcting any errors for the article: Taisei Gakuen.

Would you mind helping me expand the Japanese version of the Auckland Grammar School article? - based on the English article. Just 3-5 extra lines would be sufficient enough. Please.

Yours Sincerely -- Per Angusta, 09:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC) (I had only learnt Japanese for two years at Auckland Grammar so my Japanese is only at a very basic level).

Move request

You may find this helpful about the following proposal that was copied from WP:RM: Intellectual giftedness → Giftedness. The user MrsMacMan is an abusive sockpuppet of User:Jessica Liao and a longtime disruptor of education related articles. You may safely close or even delete anything she has initiated at Wikipedia. --Fire Star 火星 02:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

False Rumor of Hailey being Japanese

To discredit a myth is not the same thing as spreading a myth. At WIKI we must approach subjects to document facts and sometimes that means discrediting LIES. For example, to say that some still BELIEVE that there were Weapons of mass destruction is NOT the same thing as SAYING that there were Weapons of Mass destruction. The first step in debunking Junk Science, Lies, and Rumors is to confront the factual head on. Thanks again! P.S. Your contributions are impressive. Cr8tiv 20:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

We are particularly strict in enforcing our standards for inclusion in articles about living people, per WP:BLP. This means that it's important to cite sources rigorously, and even more so when making judgments about what things are rumors and lies. I fixed the sentence up and added a fact tag at the end, but since I doubt that it will be possible to find a reliable source either confirming or denying the rumor, I wouldn't be surprised if the statement is removed from the article again. Thank you for your note, and happy editing. Dekimasuよ! 00:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The Name for Bank of Manchukuo to be Moved to

Talk:Bank of Manchukuo#Requested move, which you have joined, has been denied due to a dispute on where it should be moved. Hence, I have started a thread, Talk:Bank of Manchukuo#The name still has to be discussed to gather some consensus for where should it be moved-- since we all agree the current name is wrong. You are welcomed to join in the discussion. --Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 14:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Kitamori Kazoh

Hi.

I noticed you switched the page I created to the western style of given name family name. That's fine and dandy; thank you.

I am trying to do some internal links for tha page, specifically for Kitamori's intellectual fathers, Tanabe Hajime, and Nishida Kitaro. Both of their pages have family name given name. Should they be changed, too, or what's the deal? Thanks

Uac1530 04:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Peta (prefix)

• See Talk:Peta (prefix)#Support_2. Anthony Appleyard 05:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Vulcan

• A query: see entry for Vulcan in Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen#Completed requests. Anthony Appleyard 08:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks. I think it would make the most sense for the (disambiguation) page to move to the plain title, since links to the plain title intend several different targets, and that move was my original plan. I'd just like another editor to judge that evaluation since I was the one who changed the redirect to point at the dab... so please let me know what you think. Dekimasuよ! 08:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• See see entry for Vulcan in Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen#Completed requests again. Anthony Appleyard 09:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Taito

I'm confused as to what happened with Taito Corporation. If nobody opposed the move, why was it not moved? I could have changed the dab page, but a disambiguation page is not needed with only two articles and a dablink at the top of one article. This is why I proposed the move. "Corporation" is not necessary in the title of a company article, unless as a qualifier. So the point of the move was to move Taito Corporation over the disambiguation page (which is more of a trivia page), nobody opposed it, so why didn't it happen? ~ JohnnyMrNinja _{talk} 02:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've left you a reply on the talk page where you listed the move. I was attempting to close the request through my edits, but if you want someone else to take a look at it, I'm not offended that you reopened the request. Maybe I should have been more communicative, but I didn't change the setup quite as you requested because I did object to one part of your line of reasoning. Dekimasuよ! 07:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for closing that discussion

Thanks for closing the discussion about the requested move for Angband. That was the first time I'd seen a requested move discussion take place on a WikiProject talk page rather than an article talk page. I still think an article talk page would have been better, with notices on both of the other talk pages, but it worked out OK in the end. Thanks again. Carcharoth 09:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

New database dump

I've processed the July 16 database dump and the results are at User:RussBot/DPL, in case you want to start a new series at WP:DPL. --Russ (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to go ahead and get the page together and ready for transclusion. In the past I was against transcluding early, but it worked so well this time that I think we should go ahead and start it (the only reason we haven't hit that 80% threshhold this time is that the total number of links was so large). I was running through some numbers yesterday and found that we had finished fixing 90 of the 103 pages with 200 links even though we had finished less than half of the total pages with 100 links. I'm not sure whether it's a cause or an effect, but it does seem like it would be good to get the new dump up and get people around DPL focused on the pages that have big problems. Hope you had a good Wikibreak.... Dekimasuよ! 10:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Furry

Thanks for sorting that out. Now the project has a name I can actually promote to the people most likely to contribute to it. :-) GreenReaper 14:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be one related change I can't make myself - Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthropomorphism/Assessment -> Wikipedia:WikiProject Furry/Assessment. Could you make this move? GreenReaper 17:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Done. Dekimasuよ! 07:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested moves

Sorry for the inadvertent !vote mess over there. It's one of the XfDish processes I don't spend much time in at all. I thought I was being helpful. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It's okay... it only took me a few hours to clean up. Haha. Dekimasuよ! 16:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sports in Detroit

Thank you for the move. Just to clarify, did you mean included in the article [11]? The Evil Spartan 19:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Although the title is just "Detroit" now, I meant to say that it is okay for other teams from the metropolitan area to be included in the article - i.e., the scope of the article wasn't changed by the move. I think my grammar was correct when I said that the move "should not be taken to mean that teams from outside the city limits should be excluded from the article"... but I agree that I should have explained it more clearly. Dekimasuよ! 02:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Taito move request

I would like to close the old move request for Taito Corporation → Taito. The request has been open for 11 days without much discussion except between you and JohnnyMrNinja. Are you willing to let things stand as they are now? I have no personal opinion on the matter—I would just like to close the old discussion. ●DanMS • Talk 05:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the backlog at WP:RM is pretty large right now, and I seem to be just about the only admin on call there at the moment. I've been trying to run through as many moves as I can, but I've been avoiding closing the ones where I expressed an opinion myself. Please close it and any others you feel comfortable finishing off... that would be a big help. Dekimasuよ! 06:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have been working on it little by little, but the requests come in faster than they can be closed. Some of the requests in the backlog are so controversial that I have really hesitated to do anything about them. Stemonitis used to work in this area but I have not seen him much here lately. ●DanMS • Talk 23:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

He was just away for a few days, but he's back now. When something like this happens, User:Anthony Appleyard and User:GTBacchus are also very helpful. I think we've just about got things back under control. Dekimasuよ! 01:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Close Request

Would you mind closing the move request for 4′33″ → 4'33"? I probably should not close it because I participated in the discussion. ●DanMS • Talk 00:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Request to reopen move debate

I closed the move request for Eisack → Isarco (discussion) because no consensus had been reached after 12 days. Almost immediately I had a request to reopen the debate. (See my talk page.) I told the requester that I would reopen the move request discussion if a couple of other admins agreed that it should be reopened. Do you agree the debate should be opened again? ●DanMS • Talk 01:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I may have interpreted the result of the discussion differently, but I don't think that reopening it would do much good - having been open for quite a long time, most of the people who might answer have already answered, so the course of the debate is unlikely to change. It's clear that neither title is wrong per se, and thus there wasn't a compelling reason to move the page. The discussion can be revisited again at some point in the future (though I'd personally advise against it), but it becomes much harder to close discussions decisively when they go back and forth between open and closed. I'd advise against reopening it, with apologies to the proposer.

I've got to go out now, but if the move proposal you mentioned in the section above is still open when I get back, I'll see what I can do. Dekimasuよ! 02:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk redirect pages

What is to be done with talk pages like this one, which was created when I moved Twitches Too! to Twitches Too? Since it was newly created by the move and has no history (and seems useless anyway), should I (1) delete it, or (2) just remove the redirect? I appreciate the assistance you have given me with these page-moving tasks and I hope I am not asking too many questions. I am learning a little more every day. ●DanMS • Talk 01:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Before I became an administrator, I used to break the redirect (by blanking the page) if I thought it was a talk page that could possibly used to discuss something different from the article in question (an example would be a talk page for a plain title redirecting to a talk page for a dab). If I didn't think there was any such issue, I left the redirect alone. As an admin, I sometimes (but not too often) delete that kind of redirect under CSD-G6 (housekeeping). In most cases those redirects are unlikely to become problems so I don't worry about them too much. There definitely isn't an issue here, so I don't think it's a big problem to leave the redirect in place. I haven't asked the other major closers about their opinions, so they might do things differently; my way might be a bit sloppy. Sorry if that reply isn't very helpful.... Dekimasuよ! 13:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Jam redirect

I notice you fixed the Jam redirect; that was fine, thanks, but please take care in such cases to ensure that the destination article handles the redirect via a disambiguation line. Anyone typing in jam would have been thrown to "Fruit preserves" without having access to other meanings of the word. Fourohfour 20:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I missed it because it was mostly a reversion; I was also looking at Jelly (disambiguation), and since the redirect there was sectional, I didn't notice that the link had been removed from the top of Fruit preserves. I don't usually make that sort of mistake, so don't worry too much. Thanks for fixing it. Dekimasuよ! 00:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Disambig work on Speech article

Domo arigato! --Orange Mike 03:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, if it was good. Please fix anything that still looks like it needs work... I've also listed it as a new disambiguation collaboration at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. I think we can all start to go through the 700 links to the page now. (^^) Dekimasuよ! 03:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Socialist Canarian Party

Re: the notability tag on the Socialist Canarian Party, I think that its incorrect to compare votes for individuals and political parties when judging notability criteria. Most probably the party only contested in a single municipality, and it should be ruled out that the party might have had members outside of that municipality. Moreover the party is registered with the Spanish authorities, and it is advisable that persons going through those registers might consult wikipedia for information about the parties listed. --Soman 08:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to nominate it for deletion myself, but I respectfully disagree. It would be unfair to compare votes for individuals and political parties in a way that disadvantaged the individual, but I can't find the reverse to be true. Registration of a company is not enough to ensure notability, so I don't see how the simple registration of a political party can be enough to ensure notability. At any rate, I fixed the dead link and fixed the syntax of the translation. Hopefully someone will come along after us and present a third opinion. Dekimasuよ! 09:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have (again) tried to raise the issue at Wikipedia_talk:Notability. IMHO, to serve as reference to electoral results, articles should be created on political parties even though they might turn out unsuccesful. --Soman 10:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, Elonka 05:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Lord Voldemort image

I see that you wrote on the picture of Voldemort in the article of the same name, that the movie was not yet in a screenshot capable medium. But then obviously, the screenshot was not taken from the film itself, but the official theatrical trailer. I then suggest that you remove the Fair Use-review, but I agree with you that it should be of a lower resolution plus a rationale for the picture captured from the trailer. Wikiburger 17:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

African Wild Dog

Thanks for your work merging my controversy article to the main article. That is really where it belongs. Steve Dufour 13:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award

Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

Luksuh 04:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Inquiry

Would you be interested in help expanding a series of Anime related articles? I need help from a Japanese speaking person to add material from Japanese sources.

For now my focus is mostly for the articles on Oh My Goddess! (ああっ女神さまっ, Aa! Megami-sama!). More specifically articles on the featured list "List of Oh My Goddess episodes". I want to start with the article You're a Goddess?.

A concern was raised that the articles in question did not have adequate out of universe material such as information on the production or information on the cultural references such as the reception it received. Information on ratings, awards a particular episode received would also be a helpful addition.

If you could help perfect just one of the articles, I could use it as a metric for future reference. Of course I would more than welcome any additional help as well.

-- Cat ^chi? 18:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

101 Ranch

Could use your help here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_Brothers_101_Ranch The original author seems to insist on her original (and incomplete) version. All the additions that I have offered have been deleted. All were from legitimate sources. Check the history. Also, this article should be included in Wikipedia Oklahoma. Thanks:

jcm

Translation request

Hello. I saw you were volunteering to translate from Japanese. Can you help me evaluate Image:Fake of nanking.jpg and the book it's from, 情報戦「慰安婦・南京」の真実 [12] to determine how reliable a source it is, and of course to translate what the picture says? It's being used as a source in the IfD to prove that the images Image:Trimedfilm battleofchina.jpg and Image:The Buttle of the China2.jpg are not original research. Thanks, nadav (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that the text on the first image attempts to call into question the veracity of the photos, so I wouldn't consider the second and third images original research. Asked my opinion as to whether the source is in any way reliable, I would say that it is written from an implicitly and explicitly nationalistic perspective; i.e., the source itself doesn't make a significant attempt to evaluate the topic with neutrality, whether it happens to be correct here or not. It isn't anything you would want to base factual statements in an article on, although it might be useful as an example of the form in which nationalistic Japanese people have objected to coverage of the events in question. It's lucky I'm able to rule against the source, because if I had any sympathy for it, I'd be accused of bias. Dekimasuよ! 08:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is very helpful. Thank you! nadav (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment on move request dispute

I (and maybe User:Stemonitis) would appreciate your comment at User_talk:Stemonitis#British_Raj_move_request_decision on a move request of British Raj. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 18:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been tied up over the past few days, and I will be for a few more, but sorry for not getting back to you in a timely way. After a brief look I can't express a strong opinion either way, but I feel that it's reasonable (if not necessary) to read the discussion as reflecting a lack of consensus. Since you're asking me as an RM admin, I'd suggest asking the opinion of User:GTBacchus. Personally I'd worry a bit that whereas "British Raj" includes the area that became Pakistan, it is a bit less clear whether that's true of the term "British India". It also seems like it might be reasonable to apply WP:ENGVAR here, but other British government labels on Wikipedia that might fall under ENGVAR are clearly inappropriate (ugh, "Her Majesty's Government"?), clouding the matter somewhat. Dekimasuよ! 13:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Your question

Hi: thanks for asking that question. Unfortunately, I will only be available to answer it properly this afternoon (or, alternatively, around 6 hrs from now). I hope this is okay, and I just wanted to let you know that I had noticed it. Cheers -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I have answered. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Did I answer it to your satisfaction? Thanks -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I was unavailable for a few days, but I've added my final judgment to your RfA now. As I noted there, I was hoping for a more free-flowing response. On the other hand, in the context of an RfA, I can't blame you for limiting yourself. Have fun with your administratools. Dekimasuよ! 10:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks again for asking the question. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Bangalore?

Why was Bengaluru moved back to Bangalore? There was one more vote to keep it at Bengaluru.Reginmund 17:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I left a pretty extensive closing message that you might want to look through, but for one thing, the original title was Bangalore. There would not have been a consensus to move the page to Bengaluru, and the move to Bengaluru that did happen was not uncontroversial as claimed in the process. Dekimasuよ! 09:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Your close of the move discussion appears to have been guided solely by procedural nitty-gritties. In doing so, you've literally with a single wave of your hand invalidated a very long and detailed discussion of the move. This, you've done by pointing to an older discussion that is older by almost a year! It is also an insult to all the editors who took part in the extended polling in good faith. Now that you've corrected a wiki-legal anamoly with your hasty and imo, ill advised close of the discussion, do you expect us to open another poll to now 'discuss' moving it back to "Bengaluru"? (My reading of WP:BURO is that this is precisely the kind of bureaucracy that is to be avoided on wikipedia). I request that you read the discussions first, make amendments to your closing remarks and move the article back to Bengaluru (for reasons detailed in the poll discussions and this thread which has come up following your baffling close of the discussion on procedural grounds.

And no, I do not think there is anything 'controversial' about moving it to Bengaluru. If you think there is, please point out what the controversy is. Just because there is a detailed and lengthy discussion, doesnt mean there is controversy. Until now, you havent said anything about the merits of the arguments at all! You've only pointed out procedural details and not much else. Sarvagnya 22:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Sarvagnya 22:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

He said there's lack of consensus, which is a pretty accurate conclusion about the discussion and also a statement of his opinion on the merits of the arguments. This is a clear case of content dispute where an official policy would make things easier. Lotlil 01:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Dekimasu, please reconsider your move and change Bangalore back to Bengaluru. Thanks.Kanchanamala 09:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've left a more extensive explanation as requested to make it clear that I didn't restore the Bangalore title on purely procedural grounds, but I still don't see a consensus for Bengaluru, so I am unlikely to reconsider my close. If you want another neutral administrator to review what I did, that's fine with me. As far as the comment above about starting another poll, WP:BURO aside, I don't think that would be the best course of action. It has already been made clear that a large segment of editors are opposed to the name change, so it would be unlikely to find a new consensus in favor of Bengaluru a week after the first move request. Dekimasuよ! 16:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Dispute at An Jung-geun

Hey Dekimasu, I saw how wonderfully you handled the Lake Heavens RM - I think that you have a very broad & open mind & you are perfectly fitting to be an admin. Could you handle dispute & handle it with neutrality? I personally don't care what the result is as long as you do it. Thanks a lot. (Wikimachine 22:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

My impression from the first read-through (I'm very busy this week, as you can see from my sharp drop in contributions) is that the current introduction is acceptable. I would probably link the first and second sentences ("...nationalist, best known..."). I don't think "nationalist" is a great word to use there, because the context makes it almost sound like a profession, whereas the word is usually used to denote a character trait. On the other hand, I think it is a better term to use than "activist", because it much more succinctly states the type of activism in which he was involved. Referring to him as a murderer or terrorist is also unnecessarily imprecise when he can be referred to as an assassin. I'll try to get back to this again soon. Dekimasuよ! 16:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar of Peace

		The Barnstar of Peace
		This is no bribery but I checked all of your discussion archive & you got only 1 barnstar! Well, there's no written rule that says you've got to have more than, but I'm so impressed with how you dealt the Lake Heavens stuff that I took time to pick an award - which reminded me, the sign of peace that you have on top of your discussion page. Gl. Wikimachine 22:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

War trophy move

Thanks for moving the page (I was the one who suggested it). User:Wmpearl, the page creator, has reverted your edits with no explanation. I think you did the right thing with the move. Would reverting his edits back be appropriate, or discussing on his talk page? Since he gave no indication for his decision (and probably just has a mild case of WP:OWN) I think reverting with an explanation for why on his talk page would be appropriate. What do you think? All the best, ~Eliz81^(C) 22:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites opened

Hello, Dekimasu. The arbitration case in which you commented to has opened. Please provide evidences on the evidence page for the Arbitrators to consider. You may also want to utilize the workshop page for suggestions.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

On the Jews and their Lies & On the Jews and Their Lies

The first is just WRONG. It violates all the Rules of Style, and is not the way the title is actually written - in pracice. So I'm going to revert your error. We should not re-inforce people's mistakes! Do you understand me?

Best regards, --Ludvikus 14:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Contesting proposed deletions: The way to do it is not with a reversion, but with the following Wiki Tag: {{hangon}}. Best, --Ludvikus 14:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you understand me? Alarming, no? But Dekimasu, don't worry if you don't understand it. I for one certainly don't understand how writing "their" instead of "Their" violates all the Rules (capitalized) of Style (capitalized). -- Hoary 15:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, what I did here was undelete a redirect that is a plausible search term, and I wasn't involved in changing the location of any pages. Since I was undeleting the page, it wouldn't really make sense to leave the speedy deletion tag intact. I could have simply recreated the redirect, but as I noted, there was significant history that had been deleted without discussion in the past. Thanks for the various input. Dekimasuよ! 12:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Help

Hi, Dekimasu -- You know, I hope, that some of us are doing a major revision of the Manga article. We've been working on it for a month or so, posting lots of notices and invitations on the Manga and Manga/Anime project talk pages. We're working in small steps, adding new sections and removing old ones if there is no objection on the talk pages. You can see the material we're working on now on User Talk: Timothy Perper/Sandbox5.

Fairly soon, we are going to starting on the subsection dealing with the history of manga before World War 2. The draft material we're accumulating has a fair amount of Japanese language material in it, contributed and translated -- thank you, thank you -- by Japanese Wiki editor Kasuga. Much of the material deals with history from the late 1800s (Meiji) up through the 1930s.

Can we ask your assistance with this material? Not merely to confirm the translations, but also to help edit the translation for smoothness. We very much want to keep as much of this material as we can, both out of respect for Kasuga and because we feel it adds substantively to the article.

If you're willing -- and I hope you are -- can you leave a note either here or on the User Talk: Timothy Perper/Sandbox5 page?

Timothy Perper 17:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It sounds interesting, and hopefully I can lend a hand (although I haven't had a lot of extra time lately, and probably can't handle doing a full rewrite). Let me know when things are ready for what you'd like me to do, and I'll take a look soon. Will it be at User:Timothy Perper/Sandbox6? Dekimasuよ! 05:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Incoming links

Hi.

1. I've removed the categories until this is a live template.
2. YOu should not subst Ambox in it - you should call Ambox.
3. You need to support a date parameter for the cleanup category - see {{cleanup}} for the names
4. Good idea to run this off #switch on NAMSPACE to only apply the cast to mainspace and Talk
5. Good idea to have comments marking the beginning and end of the template as people will mistakenly subst it, and it then needs to be de-substed.

Rich Farmbrough, 12:59 2 October 2007 (GMT).

Nobel Prize in Economics

i noticed your opposition to renaming the econ prize, and thought you would be interested in knowing that there's another attempt to thwart the will of the community by subterfuge. you might want to check it out and share your views.--emerson7 16:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

My comment there didn't really amount to opposition. It was just related to Google results. Dekimasuよ! 11:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I know you're very busy but if you could spare some time, could you please answer my questions at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Page move after no consensus? I don't know any other user who has this as their speciality area. Thanks! –panda 01:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've closed the discussion related to these things and left a summary of my views at Talk:Nobel Prize in Economics (as well as a shorter note at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves). Sorry to disappoint you, but I tried to give you a fair and impartial close. Dekimasuよ! 11:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all surprised by the results of the debate as I was expecting no consensus. This issue will probably come up again as this was the 2nd time in the last year so we'll see how it goes next time.

I strongly believe that Wikipedia's policy for common names should not have been followed in this case. Many of the people who voted to keep the page at "Nobel Prize in Economics" have not educated themselves in the topic, evidenced by the many incorrect claims they made. And they don't seem interested in it either since no matter what evidence is produced, they still hold fast to their beliefs. Or, after reading the evidence, they choose to invalidate it. Even if the title is a common name, it still lends support to the incorrect POV that the prize is a Nobel Prize, which I have been attempting to show ad nauseam that it's not with more and more, what I consider, more reliable references in Talk:Nobel Prize#Economics to no avail because one editor (Vision Thing, the first to vote) wants to adamantly adhere to a single reference from the web (UK Encarta, in this case) just because it includes the text "Reviewed by: Nobel Foundation".[13] That doesn't mean that everyone who's spent time researching the topic agreed to move the page, but it's disgusting to see ignorant individuals decide on the direction of and text included in Wikipedia, which may be partly due to a personal grudge with me since I reverted their text at some point. (I'm primarily referring to the rationale being presented in Talk:Nobel Prize#Economics for including the econ prize as a Nobel Prize in the Nobel Prize article.) Some of the people who opposed the move aren't interested in facts about this topic, they're just defending their POV and using WP:NAME as an excuse since it can be applied in this case. The most neutral name would have been the proposed name as it includes the Nobel name and neither supports nor denies its association with Nobel. The article was, in fact, stable for at least three years with the longer name. Now, it's being disrupted about once every 6 months to move/debate the page title...

Lastly, I personally don't know of any case where a common name falsely implies something about the topic that it isn't, but is used anyway in Wikipedia. (There is no ambiguity to what the topic is about -- it is primarily the false claim I am concerned with.) If you could help find an example for me in Wikipedia, that would be appreciated. In my mind, this is a special case but please prove me wrong.

–panda 15:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Flying squirrel? Centrifugal force? Principality of Hutt River? Nothing pops to mind, but that is partly because, as in this case, the people on one side support the view that the common name is valid despite not being official. We are generally descriptive rather than prescriptive in naming, which means relying to a certain extent on the established terms used in third-party sources. Maybe reading through the archives of Japanese diaspora would be informative... I was part of a long dispute there about the appropriateness of its former title, "ethnic Japanese". Another case I was directly involved in concerned the validity redirecting University of Wisconsin to just one of the state universities in Wisconsin. Directing you to other RM discussions that I've closed isn't very helpful, because if I am shown to be in error then they won't be useful anecdotes - but I made a close at Talk:Bangalore recently that might also be of interest to you. Dekimasuよ! 13:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I read your comments in Talk:Bangalore already but that case isn't really similar since its a name change from an old name to a new name, both of which were correct at some point. Anyway, I'll take a look at the first 3 you mentioned. And I ask that you look at the conversation below (it's very short). If you don't have time, let me know and I'll ask another admin. –panda 14:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you also take a look at this conversation about these edit and offer some advice for what to do? –panda 19:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Linking the names of the individual prizes seems like overkill to me, so I prefer Vision Thing's text. That doesn't mean that the citation has to come out - it corroborates either version of the text and appears to be a useful reference. That said, the site is inconsistent in its own treatment - e.g., this page seems to indicate that the posthumous prize in economics in 1996 was a Nobel Prize by virtue of its phrasing. You are using a similar argument to state that the economics prize isn't a Nobel Prize, but the phrasing isn't tight and it could be taken to mean that after adding the economics prize, the committee (a) chose to keep the original five prizes intact, and (b) then chose not to create any more new prizes. The conversation itself could have worked out better, I agree. Dekimasuよ! 14:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! So I guess the final question is if the text citation can be included, must be modified or removed, which was "The Prize in Economics is not a Nobel Prize, according to the Nobel Foundation." I'm the 2nd editor who has pointed out that citation as showing it is not a Nobel Prize. (The other can be found at Talk:Nobel Prize#Economics.) I agree the website is ambiguous with how it presents the prize but it also doesn't include it as a Nobel Prize when it lists the areas they are awarded in.[14] It only groups them together in several locations, one of which you've pointed out. The website for the selection/awarding committee doesn't make that grouping. I would also agree to modifying the text to state "The Prize in Economics is not a Nobel Prize, according to The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences." if how prizes are grouped is credible evidence that something is or isn't a Nobel Prize. If this is taking too much of your time, let me know and I'll ask another admin. –panda 14:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

canvassing

thank you for the canvassing note, i honestly didn't realise there were specific prohibitions against it. i've reverted those i could find regarding another matter. with regard to agf, for weeks i actually believed panda was making good faith efforts until i discovered and understood his tactics at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Page move after no consensus. at some point, it just has to be called. either way, i take your admonitions to heart. cheers. --emerson7 15:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

People tend to look for reasons to bring about their desired result when they are convinced they're right, so it was a natural reaction for Panda to ask questions about the previous page move (which, from where I stand, was a somewhat questionable close). Even if it might seem that Panda was looking for an "excuse" to have the page moved in anticipation of a lack of consensus in the move survey, that doesn't mean he was acting in bad faith. People can be discouraged from wikilawyering without it being necessary to question their motives. Sorry if this response seems condescending, but it's good to maintain friendly relations whenever possible. Dekimasuよ! 12:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

For another comment on this topic, please see the end of the "past history" section below. Dekimasuよ! 05:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

emerson7

emerson7 has been harassing me since I made a change to the Nobel Prize in Chemistry page due to a comment by an anon on its talk page [15] [16]. A quick look at my talk page, emerson7's talk page, Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#Country of record, and Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#RFC: Country – ambiguous or not shows his uncivil comments to me. I don't know if these are enough violations to file a case at WP:WQA or if its even worthwhile. But in the mean time, he has been (1) removing good faith edits by new editors [17] [18], accusing one of them of level 3 vandalism on their first offense [19] and possibly driving away these editors from the project (Special:Contributions/Pavlina2.0, Special:Contributions/Dwolgel), (2) blaming the script for his reverts, such as "i pushed the wrong button before i could enter explanatory text."[20] or "sometimes the script get confused"[21] and (3) feigning ignorance such as "i'm afraid i don't know what you are referencing" [22] [23] to reverts he did several times [24] [25] [26] [27]. If this person still doesn't know how to use the scripts after having used them for over 6 months, can WP not allow them to use the scripts? He has been warned that using rollbacks in content disputes is not acceptable [28] [29] but continues to do it anyway, such as during his edit war with me [30] [31]. emerson7 also has a tendency to use the blanket edit summary "copyediting" or "cleanup" when he does include an edit summary. These don't say anything and are about as useful as not adding an edit summary. Sometimes, they're simply misleading, not necessarily incorrect. But I don't know if that actually violates any WP policy.

Should this case go to WP:WQA or some other venue? It's mostly a lot of small violations to different (newer) users and nothing that I can see as being any single serious violation. –panda 15:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you would be better off trying to file an WP:RfC/U since you raise many distinct questions covering a fairly long period of time. An RfC would require certification of the dispute by another user, but that seems like a fair possibility given the number of incidents you've cited. Emerson7 is frequently (if not always) very polite and willing to apologize when he has made an error, which makes WP:WQA less appropriate here here. What you really take issue with is the fact that he sometimes (often?) fails to address the problem or change his behavior after apologizing. An RfC would probably be the best place to discuss what changes might be needed. Dekimasuよ! 02:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI. Except for being blocked and warned about using rollback scripts in edit wars, the points I brought up above where incidents that have happened in the last month, that is, during the month of September. Anyway, thanks for the advice. I'll think about filing an WP:RfC/U. (There's additional comments above regarding multiple topics that I would appreciate if you could reply to.) –panda 19:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Past history

If you didn't already check:

• emerson7 was blocked 21:43, 3 May 2007 for "persistent disruption & refusal to repond to requests and warnings". If you look at his talk page ( history since he deletes items) you'll see how many editors he has disrupted and continues to disrupt on a weekly basis. (You are not the first editor I have asked for advice on how to deal with emerson7. I have deliberately chosen to not file a case yet since I know that he spends the majority of his time fighting spam in WP, albeit far too aggressively at times.)

• Vision Thing was blocked 14:43, 30 June 2007 for edit warring. And if you look at his talk Archive1 and Archive2, you'll see how many times he has been in requests for mediation/arbitration. At least two editors (User:Etcetc, User:Infinity0) recently chose to no longer contribute to Wikipedia because of Vision Thing's persistent POV pushing related to issues brought up in a failed RfA. If my conversation with him is any indication of how he normally responds to questions, then it's no wonder other editors get frustrated and cross over the line!

• Panda has never been blocked, instead my patience has been tested to great lengths. I have had one conflict with a new user User talk:Ahm2307, which I haven't repeated. Now it's (1) emerson7 (who can't handle having his edits reverted but does it all the time to others), (2) as of a week ago Vision Thing (who also can't seem to handle getting his edits reverted and has stalked others when they do), and (3) Anthon.Eff, who likes to use, what I consider, personal attacks [32] #2 with those who don't share the same views and refuses to do his own research for the Nobel Prize and Nobel Prize in Economics articles. He hasn't produced a single reference yet to support his views but holds fast to them anyway by virtue of the duck test. What do I do to fight these disruptive editors? I choose to produce new references and check on WP policies! So if it's considered Wikipedia:WikiLawyering to check and question policies to better understand them, then I'm guilty as charged!

Please check the histories of the editors you choose to defend and accuse before doing so!

...And if you've taken the time to read this far, thank you for your patience in actually reading my frustrations with the system.  :)

–panda 00:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I know I haven't replied yet with suggestions as far as Emerson7 is concerned, but I want to reassure you that I myself wasn't trying to accuse you of wikilawyering. I was rather trying to point Emerson7 towards a more productive way of stating his opinion than by writing that you were "acting in bad faith", because he really meant "wikilawyering" or "forum shopping". They still aren't nice things to say about someone, but they can imply a simple misunderstanding or disagreement rather than an attempt to subvert anything. Dekimasuよ! 01:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: 3 topics

Re: your closing comments to Talk:Nobel Prize in Economics#Requested move, a rewording may be appropriate. Note: I'm not challenging your decision, but I do think your comments need additional clarification.

• "RM in 2006 was closed as "move" rather than "no consensus""

Technically correct, but the decision to close it as "move" to "Nobel Prize in Economics" was controversial. There was agreement to move the page in interest of a compromise. However, there was no clear consensus (4-3) for what to move the page to. The admin (I assume) who moved the page to "Nobel Prize in Economics", whether intentionally or not, undermined those who agreed to compromise and work towards a new title in the interest of the community. If they had been as unwilling to compromise as those in the debate you closed, it would have been a clear no consensus.

• "the main consideration when trying to determine which page name is the established one is stability, not overall tenure; the established title in this case is the current title."

The current title has been challenged and moved twice in the last year,[33] 4 times if you include moving it back -- that's not stable. The previous title was stable for at least three years with no page moves that I can see. If we use your words, then the previous title was the established title because it was established via stability. So perhaps you should consider rewording that statement or defining what stability means in this special case.

Re: Japanese diaspora

• This debate is the most similar to the Nobel Prize in Economics debate but the editors in that discussion appeared to be genuinely interested in the content of the article and discussing the title rather than just giving a vote and leaving, as opposed to Nobel Prize in Economics, where the majority opposed to the move had actually not read the article or the corresponding Nobel Prize article as evidenced by their erroneous comments and how some of those who were opposed didn't participate in any discussion. If there had been say five or six editors who went to the Japanese diaspora discussion and simply posted that the current name is the common name, Google hit counts show that it is the common name, people would think they're on the wrong page with any other name, and then refused to listen to any other reason or simply left the conversation because they know they don't have to compromise (no consensus means no move), then you would have understood my frustration with this debate. Those who opposed the page move made no attempt that I can see to work towards a compromise.
• I also proposed five different options for the page title in hopes of a compromise. One editor who wanted a page move (Wikidea) replied that my suggestions would be preferred over the current page title, while two opposed to the move (emerson7 and Anthon.Eff) refused to compromise. One probably did so just because I made the comment and we have a past history (emerson7). The rest never responded.
• You should be satisfied with the results of Japanese diaspora as you stated that you would accept "any precise and correct title for this page over the current title." I hold the same position with Nobel Prize in Economics as I would accept any precise and correct title over the current title. Unfortunately, in this case there was no interest in working towards a compromise.

Re: Nobel Prize in Economics, Nobel Prize, and User:Vision Thing

• Every single conversation I've had with User:Vision Thing about this topic has been evasive and similar to User talk:Vision Thing#Nobel Prize in Economics. Put yourself in my position and ask how long you would tolerate such replies/behavior before becoming frustrated? I've been putting up with it for about a week now, with the page move survey going on at the same time.
• User:Vision Thing has, whether intentionally or not, simply disappeared for a few days and not replied to questions asked in Talk:Nobel Prize#Economics only to come back and say he's not convinced and to continue to present the same old evidence he's already given. Is that kind of behavior considered acceptable in Wikipedia?
• He is also now discrediting information on the Nobel Foundation website saying that it's not a reliable source because it's a primary source, and can't be used in Wikipedia if there's no (alternative) "reliable source" that states the same thing. Really? The Nobel Foundation website is no longer a reliable source for info about the Nobel Prizes?

–panda 17:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Secondary sources are generally preferred, and all sides have noted inconsistencies in the Nobel Foundation website, so I don't see any reason why that shouldn't be the case here. That doesn't mean we can't mention the Nobel Foundation website and let readers decide for themselves how to interpret that information. It is better to discuss the issues than the users here, since it seems like the actions taking place here are in good faith. Dekimasuよ! 07:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments about your closing comments to the RFC? –panda 03:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I've read through the recent comments at Talk:Nobel Prize in Economics. I think that "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics" is a fair compromise and there is a reasonable chance that a request to move to that title could reach consensus. I don't have anything more to say about the previous close, but if you want, I will post a note at Talk:Nobel Prize in Economics to the effect that the outcome and timing of the previous RM shouldn't be used to invalidate a specific request to move to "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics". I'd advise you to make any request as narrow as possible to prevent rehashing the prior debate. Dekimasuよ! 05:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, please add a note to the talk page. But I still don't understand what your definition of stability is since it contradicts every definition I know for stability. –panda 15:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Considering that my comment above coincides perfectly with the current request, I'm surprised to see that you think I would be biased in closing the new requested move discussion. However, I suppose this is probably where you meant that I didn't respond, and I don't remember having seen this message. At any rate, I still maintain that "Nobel Prize in Economics" was the stable title of the page. It had been at another title for less than a day out of the last year, and the first move generated little momentum in favor of changing the page title after it was swiftly reverted. It is less trouble for me to simply stay away from the page, but I still think the issue is going to require further dispute resolution. Dekimasuよ! 13:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• You claim the page name "Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" that was not moved at all for 3 years (from 2003-2006) is less stable than "Nobel Prize in Economics", which was moved 3 times in 14 months by 3 different editors (none by me)? This is currently the fourth discussion about the article's name since it was moved to "Nobel Prize in Economics", started by four different editors (none by me). Further, if you notice who moved the page back to "Nobel Prize in Economics" and who has been the most active in reverting and removing cited text from the article that shows that the prize is not a Nobel Prize, you'll see a pattern -- a single editor named Vision Thing.
• I don't know how you missed my question as (1) it states specifically four comments up "Comments about your closing comments to the RFC?" (posted 19 October 2007) and (2) you replied on 19 October 2007, but without answering those questions. So I'm still wondering about both points related to your closing comments, one of which is in the previous bullet.
• You previously stated on 19 October 2007: "I'd advise you to make any request as narrow as possible to prevent rehashing the prior debate" (my emphasis), but now you're claiming that the closing admin should look at prior debates. Why? Anyway, if you want the closing admin to be aware of all the comments on this issue, then all outside links should be listed, not just the few you've mentioned. Either you aren't aware of all the outside comments or you have chosen to selectively list them. In either case, if you want to appear unbiased, either list all of the outside comments, do not mention it at all, or explain your reasoning in more detail so that it would not appear biased.
• You have in fact accused me of wikilawyering despite denying it later: "Even if it might seem that Panda was looking for an "excuse" to have the page moved in anticipation of a lack of consensus in the move survey, that doesn't mean he was acting in bad faith. People can be discouraged from wikilawyering without it being necessary to question their motives." Considering you've only mentioned me in the first sentence (and the entire text, for that matter), who else are the "people" you refer to in the 2nd sentence?
• You wrote to me "Maybe one of the worst possible things to do is continue to argue until other users give up and go away." when I was only involved for 2 weeks but without stating it to other editors like Vision Thing who have been involved for over a year...? Vision Thing has actually quite successfully driven away other editors by continuing to argue about something until they are fed up. (e.g., EtcEtc) If you wanted to be neutral, instead of writing only to me that "At this point, it is clear that there isn't a consensus for the changes you're advocating (admittedly, that argument could also be applied to editors on the other side of the argument) ... It might help to take on a more eventualist perspective. We don't have a deadline to get things right, and if you disengage from the situation for a while, fresh users may come in and decide that they agree with you after all.", you could have written to all parties involved that:

At this point, there is admittedly no consensus for any of the edits by all involved parties. It would be a good idea for all parties to disengage for awhile so that other editors become involved and can help work towards consensus.

Instead your comments tend to be directed at me and are condescending towards me.

Considering the above, I believe I am justified in questioning your ability to give an unbiased decision.

• Further, you've stated: "I stand by my comment below. There isn't any point in searching for a consensus if some editors have already decided that they will only accept one possible outcome." when you stated in a different move request that "I'll restate that I will support any precise and correct title for this page over the current title." It's ok for you to state such but not for anyone else? That's contradictory.

Why don't you just vote on the issue or choose to be completely uninvolved instead making this into a larger issue? If you have issues with me questioning your biases, which I gather you do since you felt compelled to reply on the article's talk page, then why not work on resolving the above statements in a manner that would convince me that you are unbiased? If you manage to change my mind, I'll retract my statement. –panda 17:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I will choose to be completely uninvolved, since I have no emotional or other interest in the title of the page. I thought that all of your questions here were answered last month, but that clearly wasn't the case (I didn't close an RfC, but you probably meant RM). Next, my comments related to previous discussions were to make a closing admin aware of the background of the case; reading the background can mean the difference between an informed decision and an uninformed decision, and RM closers do not generally look kindly upon new move requests so soon after old ones. The old discussion had already been referenced, and by stating that I wasn't opposed to a new move request I was attempting to keep the closer open to the possibility of a move. It shouldn't be necessary to rehash old discussion - i.e., it isn't productive to have the same editors type the same things again and again - but those old discussions should still be reviewed by any newcomer. I was basically offering to save another closing admin the hour of reading that it will take to close this move.

I still maintain that I did not accuse you of wikilawyering, and I thought I had explained this earlier. I was looking at the situation from the perspective of the other user, and suggesting that anytime he thinks something is wikilawyering, it would be better to avoid harsh judgments. I specifically mentioned that I believed you were acting in good faith, and I would have replaced "people" with "Panda" if that was what I meant.

The only editors who I have had direct contact with on this subject are, to my knowledge, you, Emerson, and Anthon.Eff. Anthon wrote on this page that he was disengaging from the topic, and I suggested that you do the same. Vision Thing has never contacted me and I have never written to him directly, which is why I didn't address him there. My remarks tend to be directed to you because you tend to be the one asking questions. But you are right that it would have been better to suggest disengagement by all parties on the article's talk page.

As far as your comment correlating my statements at Japanese diaspora with the one about "one possible outcome", I think there are two important distinctions. First, the statment from Japanese diaspora that you quote does not say that I will perpetuate the argument until I get my way - it notes that I will support, as a single editor, any change. It was also a possibility that I would reluctantly accept the title that I thought was wrong. Your statement to the effect that edit wars will continue if the title is not changed means that the consensus-building process has broken down. (You stated this earlier as well in reference to the other users: "in this case there was no interest in working towards a compromise". At that time, I still thought there was hope for a compromise, but in suggesting mediation, it showed that I have begun to agree with you.) Second, I was a less experienced editor at that time. I can't think of any scenario in which I would still make that statement, because I avoid emphatic attachment to article titles.

As far as stability, it is clear that our views conflict. In dealing with requested moves, it is usually considered good form to wait six months before opening a new request (this is the case despite the fact that I tend to feel such a limitation is too strict, and this is the reason I made the qualifications we talked about above). A normal Wikipedia contributor with an article on his or her watchlist is very used to its title after six months, or a year, regardless of how much time it spent at the previous title. Internet search engines have caught up to the new title, too, and forgotten the old one. The old title was certainly stable before the new one became established. It is like a dynastic change - but you don't need to like the analogy.

I hope I have answered all of your questions this time, but you don't need to retract any statements, and if you still disagree with me on some points, I'd like to agree to disagree. I would rather be avoidant here than continue to argue, and I will stay out of everyone's hair. Even if we did continue to argue and came to find that we agree, that would do little to help the current situation. Dekimasuよ! 02:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

...and I guess Vision Thing doesn't care what you write since he's moved the article again [34] (not to mention reverted the intro text again to his version 26 edits ago). [35] Is this really a case for mediation or a RFC/U? –panda 18:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I had considered move protecting the page, but for me to do so at any title would be bound to be taken the wrong way by someone. You might still want to ask for it. Dekimasu 02:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• You still haven't responded to the first point in the list above, about the original page move to "Nobel Prize in Economics", which I've recently discovered was initiated by none other than Vision Thing. [36]
• Move protecting the article is pointless now. Vision Thing ended the article move war with NYScholar by making it impossible to move the article back by added a pointless edit to the title he disliked, which also messed up the redirect.[37]
• Regarding the accusation of wikilawyering, I would appreciate it if you make it clear that you're not accusing me of wikilawyering in the original thread (#canvassing) since most people would probably conclude otherwise based on the way you wrote the text.
• I stand by the statement that there will continue to be an edit war about the title until it is moved to something else. It's pretty obvious this is true considering how many times different editors have commented on this. If the title didn't affect the contents in the article, it wouldn't be an issue but that's not the case. Also, I'm apparently not the only one who thinks so in the current RM.[38]
• The current RM was started by an admin. So if another admin thinks that it's inappropriate for another one so soon, they should take it up among themselves.
• A normal Wikipedia contributor who has the article in their watch list should be fully aware of the edit war and likely would recognize any new name it moves to, especially since they would have probably participated in the RM.
• Search engines don't have problems finding articles that have moved and don't really care what title the article is as long as there is a working redirect. Neither Google nor Yahoo have any problems whatsoever finding the current article via a redirect (or any other article that has recently moved for that matter) even though the article was moved 6 times in 2 days over the weekend. [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] So the search engine point is irrelevant.

–panda 03:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Bullet 1: I don't see a question there. Anyway, the article was moved according to the reading of consensus made by the closer at the time. If the admin made a good-faith effort to gauge consensus, I don't see anything out of process, whether I would have made the same decision or not. Bullet 2: Yes. Bullet 3: Okay. Bullet 4: That is a problem for the reasons I've already stated, but one that I don't want to be involved in anymore. I might refer it to someone else if the problem continues. Agreeing to disagree, or put up with something you disagree with, is an important part of building consensus. Bullet 5: The admin status of the person who opened the request is not likely to be considered, but my closing comments likely will be, and considering what they consist of, there shouldn't be a problem anyway. Bullet 6: Not relevant to what I consider to be a stable title. The point I was trying to make is that if regular editors are used to the title, it is a sign that the title is stable. Yes, they will notice if it is moved. Bullet 7: When turned into redirects, those locations fall down search engine lists over time. What the search shows is that the title Nobel Prize in Economics is at the top of the list now, not the title from 2003-2006, which is the point I was trying to make.

I am patiently trying to answer all of your questions, but as I said before, I don't understand your objective in arguing with me about some of these things; my opinion on many of them is of little importance at this point unless you actually want me to do anything. I was happy to leave the note above about wikilawyering. Dekimasu 06:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• re: "if regular editors are used to the title, it is a sign that the title is stable." If that were true in this case, then the subject of the title wouldn't keep coming up from both regular and new editors.
• re: redirects and search engine results. It's not true that the old name will "fall down search engine lists over time". If I search for the old name "Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" from 14 months ago, the WP entry is the first hit in Google and Yahoo. In contrast, "Nobel Prize in Economics" or "Nobel prize in Economics" is the 3rd hit in Google and the 4th hit in Yahoo. So once again, that's irrelevant.

In the last 14 months, editors have been arguing the same issues since the name changed (i.e., which name goes first, whether or not the official English name of the prize and the Swedish name of the prize can go in the first sentence or in the text at all), which did not exist before the name change. The text has gone backwards a few times since editors removed that (1) the prize was established by the Bank of Sweden and (2) it was instituted on the bank's 300th anniversary. Even though there are references from the Nobel Foundation documenting that the prize is not a Noble Prize, that text was still removed from the article claiming POV-pushing among other things. Also, since so many call it a Nobel Prize (in economics) or it is just like one, then it must be one. All of these indicate that the title "Nobel Prize in Economics" has only contributed to instability and general confusion in the article.

I can not see what you find so stable or established about "Nobel Prize in Economics" so that you previously stated: "the main consideration when trying to determine which page name is the established one is stability, not overall tenure; the established title in this case is the current title [Nobel Prize in Economics]."[45] –panda 06:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel has not fallen down the list because links to it, like the one here, have continued to be created in these frequent discussions; that is not normally true of redirects. Stability need not indicate consensus for a certain title, but the facts that the page had been at another title for less than a day out of the last year, and that the previous title was determined by a requested move, dictated the relevant default page name upon failing to find consensus for the previous move proposal. I recognize that you disagree with me that Nobel Prize in Economics was a stable title. You can throw out "stable" entirely and replace it with "default" if you want to distill the discussion further. As before, I don't understand the purpose of belaboring the point. Dekimasu 07:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)

• At this point, it's actually incorrect to state that the title has been at another title for less than a day out of the last year.
• Of the 176 different links to Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, only 3 are from talk page discussions like this, 4 are from user talk pages like this, and 3 are from Wikipedia talk pages related to this. So I seriously doubt that the reason why it has not fallen down the list is "because links to it, like the one here, have continued to be created in these frequent discussions." Once again, irrelevant.

Reword your closing statement to the RM then if you now understand that "stable" can be thrown out. If you wanted to avoid this entire discussion, you could have simply said that the RM is from the current title instead of stating that it is from the "established" title, which you then further defined to be the "stable" title, both of which haven't been shown to be true in this case. –panda 03:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The first point is disingenuous. I was referring to the situation when I closed the RM, which is what we were talking about, and which was why I said "had been". As for my understanding of redirects and search results, it comes from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)/More macrons discussion and not from my own research. You disagree with me that the was stable, which was why I suggested that you just read "default" wherever I wrote "stable". However, that doesn't mean I have changed my opinion of what is stable or established, and I will not reword my archived, month-old closing statement to suit your definition. If other people read that discussion or this one, they can and should come to their own conclusions about whether or not my reasoning is/was flawed. Dekimasu 04:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• My first point above is simply stating a fact that is true today.
• From Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)/More macrons discussion, an editor only stated that he believed that redirects will fall down the list, he never said that it was what really happens. [46] OTOH, you decided to repeat it as if it was a fact: "undoubtedly ... the redirect will fall down the list." You could have just tested this on your own to realize that it is wrong. Let's try a few other examples:

• "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences", a redirect that was first created about a week ago: the WP article is hit #3 in both Google and Yahoo.
• "Swedish Bank Prize", which has only one link to it from inside Wikipedia: the WP article is hit #1 in both Google and Yahoo.
• "Bank of Sweden Prize", which has five links to it from inside WP: #1 in both Google and Yahoo.
• "Economy nobel", which has no links to it from WP: #1 in Google and #2 in Yahoo.

Apparently it also has nothing to do with how many links there are to the article since according to Google, there are no articles that link to the "Economy nobel" redirect.[47]

• Other editors in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)/More macrons discussion also brought up that as long as there is a working redirect, Google will find the article. That isn't new news.

I actually don't see anything in that archived discussion to give you any basis for your statements about redirects and search engine results. Furthermore, you've modified your definition of "stable" as this conversation has progressed each time I've found fault in it. It's apparent that we disagree about what is considered "stable". Anyway, I believe I've proven my point here and shown that none of your arguments about this issue stand up to any scrutiny. –panda (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to anything Jecowa said there, but what Gene Nygaard said. I have not at all altered my definition of what is "stable" (the location that regular editors are used to, the location that was determined in a previous move discussion, the location that a page has almost always been at over a substantial block of time) although I have offered various points in attempts to illustrate to your satisfaction that it represents stability. If Gene Nygaard is wrong about redirects, it does not affect any of those basic points. You have rejected my definition in favor of your own definition, and that's fine. My standards need not be given more weight than those of other editors. I am still not sure what this discussion was meant to accomplish, because the old close is no longer being discussed elsewhere, and there was clearly no consensus for a move during the previous discussion no matter how I worded my close, and the close was in line with WP:NCON. I was not going to override a year-old close on procedural grounds, because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Nor is Wikipedia a battleground, nor will continuing to repeat the same argument here persuade me. The number of man-hours spent on this discussion (and the main one) would have been put to better use elsewhere. I am sure you are trying to effect positive change. However, you have also shown that your passion to prove your points can exhaust other editors. Dekimasu 04:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You've obviously missed the entire point of this thread, which was specifically about the wording of your closing comments for the RM, as stated at the very top of this thread. Read your previous posts to see how you've changed your definition throughout this discussion. At least you've finally stopped mentioned how search engine results are related to what you consider "stable". Anyway, you've made it clear that you don't plan to change your closing comments, despite the errors I've pointed out. Considering you're an admin who closes RMs, hopefully you've learned something from this thread and in the future will be more careful with how you word your closing statements. –panda (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I am generally willing to admit to errors, but I fail to see any here. I will take from the discussion what I can. Happy editing. Dekimasu 05:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Prize and Talk:Nobel Prize

Hi Dekimasu. I guess we need some help on the Talk: Nobel Prize page. I'm going to stay away from the page for a while, since I've completely lost patience with –panda. But I would appreciate it if you could take a look at what is going on there, and give us some advice. I'm asking you since I know that –panda respects you, since he has previously sought out your opinion. Thanks. --Anthon.Eff 02:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

While you're at it, could you please take a look at the Nobel Prize page? At 17:34, 9 October 2007 User:Vision Thing did a complete revert of 17 edits (made by several different editors) [48] for unexplained reasons. Asking him why he reverted 17 edits on his talk page hasn't generated much of a response. He has selectively replaced some of the text and very few of the references, including reintroducing references that did not support the statements they referred to. I may also ask another admin for comments on this as I know you're very busy and this has already taken up a lot of your time. –panda 18:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Vision Thing subsequently reintegrated several of the changes that were reverted. I agree that it's always better to leave edit summaries, but not leaving edit summaries isn't generally something we sanction editors for. If he reverts to a preferred version repeatedly, he may be in violation of the reversion policy, but one incident doesn't show that. Dekimasu 07:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of topic burnout here, and I can understand why other editors are having that problem. I respect the decision by Anthon.Eff to WP:DISENGAGE from the topic for a while, and I wonder if you would be willing to do so too. At this point, it is clear that there isn't a consensus for the changes you're advocating (admittedly, that argument could also be applied to editors on the other side of the argument). Wikipedia works much more smoothly and effectively through establishing consensus than when it has to resort to mediation or arbitration. Maybe one of the worst possible things to do is continue to argue until other users give up and go away. It might help to take on a more eventualist perspective. We don't have a deadline to get things right, and if you disengage from the situation for a while, fresh users may come in and decide that they agree with you after all. Dekimasu 07:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Prize in Chemistry

i don't know exactly what the procedure is, so i was wondering if you could assist with the discussion at Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry regarding bringing a close to the polling that has gone on for the better part of a month. --emerson7 15:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that article RfCs are just another way to find a consensus, so they can't be regarded as binding if no consensus is found. I don't think there's much chance that we can extract a consensus out of that RfC, although to me it seems like a really minor point to be arguing over. I would generally favor using the list from the Nobel site (relying on an outside source is a good way to avoid imbuing articles with our own points of view), but as noted in a bunch of other places here, the Nobel site seems to be inconsistent and self-contradictory - so is it really a reliable source? At any rate, if this can't be resolved by looking through the RfC and finding points to agree on, you may want to look at another dispute resolution process. Dekimasu 06:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Samulili

At Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Samulili, you stated that you were striking your oppose !vote, however I believe you may have inadvertently left yourself in the list which will still count as an oppose. I have fixed the formatting based on what I believe is your intent. Please revert my edit if I misunderstood. Ronnotel 13:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. Thank you. Dekimasu 13:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

no problem! :) Ronnotel 13:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks できます, for your participation in my Editor review. Your feedback has been very helpful in my recent edits. Once again, Thanks! --Hirohisat ^紅葉 07:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Requesting your help at Kayqubad I

Hi Dekimasu. Would you mind taking a look at the move request at Kayqubad I and its associated pages? Many editors have posted opinions, and we would appreciate your disinterested perspective on whether it is time to wrap things up. Thanks. Aramgar 22:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I think it's a good thing that another administrator closed the request, since this also acts as confirmation of my first close. I think it's certainly fine to add alternate names in bold at the beginning of the articles. Let me know if you need any more help! Dekimasu 06:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You are entirely correct. Thank you. Aramgar 16:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Dartmouth College

As a current or past contributor to a related article -- or an alumnus/na of the College -- I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Dartmouth College, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Dartmouth College. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! Dylan 19:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Request Page Move: Adrian L. Peterson

Could you move this page for us?

• Adrian Peterson (Minnesota Vikings) → Adrian L. Peterson —(Discuss)— Names should not me team affiliated. Per: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) / name with initial is available, not that popular of a name —WikiDon 06:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

NEED HELP - have consensus. - WikiDon 17:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, WikiDon 17:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the page, but I added a caveat on the talk page. Usually page move discussions last a bit longer than that one. Dekimasu 05:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, but I think this one was pretty obvious, not likely to be much, if any, distention on this one. WikiDon 05:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Kilian Ignaz Dientzenhofer

Oops, you got it slightly wrong: "It has been proposed below that Kilian Ignac Dientzenhofer be renamed and moved to Kilian Ignaz Dientzenhofer."[49] You deleted (07:37, 19 October 2007 Dekimasu (Talk | contribs) deleted "Kilian Ignaz Dientzenhofer" ‎ (deletion to make way for page move)) to make way, but then moved to Kilian Ignac Dientzenhofer, though. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       05:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. Dekimasu 05:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Image move request

You made a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to fix the spelling of Image:Esente superbum.jpg, but that isn't one of the functions of that page. If you'd like to follow up on the change, please take a look at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Header#What can be moved? for more info. Thanks for your help! Dekimasu 00:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up. I posted about this to the image contributor. ENeville 20:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Venetian Ceruse

Venetian Ceruse was the first title, then it was moved to Venetian ceruse without discussion, it is not possible to MOVE everything back once an article has been created unless the editor is an administrator. As you are an administrator, please MOVE everything back to the original article Venetian Ceruse as this is the correct capitalization, thank you. Chessy999 06:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I never used anything from Marvel Comics, I want you to advise, which sentences you find incorrect in the article that I wrote and I will change them, the version of the article YOU want to use is not very well written. Chessy999 13:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for adding the text here. First, the reference to the capitalized version of the name is unnecessary. We know that it is capitalized in some sources and not in others, and the one in question is unlikely to be considered a reliable source. The discussion asked us to make a decision about which capitalization to have the article at, and some other editors and I found the reasons for using the lowercase title more compelling. If you'd like, you can mention the capitalized spelling in the lede ("Venetian ceruse, sometimes capitalized as Venetian Ceruse"). Second, the phrasing you have used in the second and third sentences borrows too heavily from the second source. I'd suggest looking at examples of what constitutes improper paraphrasing, somewhere like this page (see examples 2 and 3). The intervening edits are questionable in terms of copyright problems and need not (more likely should not) be retained under the GFDL. I will likely clear the history there later. Dekimasu 13:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Legendarium

I see what you mean. Unfortunately, we can't assume that everyone who links to legendarium in the future will be talking about the Tolkien term. What is needed is for a bot to go through the 1000 Tolkien articles that link to legendarium, and change the links to point to Tolkien's legendarium. Then it should be OK to change legendarium to redirect to legendary (disambiguation). Would that work? Carcharoth 14:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Making very limited assumptions isn't such a bad thing. Designating primary topics involves a bit of triangulation in service to the principle of least surprise, but I doubt we're being too biased in favor of the Tolkien usage here. All of the link changes are done manually when that kind of page is redirected to a dab, but it's long and tedious (I've done several thousand myself), and it isn't always necessary. Adding an {{otheruses4}} tag to the top of Tolkien's legendarium would be probably be sufficient to take care of any remaining ambiguity in this case. After all, the Tolkien page discusses the general meaning of the term more than any other page in the encyclopedia, and if linked for purposes of a dictionary definition, the link should be removed. Dekimasu 15:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That said, if the links to the Tolkien usage were all piped to the full name, I wouldn't feel as strongly about where to point the redirect. Dekimasu 15:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree in general. I made the change based on the discussion at Talk:Tolkien's legendarium, where a user raised concerns about it possibly being a neologism. I think they might have got that impression by clicking on a link and expecting a page about 'legendarium' and getting the article on the Tolkien term instead. I also removed the otheruses hatnote, but I'll put that back for now, and see about a bot request for the piping you talk about. Carcharoth 15:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I was too late. Someone else beat me to it!. Carcharoth 15:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I should have checked the talk page earlier, but I've read through the discussion now. I think what he is objecting to isn't the fact that there are other legendariums, but that this article is about the phrase "Tolkien's legendarium" rather than about the legendarium itself - for example, what it consists of and why it is significant. There doesn't seem to be much of an encyclopedic nature to be said about the term itself. I understand that the current setup is partially the result of trying to defend the provenance and relevance of the term, but what he would probably like is for the article to be (and possibly be moved to) something along the lines of "[[History of Middle-earth]]" (cf. The History of Middle-earth, Harry Potter universe, Ender's Game series). Dekimasu 15:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe we were talking past each other on that talk page. There are sources on all this, but it will take a bit of reading to get a clear picture. I'll give that a go sometime. Carcharoth 16:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Help

Dekimasu, I'm out of town, with a really bad web connection and probably no connection for the next few days. I've been frustrated by User:Nitsirk's POV edits on some of the education articles (for example, Nitsirk believes there are no disadvantages to mainstreaming any disabled student into a regular classroom except lack of money), and with the Talk:Grade retention proposal, I'm starting to suspect a sockpuppeteer. There are precious few edits by Nitsirk's supporters. Could you possibly look into whether User:Yasdnil and User:Refinnej are coming from the same place? It's the fairly distinctive language patterns that make me curious. Looking at Talk:Alternative high school, where Yasdnil proposes moving (well, merging) an article that Nitsirk has edited heavily might also be worthwhile. I'm sorry that I can't manage to deal with this myself, but I'm not even sure that my link will stay up long enough to leave you this note. Thanks for considering it, WhatamIdoing 22:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The note about my own suspicions about possible SPA activity was removed, and this note was removed as well, neither of which makes me less suspicious. I tried to be as nonjudgmental as possible when writing the SPA message, too, by not referring to meatpuppets or sockpuppets. There is also evidence of canvassing. I agree that something strange is going on, and I've asked Nitsirk about it directly. Dekimasu 02:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Grade retention

Mine was not all opinion. Grade retention is too restrictive! It doesn't include students in college and beyond. Repeater is better because it is the more general term. I told my friends to sign on wikipedia to support me. Why can't I do that? Just as long as they agree with me. I know it's not a ballot. They gave reasons for why they chose support. How much do they need to put down? And I did removed your comment because it was in the wrong place. I placed it under the discussion part. --Nitsirk 11:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

How come you oppose the title? Grade retention is horrible. I gave you the reasons and you still oppose. How come grade retention is better? It's too restrictive. --Nitsirk 11:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please respond to me! I know you are on. --Nitsirk 11:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What's taking you so long to respond? I don't have all day. --Nitsirk 11:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stay calm. I can't type on two pages at once. First, please read WP:MEAT (and read WP:CANVASS in case you haven't gotten around to it yet). I am not convinced that the comments on the talk page were written by three different people, particularly since one user only edits outside the mainspace, but for the time being I will accept what you've said. I would strongly suggest that you and User:Yasdnil avoid the same move/deletion/merge discussions in the future, or Yasdnil is likely to be blocked as a suspected sockpuppet. Second, I believe that a merge is a better solution than moving the grade retention page, as I've said. Promotion (academic) could refer to any age level. The article is about the practice rather than the person, and that focus does not need to be changed. Dekimasu 12:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

But the promotion (Academia) is already an article. We can't use that. Thank you for your understanding. I'm going to tell my friends to not to that anymore. I'm just going to tell them to do different subjects since it may be confusing to some people. --Nitsirk 12:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

I agree 100% that the user in question is a sockpuppet of Jessica Liao. The editing pattern and prose patterns are identical. Blocked. Thanks for the heads up! --Bradeos Graphon 16:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Jessica

Yep, that seems to be Jessica Liao all right, same spread of articles, same patterns, even the three little periods she uses to punctuate...her edit summaries. Blocked. Cheers! --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Help with Dub

Would you mind taking a moment to advise me on the next step in the proposal to move Dub? I suggested it thinking it would not be controversial (silly me), and it was contested. You moved the discussion to Talk: Dub, where it has continued, but I'm not sure how to decide whether I can re-request a move. I seem to have solid support from at least one other editor, who has included some basis for his position. The rest of the responses are opinions about the meaning of the word which those particular editors are most familiar with, which isn't really the same as a good reason for or against a move. I'm still a bit of a newbie as far as procedures go, and I appreciate the tone and level of your contributions, so I thought you could help me figure out how to determine consensus. Thanks! SlackerMom 15:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. It doesn't look to me like this is a discussion that is headed towards a consensus in favor of moving the disambiguation page, but you can request a full move at any time by following the steps for adding an entry under "other proposals" at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Doing that would at least bring some new people into the discussion. If you want some more specific opinions related to how the disambiguation could be set up most efficiently, you might want to ask at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. Hope this helps! Dekimasu 02:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your advice. I think I'll push for a little more discussion before calling it quits, just to make sure. I appreciate your help! SlackerMom 18:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

HELP with Orlando disambiguation

Hi Dekimasu, I've noticed your name in the disamb w/ links project removing links to disam pages. I've been doing this also, lately, but I really screwed one up and I'm hoping you can go in as admin and rollback my mistakes. I inadvertently redirected Orlando to Orlando 9disambiguation), meaning of course to type Orlando (disambiguation). I've royally screwed this up and it gets worse every time I try to repair my mistakes. I'm getting dizzy. Any help you can offer is of course much appreciated. Keeper | 76 17:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Update - my mistake edits were reverted by Ian Manka, no need for your attention here, unless you would like to simply ridicule me for my deserving ridiculousness :-). If you want to vent at my vain attempts at saboutage, you can here! Thanks! Keeper | 76 18:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

I have clarified my wordings on question 5 of my RfA. Please read my clarifications to see if you wish to switch your stance. Thank you. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, but I'm still concerned about the original response to question 4. If there is a clarification to make there, please let me know. Dekimasu 02:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Estonian pirates

Hello Dekimasu. I was going to close the move discussion at Talk:Estonian pirates, but found myself deeply divided on whether to close as a no consensus or as a move, since the arguments and sources provided by the move side seem to be sound. You're an experienced "move-closer" as well so I decided to ask you and another admin a second opinion. So, if you can spare the time, could you please have a look and tell me how do you think you would you close this one? Thank you. Húsönd 04:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Although I would have probably closed the move in favor of the title that was proposed near the bottom of the page, the fact that it blew up in the meantime and got sent over to ANI probably shows that my advice wouldn't have been very helpful in this case. Sorry for getting back to you so late. Dekimasu 12:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

OhanaUnited's RfA

Thanks for voting at my RfA. Unfortunately, the result stands at 51 support, 21 oppose and 7 neutral which means that I did not succeed. As many expressed their appreciation of my works in featured portals during my RfA, I will fill up the vacuum position of director in featured portal candidates to maintain the standards of featured contents in addition to my active role in Good articles. Have a great day. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Battletoads

The most recent edit to this article contains vandalism. Would you mind removing that? Just64helpin (talk) 13:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I was a little confused, but I hope this is what you had in mind. Let me know if you need any more help. Dekimasu 13:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Undoing undiscussed moves / Bushi

I wasn't referring to you at Talk:Jallianwala Bagh massacre and I appreciate your thought put into RMs. Please comment if you care at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves where I posted your comments.

Also, based on your interest in Japan, do you have a comment on this?

— AjaxSmack 07:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Bushi is a fairly long and complex article on the Japanese Wikipedia, which goes to great lengths to distinguish between different kinds of soldier; bushi seems to be the most all-encompassing term, and the 武士 category on the JA Wiki includes most of the main articles on these different things (e.g. Ji-samurai, Samurai, Kokujin). I think it's clear that the page shouldn't be merged into Bushido, but it's understandable to want to merge it into Samurai, given that English fails to distinguish between the terms. Ideally, the article could be fleshed out; we could file a translation request at Wikipedia:Translation/*/Lang/ja or we could ask for input at WT:WPJ. The key sentence for our purposes seems to be this one: よく言われるように貴族に仕える存在として認識された武士を侍と呼んだと言うよりもむしろ、上層武士を除く大多数の武士が侍身分の一角を形成したと言った方が正確であろう。It basically says that although "samurai" is often used to mean "bushi who were in the service of noblemen", in actuality, almost all bushi (except for the most affluent) served in that role at some point. There are various incongruities and overlap that make me confused here (ashigaru aren't samurai, but are they bushi?), so I'd rather ask others as well. Dekimasuよ! 14:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Vampire films

Why did you change the article title? There wasn't a vote, merely an inconclusive discussion. Colin4C (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A move tag was placed on the talk page, and a listing was made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Uninvolved editors review the discussions after a period of time and decide whether there is consensus for the move in question (you can read the headers of WP:RM for more information). We don't vote on move requests, although surveys are often attached to them. I read the discussion in question and believed that there was a consensus to move the page. As the article contained extensive information on television, video games, and other media, the previous title didn't fit the scope of the article, and the discussion on the talk page seemed to have reached the conclusion that a move was in order. Dekimasuよ! 12:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The present article title is different from what was originally suggested. The editor whose suggestion was taken up is a different one from the editor who requested the move. The new title seems to be the result of one casual remark made by one editor in response to another. Also none of them has altered the headword or content to reflect the new title. Neither of them seems to be very involved in the article at all... Colin4C (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The present title seemed to enjoy support from all of the editors who commented on it, and neither the previous title nor the proposed title covered the current scope of the article. You can edit the lede as you like, or propose a new discussion, but it seems like this title is broad enough to fit the situation. Dekimasuよ! 03:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Explain yourself please

Please, see my post on the Balti talk page and explain yourself. Thank you. Moldopodo (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

I will gladly answer your questions. Dekimasuよ! 01:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Marcela Agoncillo's POV issues

User:Neelix pointed out that it was the Japanese thing that prompted you to tagged the page with {{NPOV}}. I fixed it already and please share your thoughts on the talk page to have a better collaboration. P.S. It's my first try to have a good article nominee. Thank you. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I should have been more communicative there, but I was using CorHomo at the time and wasn't able to leave sufficient explanation. Actually, I wasn't concerned particularly with the comment on Japanese soldiers, but it made me look at other claims in the article. I will visit the talk page now. Dekimasuよ! 03:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for interfering with your nomination. It is good that you cite things such as "As a loyal companion on her behalf, Marcela was also a loving mother that she always taught her family and kins with good values." However, it is not enough to simply cite those claims, because they do represent value judgments. It would be better to say, "According to [Source XYZ]..." in those cases. There are other cases of such claims that aren't cited, e.g., "she raised her daughters to be fine ladies" and "she consistently provided her daughters with words of wisdom". It is clear that you like Ms. Agoncillo, but it is enough to let the facts speak for themselves. If you'd like to remove the NPOV tag, that's okay, but I think you will get similar feedback from the GA reviewers. You have done a good job with your research here; good luck in improving the article further. Dekimasuよ! 03:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Good that you pointed out that all. I'll be fixing it now. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It's fine. I am even so thankful that someone noticed my works which could be rectified after. I am learning something from you. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Dekimasu, would you like to review Marcela Agoncillo for POV issues (if there's any)? Thank you. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates with red links

Hi, I'm looking for a techie who can reboot this project (i.e. generate a new set of lists from the latest database dump showing templates which contain redlinks). Can you do this? Cheers! bd2412 T 03:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the computing power (or, probably, brain power) to process database dumps myself. If you pulled my name up due to work I've done at WP:DPL, I'll just say that the dump processing is generally done by User:R'n'B. I'm sure it's a horrible pain for him to do this kind of stuff, but he might be someone who could point you in the right direction. Dekimasuよ! 09:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I do appreciate the pointer. Cheers again! bd2412 T 17:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

WT:RFA

Hiya. Annoymous Dissidents comment at talk just got me worried - I'm not disagreeing with you at all, I think the point you've raised is really valuable, and I'm just trying to thrash it through! Cheers. Pedro :  Chat  09:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry too much. When I replied to you, I just wanted to make sure that we weren't talking past each other. I certainly recognize the value of asking optional questions in many situations, and your examples are very appropriate. Dekimasuよ! 09:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:RTV

No, somebody just hijacked the shortcut. Hiding T 15:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

re:Isuzu Bighorn

Thanks a lot, now completed the move task, feel free to close the move discussion. Willirennen (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

We should also fix the text to coincide with the new title... I changed a couple of instances in the lede, but I didn't look very closely at the rest of the article. I'll take off the move tag and make a small note on the talk page about the move. Dekimasuよ! 01:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I made a few more changes except where it describes it as an export model, feel free to make any further changes. Willirennen (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Nur Ali Elahi

Hello, thank you for fixing the On the Origin of Species page. I am the one who originally started the request for the name correction. Now I want ask you if it is the right time to take the dispute tag off Nur Ali Elahi. It has been on it for a very long time and most of the users agree the name should remain "Nur Ali Elahi".--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 10:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that it's been gone for a while. Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. Dekimasuよ! 01:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested Move: Astro Empires

Thanks for that but everytime I try to move it it tells me it is a protected page and I can't. How do I get it unprotected. Butch-cassidy (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The page protected against recreation because it's been deleted twice since it was moved to the project space. The article in the project space now doesn't appear to be significantly different from the version that was speedy-deleted on July 30, so I would suggest first contacting the admin who deleted the page that time (User:Carlossuarez46) or the admin who redirected the page to the project space in the first place (User:Raul654) to ask for their opinions. The page was most recently deleted by User:Deb, but that was definitely a valid deletion. At that time, the whole article consisted of about two sentences praising the game. As long as the deleting admins think that the current version would be okay, it will be able to be moved. Otherwise, you should go to Wikipedia:Deletion review, considering how similar this version is to the one from July. Dekimasuよ! 01:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Doug Parker: primary topic vs. dab page

Hi Dekimasu. Per your suggestion, I posted my rationale for having Doug Parker link to the Doug Parker disabmiguation page, rather than to the airline exec's article. Thanks for looking at it. - Anirvan (talk) 06:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What you've posted does make sense to me, but it would probably be better to have more people look at it, since most of the people you mentioned don't have articles. I think you can convince most people if you list the move in "other proposals" on the Wikipedia:Requested moves page, but I don't feel sure enough about it to make the change by myself. Thanks for getting back to me... Dekimasuよ! 01:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fall

I will put up Fall (disambig) for WP:RM so we can discuss this. Talk:Fall (disambiguation)#Requested move. Simply south (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me. I've commented there. Dekimasuよ! 01:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

help needed to verify sources

Dear Sir,

I was wondering if you would be interested in helping with a dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_allegation_of_child_sexual_abuse The section in question is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_allegation_of_child_sexual_abuse#False_allegations_of_sexual_abuse_in_childhood We need someone neutral that is well versed in wikipedia policies. If you aren't able to, would you be able to suggest someone else.Abuse truth (talk) 02:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The close of Watson

You wrote "The result was no consensus to move the page to James D. Watson", but i think you meant to write there is no consensus to move the page to James Watson. I was going to change it but thought it might be better if you do it. David D. (Talk) 15:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the compromise is good, IMO. David D. (Talk) 15:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for noting my mistake. I've made a comment there and fixed the closing statement. Happy editing! Dekimasuよ! 01:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Merger of interest

Hey Dekimasu, There is a rather interesting discussion going on here. I think that your opinion might be helpful in reaching a consensus/compromise. Cheers —Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 20:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Padan Plain

You are right, I should have mentioned this to Husond. If anyone had asked, I would have said he would notice; after all, both the talk page and WP:RM are presumably on his watch list.

As you can see, he has indeed noticed, and speedy closed the new discussion. I am non-trivially annoyed at this, and have brought it up at WP:ANI#User:Husond. Admins are supposed to implement consensus, not interfere with it being reached. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note at ANI, but I'll be away from the computer for a while. I hope it will be helpful. Dekimasuよ! 01:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s, "B"s and "C" having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "D"s, "E"s and "F"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Lar: t/c 18:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Emperor's name

Hi,

In the past you took part in a discussion about the name of the emperors of Japan. This discussion has just opened again (once again!). You are free to express your opinion here. ThanksŠvitrigaila (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your participation in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate that landed on WP:100, but ultimately was deemed a successful declaration of consensus, and I am now an admin. I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, carefully double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools, with my main goals being to help out with various backlogs. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. :) I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. Have a good new year, --Elonka 00:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

RFA neutral

I've posted a reply to your comments at my RfA. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive

Hi Deki. Sorry to bother you at your user page, but, the whole debate over it has now become toxic. Agreement seems to be heading towards Iassy-Kishinev Offensive or Jassy or Yassy. (With Iassy being the previous name before an undiscussed move, Jassy-Kishinev Offensive receiving the most google book hits and yassy being the ISO-9 standard transliteration, I believe). The only reason I take the unusual step of asking you to come in and close down the discussion is that now we have people forking off the article (Yassy-Kishinev Offensive Operation) and the talk page has descended into what I can only call a farce. There has not been meaningful discussion for a few days now. Narson (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

My request for adminship was successful at 64/1/2! Many thanks for your participation and I will endeavor to meet your expectations. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. I look forward to working with you in the future. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

101 Ranch

Could use your help here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_Brothers_101_Ranch

The original author seems to insist on her original (and incomplete) version.

All the additions that I have offered have been deleted. All were from legitimate sources. Check the history.

Also, this article should be included in Wikipedia Oklahoma.

Thanks:

jcm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcmcapital (talk • contribs) 01:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Spiritualism

On January 15, User:Espoo moved the article Spiritualism to Spiritualism (religious movement). The move had not been discussed, and at least three of us who have contributed heavily to the article (User:Anthon.Eff, User:Nihil novi, and User:Tom Butler) have objected to the move. Unfortunately, User:Espoo has edited the article Spiritualism, putting in a few dictionary definitions that he thought important. Now, all of the hundreds of links in other articles to Spiritualism go to a stub, and the reader has no way of knowing that the link was intended to go to the original Spiritualism article.

The Spiritualism article (now Spiritualism (religious movement)) had just completed a GA review when User:Espoo did the move, and now all of the energy that should have been spent on meeting the reviewer's suggestions has been dissipated on the talk page.

User:Espoo has one supporter, User:Lucyintheskywithdada. Both have some history (we all do, I guess, but for what it is worth here is something about them). She is User:Lwachowski, an indefinitely blocked user, under another name. Her earlier problems are documented here. I find myself unable to communicate with her. User:Espoo has a history of doing moves without notice. On December 13, he moved the article Spiritism to Kardecist spiritism, without any discussion. Editors were able to move it back, because Spiritism contained only a redirect. Our problem is more complicated, because Spiritualism has been converted to a stub.

I was very much impressed at your calm and objectivity in dealing with the fight over renaming Nobel prize in economics. So you came to mind as the person who could perhaps help us out here. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. I can make some factual corrections here;

• Firstly, I have never been indefinitely blocked user. I forgot the password to the Lwachowski and made a new user called AWachowski. I attempted to change the name over official and contacted the correct admin immediately. The diff is here, [50].

• I am neither blocked nor banned. The names were disallowed because of their similarity to real people, here; [51] apparently without being further comments. And so I was forced to make a new one.
• No such accounts have ever been operated as sockpuppets, as the contribs show. Consequent to identical discrediting accusation, I pointed this out to Athon i detail and so for him to use this against me to you is an act of bad faith.
• The discussion of the move of Spiritualism to Spiritualism (religious movement) took place between 13 December 2007 to 15 January 2008. I entered the conversation in 12 January 2008. I neither moved the topic nor started the new one but have contributed to both extensively.
• I do not only agree that the use of the word spiritualism is broader than that relating to the historical religious movement more accurately known as the Modern Spiritualism, I have provided academic references and citation to support it and continue to developed BOTH articles. The movers justification came from a broad survey of dictionaries and encyclopedias [52]
• I have on numerous occasions attempted to discuss matters with Anthon.Eff on both talk and personal pages. He appears to have taken the matter personally having himself nominated the article for GA [53], has taken to removing from articles and pursuing the deletion of an infobox I made to bring together the broad spectrum of spiritualistic topics on the Wikipedia. [54] and edit waring.
• The article Spiritualism is beyond stub status now. It needs collaborative cooperation and I consider that the specific definitions of the word outside of the "mystic" require attention from relative experts ... but it is getting there.

I find this matter highly obscure. Athon's ire appears to be founded on the simple debate over whether spiritualism refers only to the Modern American Spiritualism, or not. He is in America. I am not. A simple Google shows that both spiritualism and spiritism are used, even by academics fairly interchangeably and broadly [55]. Especially since the Western academics discovered the rest of the world.

I have no intention of digging out the diffs to bitch but quote another author for our benefit, "You simply ignored my contribution to the discussion (10:06, 5 January), so you should not complain about others supposedly not discussing." ...

Thanks ... and I am sorry. I hope you appreciate why I might wish to balance the equation when others seek to discredit me. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

And as if on cue, we have another reversion/deletion of the template I proposed ... OK, diffs are us. [56]. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Downloading CorHomo

Hi Dekimasu,

Whenever you have time, could you take a look at my comment regarding downloading CorHomo?

Thanks, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC) _{ps. watashi mo dekimasu yo!  :-)}

Deletion Review for Astro Empires

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Astro Empires. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Butch-cassidy (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

ja.wiki userpage

Yo you might want to check your userpage on the Japanese Wikipedia once in a while. There'd been vandalism there since December. -SpuriousQ (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing, for the note and for the reversion. I haven't been around much lately, and no one noticed the vandalism from the same source on my user page here for two months, either. I'll try to keep up. Dekimasuよ! 14:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

English Defense move

Your close of the English Defense move request was a bad mistake. Not only did you go against the clear consensus on the page, but your reasoning is fatally flawed. First, there are eight supports (counting the editor who requested the move) against two opposes. Calling this "in dispute" is bizarre—only a unanimous response in favor of the move would satisfy the bar you've set. Second, your goal of reducing the amount of time spent over discussing the naming of the page will not be met by a bad "no consensus" close. If the page were moved the discussion would be over forever. By not moving the page, you ensure that this will come up again. I have to say I'm really disappointed in what seems to me to be very poor judgment on this. Quale (talk) 05:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've requested an independent review of the close of this move request at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Request review of "no consensus" decision on English Defense. Quale (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have disappointed you. I replied to your request at WT:RM, and I hope the result will be more to your liking. WP:ENGVAR asks us to avoid moving articles for the sake of moving them, and I cannot see how this article is inherently tied to a particular region - it is about chess, not about England, and both variations are in common use. Dekimasuよ! 06:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Copy and paste from WT:RM to Talk:Lake of Gruyère

Please note that on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves, I suggested re-adding a move request to WP:RM about the move of Lake of Gruyère/Lac de la Gruyère in one way or the other.

The text you pasted on Talk:Lake of Gruyère ([57]) doesn't make much sense there and confuses things further, as Rarelibra already kept deleting part of the discussion (diff) and a question of mine there (diff). Maybe you could repair that for me.

Obviously, I can't prevent rarelibra from posting the same stuff everywhere, but it shouldn't mean that my text has to be moved along. -- User:Docu

I put the discussion in comment tags per your comment that it may be confusing... anyway, it is the correct location for the discussion. I left a note to the effect that (a) there is a listing on RM that should not be taken down at this time; (b) there should be a move request tag on the page until the request is closed - likely 5 days from now; and (c) Talk:Lake of Gruyère is the correct location for further discussion. I hope this will be better for you. Dekimasu 05:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Now that a move request is noted on WP:RM, there isn't much need for the text anymore. Possibly it could go directly to an archive page.

Anyways, I will try to restore the "move request tag" after the usual 24 hours. -- User:Docu

NYC neighborhoods RMs

Thanks for the tip about Soho — I added that and mentioned the other similar moves at each RM section. — AjaxSmack 01:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Reva Lucian

I'd appreciate a comment to the reply I left. Thanks! PC78 (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I was not disagreeing with you, necessarily, but I do not think you showed enough evidence to indicate that the article should be moved. Dekimasuよ! 00:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Lakes

I noticed you closed the move of Lake Chiem to Chiemsee, and that Lake IJssel has been correctly moved to IJsselmeer pe WP:UE. Taking into account the arguments there, at WT:RM#Lakes and User_talk:Neil/Archive_23#Lake_names could you have a look at the similar moves here? These moves were made in good faith, but (with the exception of Lake of Gruyère) do not at all represent English-language use (see evidence at Talk:Chiemsee) and were completely undiscussed and unsourced. I feel a return to the status quo ante is the most appropriate given the large number of articles and the contentiousness if the moves. Knepflerle (talk) 11:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

PS [58], [59], [60], [61], [62] makes it 7 out of 8 discussed that have been reversed - surely we don't need to go through this for every single one of the others when the moves were unsourced in the first place? Knepflerle (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd give you the green light, although I'm not a final arbiter. From what I can see, most of the redirects are unblocked, and I think you should be fine to move them back yourself without further discussion - as you said, it's an indication that the moves were not as uncontroversial as they were claimed to be. If Rarelibra wanted to pursue the issue further, he would then have to open a move request, but it doesn't seem likely that he'd pursue the moves further at this point. Dekimasuよ! 10:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I moved them back today. There were quite a few! I think it was important not to endorse "English" neologisms that English speakers do not use such as "Lake of Plau". Some of the moves may have been correct, but a lot of unjustified moves were performed alongside in the headlong rush - and as you say, there is nothing stopping them being reconsidered on a case-by-case basis, this time with some actual evidence of usage. One last thing - the move of Lauwersmeer requires admin assistance - could you have a look at it if you have a moment? Thanks very much for your time, and good luck with the kanji kentei! Knepflerle (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I will get around to this soon... thanks for your encouragement. I passed my test. (..)b Dekimasuよ! 01:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

How precisely is this a no consensus? The "reply" merely points out a policy under which I am claiming this qualified as an exception! Relata refero (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There was disagreement as to the veracity of your claim, and no one else commented in favor of the move in 10 days. Given this and that there was no evidence presented, I closed the request as "no consensus". Dekimasuよ! 01:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I hesitate to take this up, because I hate carping, but the fact is there actually wasn't disagreement. I said that under policy X, this couldn't be moved, except that this article met exception Y in policy X, and the other chap, who clearly hadn't read it, said "this falls under policy X, so it can't be moved." I don't like grumbling at hard-working admins, especially when I've noted for years that WP:RM has a backlog, but "no consensus" is overused, and frequently misapplied - as it was in this case, I'm afraid. Relata refero (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, he has read the naming convention, as he comments in nearly every requested move related to royalty. There seem to be three points to consider as far as the naming convention is concerned - if I am missing something you are specifically referring to, please let me know. They are: "use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem" in the introduction, "If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, and there is then no need to disambiguate by adding Country.... But there must be consensus so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet; and the name must actually be unambiguous" in the section on monarchical titles, and the first numbered point in "other non-royal names". The first is not applicable here because there are more specific guidelines ("other non-royal names"); the second is not applicable because it refers only to monarchs and not to members of the peerage; the third does not seem to present any wiggle room for common forms of names, and this seems to be the way we usually name such articles. This is probably one of our least-agreed-upon naming conventions, but since someone who is quite involved in their evolution felt this wasn't supported by the convention, I'd suggest you first ask him for clarification. Personally, on the merits, I don't see one title as considerably more desirable than the other, and I'm willing to be swayed. Dekimasuよ! 04:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

My request for bureaucratship

Dear Dekimasu, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight.
I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community.
I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :)
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfB

Hello Dekimasu. I know my RfB is well finished, but I wondered if I could ask if you could elaborate on your oppose on my RfB. My RfA was a year ago yesterday - I didn't comment much regarding the copyright violations because it was an honest mistake, but a very legitimate concern and felt it best I didn't defend myself and instead allowed people to comment solely with a negative outlook. I did make a statement on my RfA talk page stating that I'd fixed all the problems and that I would happily look at anything else. I certainly wasn't hiding away because it was going to pass - there were a number of times I was about to withdraw because I felt the opposes were strong and I shouldn't be an admin, but I decided to carry on and not offer an explanation, quite simply because there wasn't one - I thought before my rfa I was helping the project. Now, down to business - I just wondered exactly how you felt that would effect my ability to be a bureaucrat? It was long in the past, and when I was actually still new on the project - I have evolved a hell of a lot from that point in time and am very different from my RfA. I was a little puzzled why something that happened when I was relatively new on Wikipedia, and that happened a long time ago would affect how I would perform bureaucrat tasks when they had very little relevance to the tools. I look forward to your response, take care, Ryan Postlethwaite 03:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I did make a little more clear how I felt it was related to the bureaucrat tasks - I believed that if an RfA started with a broad show of support, but ended with a consistent weakening of that support, you would be inclined to pass the RfA. This was based on the fact that you followed through with your own RfA after (what I felt were) grave concerns had been expressed. I may be wrong in that assessment, and I'm sure you can better explain to me how you would handle those situations. I certainly don't question the fact that you are a good administrator now that you have the tools. I may have made the error of overlooking the talk page of your RfA at the time of the incident, considering the tenor of my eventual input there. At any rate, I am not sure why this one point from a year ago would have stuck in my mind, whereas I'm sure I have forgotten about dozens of other RfAs entirely. In that your point is fully taken, and I wouldn't want to be judged based solely on edits I made a year ago, either. Maybe you can let me know how you feel about RfAs that are "green", but are trending "red". Dekimasuよ! 03:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your support. - J Greb (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for copy of of deleted article

I just noticed that a page I deemed useful and informative, Silent protagonist had been deleted after an AfD I missed. According to WP:WMD, if one wants to put a copy of the deleted article into their own User: namespace, they should contact an administrator to retrieve a copy. So I'm asking you. :) Thank you for your response in advance. --Bisqwit (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

A copy is now in your userspace at User:Bisqwit/Silent protagonist. Happy editing.... Dekimasuよ! 03:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

I can has mop?

Hi Dekimasu/Archive1! Thank you for your support in my RfA (87/3/3). I truely appreciate the many votes of confidence, and I will exert myself to live up to those expectations. Thanks again! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Bangalore/Bengaluru, again

Please take a look at what is going on with the article on Bangalore. I guess you'll remember the Bangalore/Bengaluru business from a few months ago. It has surfaced again. On March 9, someone suggested that the article should be moved to "Bengaluru" (which was perfectly alright, in itself, of course). On March 31 someone else agreed, a relative handful of supporters piled on and before 24 hours had passed the page was moved to "Bengaluru". Then a further edit to the redirecting "Bangalore" page rendered the move irreversible by ordinary editors.
Given the long-running controversy over this, I think the page-move did not get proper discussion this time around, and was executed without what anyone could reasonably suppose was consensus. Please restore the page to "Bangalore". -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that it would be counterproductive for me to be the person who moves the page back again, as my continued intervention would become a point of contention. You are right that this was done too quickly, but there isn't actually a hard-and-fast requirement that moves must be done through WP:RM. What I have done is unblocked the redirect from Bangalore, so anyone else can restore the previous title; the extra edit to that page was unnecessary and could easily be construed as disruptive. If you want to pursue this further, I'd suggest contacting one of the other admins who works at RM, e.g. User:GTBacchus, to act as an intermediary. If you need any input for me on the talk page as regards the previous move request, just let me know. On the other hand, it looks like the move might gain consensus this time. That shouldn't be discounted out of hand because they performed the process improperly. Hope this helps. Dekimasuよ! 06:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Paul Hastings

Out of curiosity, what made you edit the Paul Hastings law firm web page? [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curzon (talk • contribs) 04:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the edit history, I was fixing a link to "Orange County" to make it point directly to the intended article. I was probably fixing a whole list of ambiguous links to "Orange County" at the time. Dekimasuよ! 15:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking for input/guidance

Doing my nightly rounds through WP:RM and came across something I'd appreciate your input on. Once again, a request to move CFL (disambiguation) → CFL has come along, and as you closed the last request last July, I thought you might have more of a background for this one (granted, one of many move requests you've participated in, but who knows). Thanks! JPG-GR (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really like the anecdotal nature of the search-engine evidence in favor of moving the page, or agree that the figures on page views are applicable when attempting to determine the usage of a completely different search term. On the other hand, I'd probably have come to the conclusion that consensus was in favor of moving the page this time, particularly if most of the links are through templates that can be cleaned up easily. Due to the continued requests, it might be best to fall back on that old "primary topics" saying that when there's an extended argument over which page is the primary topic, neither is. Dekimasuよ! 13:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I requested a CSD G6 speedy deletion of CFL, which was completed by User:Cobaltbluetony. Amusingly, I was at lunch at the time, and the redirect was then recreated. I once again requested CSD G6 speedy deletion, but this request was declined by (of all people) User:Cobaltbluetony, who has now gone on to oppose the move, citing the number of incoming links to CFL referring to Canadian Football League (which I don't find to be a valid reason, but maybe that's just me). Upon again tagging with CSD G6 speedy deletion, User:Hut 8.5 declined, so it looks likes I'm gonna let this one collect some more dust in the backlog *shrug*. Thanks for all your help, though! :) JPG-GR (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Move of sex

Why did you close this as no move? There was no opposition to the move; one comment from an IP providing no reasons doesn't count.

Your closing summary said 'sex not ambiguous', which is absurd - the word 'sex' most often refers to sexual behavior in modern English. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 08:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for my edit summary; it was not supposed to be a form of passing judgment, but just a short note to let people know what discussion I had closed. As far as it goes, we don't dismiss the opinions of IP editors, and he did give a reason: the Sex article (according to his opinion) is the primary topic of the search term "sex" based upon the frequency of visitors to that page. While not passing judgment on this argument either, there weren't any commenters who supported your request, so I'd be hard pressed to consider that a consensus in favor of a move. I understand your frustration as far as talk pages are concerned, but I doubt that we should allow that to dictate the locations of articles to us. Dekimasuよ! 08:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I do dismiss the opinions of IP editors, and anyway his reason is incorrect: he stated that Sex is the 'most-viewed non-topical page' on Wikipedia, but the great majority of those were presumably people that typed in 'sex', so that doesn't tell us what they're looking for. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay; let's set aside the merits of the request and the fact that the lone commenter was an IP editor. Your request was not formulated correctly, because it involved moving two pages: the disambiguation page, and the page currently at Sex. For such a multimove to take place, editors at both pages should be informed, and a new title for the second page needs to be proposed. In most cases, if there is an article at the proposed target of a request, the request will be speedily closed. In this case it appears that no one noticed for a while. Also, the rationale (not just the move template) should be shown on the talk page. Not everyone who may want to comment on the move proposal will come to the page through Wikipedia:Requested moves, and as far as archiving is concerned it is helpful to editors of the articles to know why moves were made. If you want to reopen this request, I suggest that you follow the procedure for moving multiple pages that's shown in the header of Wikipedia:Requested moves and designate Talk:Sex as the venue for discussion of the request, because it is where it is most likely to be seen by interested observers. Dekimasuよ! 05:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Thank you for resolving the flags of Gibraltar issue, could I ask you to have a look at the six pages which were renamed from 'Gibraltar' to 'Gibraltarian'

Where a similar argument applies to elections and referenda.

They comprise

• Gibraltarian general election, 2007
• Gibraltarian general election, 2003
• Gibraltarian general election, 2000
• Gibraltarian sovereignty referendum, 1967
• Gibraltarian constitutional referendum, 2006
• Template:Gibraltarian elections

which are wrong

• Gibraltar sovereignty referendum, 2002

uses the correct wording (see official poster on page)

--Gibnews (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I did look at them, but I don't see as much of an opportunity for compromise on those pages. "General election in Gibraltar, 2007", etc. would be one way to resolve the problem, but I don't think that everyone would be happy with that. If it comes to simply deciding between the editors who agree with you and the ones who don't, I'd rather not be the one to do that... while I do hope to help resolve the WP:RM backlog, there are only so many post-close complaints I can respond to at my low level of recent activity. Dekimasuよ! 05:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Bleach (manga)

If you will notice, in my FIRST revert of your changes to the media section, I noted that it had been done per a talk page discussion. You are the one who continued reverting instead of going to the discussion that had already agreed that the List of Bleach media was inappropriate and needed to be merged back in properly per the MoS. Please stop changing the media section, which is now in a more proper format per the MoS and the consensus of the project as to how that section should be formatted. If you disagree with its contents, please just join the discussion instead of continuing to undo the start of much needed work on the article.AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not disregard the talk page discussion in any way. You reverted several corrections and changes to content that had nothing to do with the existence of the media page. I don't really care what is on the media page; I have never been involved in it. What I do know is that there are factual errors and unnecessary facts on the current Bleach (manga) page, and you have stopped me from correcting/cleaning it. That information isn't needed anywhere, and I didn't remove it because I was taking it to another page. You are implying that I did not read the talk page (I did), do not know the MOS (I do), and disregarded consensus (I didn't). Dekimasuよ! 07:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If you had read the page, are familiar with the MoS, and were not disregarding consensus, you wouldn't have removed the sections from the media section. Anyway, I've put back in your corrections, with the exceptions noted in the article talk page. For the Bleach novels, since you note they are not light novels, but regular novels, and seem familiar with their content, have you read them or do you own them? If so, rather than removing the table, why not add the missing information such as the chapter list, cover characters, and summaries. AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You reverted me even after edits in which I retained the sections. I find the novels (which reiterate the manga storyline) are, frankly, not notable enough to be described on the main Bleach page, particularly if we are using space that could be more productively used to flesh out the other sections of the article in more detail. That doesn't mean they need to be described elsewhere; they may simply be non-notable. Dekimasuよ! 07:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Japanese Music Charts

Hi, I'm just writing to you to request your help and assistance in referencing the Japanese Music Charts. Through out alot of popular english songs I have viewed I have noticed that they have been noted as performing well in Japan and have also read that the Japanese music market it very big. But in saying this every song I have seen has not got a Japanese chart position in the charts box. So if you are into music and willing to try and provide information on the Japanese Music Charts it would be greatly appreciated so then wikipedia users can start adding the Japanese chart positions into the chart boxes for popular songs. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 04:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Alma Ata Declaration

Hello. I noticed that you had added the clean-up tag on this article, and with good reason too. I have now removed the primary text and have put in descriptions and references. I have also removed the clean-up tag. Hoping this is fine. Prashanthns (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

BATL move request

Hi. I'm dropping you a line because you were previously interested in this topic - please see [[63]]. Thanks DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

PS OK, on second thoughts maybe you weren't interested per se but were just being a helpful admin! But I was trying to be even-handed and make sure people who'd had a look at it before got another look now ... feel free to ignore it if it's of no interest :) DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hidalgo

Thanks for taking care of that WP:RM. Aille (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Alaeddin Keykubad

Hi Dekimasu! You handled the previous discussions on the title name for the Seljuk sultan. I drafted a third move request in Talk:Kayqubad I, in small letters for the moment, before putting forward the actual request. I will be pleased if you could take a look and comment on the argumentation and the wording if and as you may judge appropriate. Regards. Cretanforever (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in on the RFA--I will do everything I can to uphold the policies of this site, and try to make it a better place. All the comments, questions, and in particular the opposes I plan to work on and learn from, so that I can hopefully always do the right thing with the huge trust given to me. rootology (C)(T) 08:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Steward Election

See your meta talk page. Prodego ^talk 02:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I've merged my accounts. Dekimasuよ! 02:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Empire Builder RM

Just a note to say that I fully agree with your closure of the RM. The creation of the disambig page solved the problem. Mjroots (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. It makes things much easier to have the person who proposed the move agree. Dekimasuよ! 01:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Disambig finding tool

Hi, We've had a request to allow AWB to use your tool for list building purposes. Is it possible for you to provide an API/xml output for the results. A parameter like &format=xml or similar would be great.

Thanks!

—Reedy 18:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's not my tool.... I wish it was, but it looks like bd2412 misinterpreted one of my messages at WT:DPL. The person you want to talk to is User:JaGa. I'll let him know there's a message for him here. Dekimasuよ! 01:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Dekimasu. I'm getting in touch with Reedy now. --JaGa^talk 04:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Bleach (manga)

WP:NALBUMS is in regard to album articles, not their mention in other articles, nor does it really cover serial type works. If it were a ordinary soundtrack, its mention would be fine, however as it is part of a series, just as with the manga volumes and DVD releases, we generally stayed that "As of X, Y have been released" without saying "and Z will be released in a month". The only time we generally note future release dates is in an actual table/list rather than summary prose. Your changing the MoS like this reads a bit snarky and was an inappropriate change. If you disagreed with the removal, a discussion on the article talk page would have been a much more appropriate place to voice this. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If there is a precedent established through discussion, as you indicated, then please point me to that discussion. I understand the intended scope of WP:NALBUMS; you cited WP:CRYSTAL, which is just as (in)applicable. If there is no such discussion, but this is just your general feeling, then your reversion reads a bit as an ownership issue. I had already re-edited the manual of style in accordance with our discussion before reading your note here. There is nothing inappropriate with editing a guideline, especially to clarify a point upon which you are agreeing with the person who reverted you. Dekimasuよ! 02:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, stop messing up the MoS. You are making an incorrect statement without even knowing anything about the issue, and we do NOT change a MoS without actual consensus to make such an addition, period. As for the discussion, I honestly don't remember where it occurred, though it was recent and should be in the archives. Again, if you think its appropriate, take it up on the article talk page rather than turning around and deciding that I'm either owning the article (which I don't) or that the MoS must have a misstatement added. I've explained the reasoning to you. Again, if you disagree, take it to the Bleach talk page rather than doing actions that appear disruptive or backlashing over an article which you seem to have no actual interest in, which makes me wonder why you are even this perturbed over it...if/when the album is released, the article will be updated accordingly (and properly I might add). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have not done anything disruptive. I disputed your removal of sourced information from an article, and upon being told that your removal was due to established practice, I attempted to clarify one of our style manuals. For what it's worth, I have participated in extensive discussions to help standardize the Bleach-related articles and to improve the Japanese manual of style. These discussions were not recent, so I took your response as an indication of something that should be noted, but was not. Once again, if there was a discussion on the issue, then I don't understand how an addition to the manual of style can be a misstatement. There either is consensus for the addition, or there isn't, in which case it doesn't make sense to have removed the sourced information from Bleach (manga). Dekimasuよ! 03:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You didn't clarify the style manual, you inserted an incorrect and incomplete statement without any discussion or consensus at the MoS page to make a change. Not all established practices are included in the MoS, as it isn't a legal document. Again, if you strongly feel that noting the next volume is coming in March instead of doing the update in March when its really released, take the issue to to the article talk page for discussion and consensus among its editor. The "sourced" material is not particular important either way, it was badly written, and it was not from an official source or even a commonly accepted retailer site.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

While it's true that not all established practices are included in the style manuals, it is reasonable for them to include clarifications of issues when it is clear that they have resulted in past misunderstandings. Please indicate what was incorrect. The talk page of the MOS is likely a better venue. Dekimasuよ! 03:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Requesting 5 articles

I notice that you are listed on: Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles.

I am requesting 6 articles which were deleted then redirected to be userfied, :):

• Energy and American Society to User:ikip/Energy and American Society
• Anaconda 4: Trail of Blood to User:ikip/Anaconda 4: Trail of Blood
• Tajik Wikipedia to User:ikip/Tajik Wikipedia
• Rudy Tabootie to User:ikip/Rudy Tabootie
• Craniac to User:ikip/Craniac
• James Wharton to User:ikip/James Wharton

From: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 15

Can you please move all 6 pages to my userspace, with the history intact (I am interested in who created the article, and when).

I really appreciate it. You are probably wondering why I ask. Well, I have spent my weekend on a graph found here: User:Ikip/AfD on average day. I am interested in what type of user gets their page deleted, etc....November 15 is just a day pulled out of a hat by another user.

Thanks :) Ikip (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems like you were already helped out on this except for the one instance of a deletion with BLP issues, and I agree that we can't userfy that one for you. Dekimasuよ! 02:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is 5 more, the last 5. Interested? Ikip (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't handle it at the moment, so you can probably find someone else who will get to it faster. I'll try to get back to it tonight if you're still in need of help. Dekimasuよ! 02:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for response. Ikip (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to pop in, but just wanted to note that Anaconda 4 was not deleted then redirected, it was just renamed because the film was renamed. It was kept in an AfD discussion before the rename and the article is still there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank Collectionian, I tried to find it. I will look at it closer. Ikip (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages with links

It seems that several of the pages you put under "Done" still have many incoming links, especially the ones you did on Feb.3. See for instance Special:WhatLinksHere/Clerval. Can you have a look? Perhaps some of these should be moved back to To Do. Thanks for your work, --KarlFrei (talk) 10:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The links themselves are fixed, and it's rather the Whatlinkshere page that's not recognizing the changes. In the example you noted, you can look at any of the individual pages and see that there are no links to "Clerval" on them; for example, take Le Puy, Doubs. I edited the template at the bottom of the article so that the link that was to "Clerval" now links to Clerval, Doubs. That's the only mention of "Clerval" at the Le Puy page. However, the link isn't being dropped from Whatlinkshere. This appears to be a known issue and I've heard that it might have something to do with the job queue. Here's one mention of it: WT:DPL#Template changes slow to propagate?

Since the links themselves no longer require disambiguation, I think leaving the pages in the "Done" section is appropriate. Some of the links are getting handled over time. I have watched "Vanini", for example, drop by more than half since I fixed the template that was causing the link buildup. Dekimasuよ! 16:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation! I am new at this game and did not know how it worked. --KarlFrei (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Titling of Spanish language artworks

Dear Dekimasu,

I saw what you wrote in Tú y yo article history. It's not an unique case, but I think it deserves special attention for all the articles involved.

According to Spanish Royal Academy's Orthography rules, only the first element goes with initial upper case in every artistical work (book, musical piece, magazine, film, song, etc.)

"[Se escriben con inicial mayúscula las palabras siguientes:]

4.17. La primera palabra del título de cualquier obra de creación (libros, películas, cuadros, esculturas, piezas musicales, programas de radio o televisión, etc.); el resto de las palabras que lo componen, salvo que se trate de nombres propios, deben escribirse con minúscula: Últimas tardes con Teresa, La vida es sueño, La lección de anatomía, El galo moribundo, Las cuatro estaciones, Las mañanas de la radio, Informe semanal. En el caso de los títulos abreviados con que se conocen comúnmente determinados textos literarios, el artículo que los acompaña debe escribirse con minúscula: el Quijote, el Lazarillo, la Celestina." (See "mayúsculas" in Royal Spanish Academy's Panhispanic Dictionary of Doubts).

I also commented it on the Wikipedia Music Project talk page, twice, but never and nobody has given me an answer. I think, although artists may not be aware of the official spelling rules, in an encyclopedia we must keep them in the correct form.

Regards, --El Mexicano (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll suggest once again that, if you want to move articles based on foreign capitalization rules, you fill out a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Moving to change the capitalization is not necessarily a cut-and-dried case, because the rules of Wikipedia and the rules of Spanish may be different. It will be best to consult with other editors there. In the future, rather than listing a redirect for immediate deletion under article criteria, you can ask admins to take care of this kind of move for you there. Dekimasuよ! 00:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that a Wikipedia rule should not overwrite the official spelling rules of any foreign language. Obviously, if a title is in a foreign language, you must write it according to the rules of that language and not according to either the English or the Wikipedia rules. Regards, --El Mexicano (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

My point is just that the English Wikipedia works according to the rules of the English Wikipedia, which are decided upon by a consensus of editors--i.e., everyone. Standardization is an important part of the editing process. If you want to change the way something works, on the other hand, you're perfectly welcome to start a discussion and solicit opinions. That's why I've encouraged you to make a listing at Wikipedia:Requested moves. I turned down your request for speedy deletion because I'm not willing to make a unilateral decision in this case. "Tokyo" is spelled "東京" in Japanese, but we don't write it that way on the English Wikipedia. There may be a reason for this as well. Dekimasuよ! 00:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I passed it also to the Requested Moves page. The problem is that users are not supposed to understand that if a title (or any word or phrase or sentence) is not in English, you cannot apply English rules for that. You also know very well that I'm not talking about Japanese, Chinese or Arabic, obviously they are languages that use completely different writing systems, and it's evident that for the transcription of these languages you will use a conventional English rule. But Spanish is a language that uses the Latin alphabet, so there should not be a problem with writing Spanish titles or words as they should be written in that language. I tell you another example. The word "reconstruction" is spelled újjáépítés in Hungarian, my language. Then you wont write it as e.g. ouyaeypeetaish in English, right? That's the point. --El Mexicano (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are lots of arguments about whether or not to use diacritics on the English Wikipedia. One of the main criticisms is that most English speakers (and English Wikipedia encyclopedia users) don't know what sounds are made by í or đ or č. I don't always fall on one side or the other in those arguments, but if English usage differs from native usage—as evidenced by independent sources—we tend to follow English usage. It's a WP:V issue in that we ask for verifiability, not truth. "Tokyo" yields a pronunciation in English that would be wrong in Japanese, but we go with the established spelling (and established, if incorrect, pronunciation) here. The question with the title you mentioned is whether or not it has "become" English by virtue of widespread use in a particular form. Dekimasuよ! 03:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that "most English speakers don't know what sounds are made by í or č" is also not an excuse for not trying to write a foreign language title correctly. They are two independent things. Certainly, an English speaker may not know how to pronounce a foreign word correctly. But it does not mean that it could be written wrongly. :) (Btw: I've heard a native Japanese pronouncing the word Tokyo and it sounded like ['tokio:].) --El Mexicano (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's "kʲo", not "kio". But I don't know the IPA very well. Dekimasuよ! 09:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

PS: If we've talked about collaboration and suggestions, now you can see why I'm not supposed to collaborate in this Wikipedia. Because every time I come here to make a suggestion, nobody listens to me and nobody agrees with me, they're just telling their selfish points of view. Regards, --El Mexicano (talk) 07:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You are telling them it has to be that way because the Academy says so, but as I explained above, the title will be based upon English usage. Rather than trying to convince them to listen to the Academy, you should try to show them places it is capitalized that way--for example, on English websites. Dekimasuよ! 09:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

But it has no sense to talk about "English usage" when there is no English usage, since it's a Spanish phrase! --El Mexicano (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm presenting you with a practical solution to your problem, not arguing with you ideologically. Dekimasuよ! 23:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

B&G Oysters

Hi, Dekimasu, I had my post deleted for what was called "blatant advertisement," which was not my intention at all. How can I change it to a legitimate wikipedia entry? What can I include and what should I omit? Thanks! Rebecca —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebes74 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Rebecca. First, I've userfied the page that you had deleted, so you can now find it at User:Rebes74/B&G Oysters and work on it there before moving it back to the normal title. Second, the main reason why the article was deleted as an advertisement was that it appears to be written on behalf of the restaurant, rather than to evaluate it in an unbiased mannner. You'll want to remove the working hours and probably the address, since Wikipedia is not a directory. I understand that it has received awards, and that's a good step on the way towards showing that the restaurant is notable, but the remainder of the article also praises the restaurant or appears to represent personal opinion. For example, you wrote "classics clam-shack favorites", "showcasing her culinary education", and "a large part of B&G's appeal is...." Value judgments are only appropriate things for an article if you can present reliable sources showing that people have actually said those things. Finally, on the whole, you have presented sources, but they aren't generally sources that tell us all the things written in the article. I can't find anything from the sources noting that the restaurant has "18 glossy black barstools" or that "Cat Silirie has worked with Lynch for over 20 years". Let me know if you would like more help. Dekimasuよ! 03:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Chris Gardiner

Hi, I thought your speedy deletion of the page was uncalled for. We don't have a policy when it comes to curling articles, and since I am the main contributor when it comes to curling, I've sort of come up with guidelines when it comes to notability. The curler in question is a member of the World Curling Tour, which I would definitely ascertain as a top level in the sport, however it's not really a significant accomplishment per se. Going to the provincial championship certainly is, considering curling's popularity in Canada. I would liken Gardiner as an equivalent to perhaps an lower NHL player, in terms of significance for the sport. I hope this has helped. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queens_College&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.21.50 (talk • contribs)

I've left a comment at Talk:Queens College and another at WT:DAB, although my only edit to the page was a long time ago. Dekimasuよ! 00:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thanks for your help with this too. I responded to your comment on Talk:Queens College, and had I known about WT:DAB I would have gone there before this became a problem. Hewinsj (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Article deletion

You recently deleted the article Methionylglutaminylarginyl...serine citing G4 as the reason. The deletion logs show only your deletion and none about a listing on AFD or a discussion for deletion. Is it possible that this was deleted in error? If not can you put up the deletion log?--Ted-m (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The older version used a slightly shorter version of the name, so the deletion discussion is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methionylglutaminyl...serine. The editor who noticed the duplication and tagged it for deletion was User:Pare Mo. I apologize for not recognizing at the time that the deletion discussion was in a different place. Dekimasuよ! 00:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Lini simmons

hmm... well, I was going by http://www.google.com/search?q=Lini Simmons&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official which gives 0 results related to the subject. However, you are correct that it's not an obvious hoax (I read what it said incorrectly). My apologies for deleting it. Thingg^⊕⊗ 04:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

addendum: I thought it said she won some championship, which couldn't possibly be true if she had no hits. Thingg^⊕⊗ 04:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Volendam Windmill

Hi, it's pretty obvious to me, considering the notices and warning on the creators talk page, that this is a non-notable advertisement of a business. I have no issues with the decline of the speedy but have now put it up for a prod deletion instead. Thanks fr33kman -s- 05:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This looks like the correct progression of events for the article. The editor made a good-faith effort to take out anything that sounded like advertising before I reviewed the speedy. If he removes the prod tag, an AfD discussion seems appropriate. Dekimasuよ! 05:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll keep an eye out for it. Cheers fr33kman -s- 05:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Tokugawa Ieyasu

Hi Dekimasu. Now I'm interested in your name. Dekimasu sounds "Yes we can!".

Aside from this, look revision history of Tokugawa Ieyasu, the article was vandalised countless times by multiple unknown IPs. Please semi-protect Tokugawa Ieyasu.--Bukubku (talk) 08:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

There is some vandalism, but there's not such a high volume, and it's not all by IP users. I'll keep an eye on the page and protect it if it becomes necessary. Dekimasuよ! 03:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for catching my mistake. I tagged a few redirects for speedy deletion. Due to the non-Latin characters the author used they looked like no context / vandalism to me. The titles were rendered as "???" on my screen. I'm glad you figured out what was really happening and that you removed my tags.    SIS  22:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Amur

Concerning the Amur (disambiguation) page, no issues with what you did, except the writer, as many users look for people by their last name. speednat (talk) 07:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Crown of thorns

Yes, well done! Johnbod (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

South Korean and South Korean (disambiguation)

Hey, I noticed you created/restored the redirect from South Korean to South Korea, and placed the dablink on South Korea. I'm just wondering if you could clarify the rationale for that? Personally I don't really care one way or the other, but some people have been warring over it (removing the dablink from South Korea, and having South Korean be a disambiguation page) with the rationale that that is how other such pages work (like North Korean, Chinese, British, and what have you)...would it be better to do that, or was there a good reason for setting it up the way it is now?

Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Whereas something like "Italian" is often used to refer to citizenship (which would imply a link to Italy), ethnicity (which would imply a link to Italian people), and language, the phrases "North Korean" and "South Korean" terms aren't generally used to denote ethnic groups or languages, so there isn't such ambiguity. I think they are right that North Korean and South Korean should work the same way. I'll try the same with a redirect to North Korea and see if there are any complaints.

A large number of the edits that transformed redirects to the countries into dab pages were done by the same one or two editors, once, in October and November last year. It doesn't seem that they took actual ambiguity into account. Where there isn't ambiguity due to the mixing of citizenship and ethnicity and language, I have been changing those back. In terms of the other, rarer usages, the "Demographics of..." and "Culture of..." articles are linked in relevant sections of the main country articles, so linking to the parent doesn't seem inappropriate.

Hope this helps, and let me know if it doesn't or there is someone else I should talk to about the change. Dekimasuよ! 06:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with that reasoning—my intuition was that "South Korea" should go to "South Korean" since it doesn't denote an ethnic group/etc. like "Chinese" does. I was just confused because of the inconsistency with other articles, but it looks like you've got that under control now. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Question about a post at journal.mycom.co.jp

I'm trying to figure out if this http://journal.mycom.co.jp/column/ebook/077/ is a personal blog or if it is a review of The Manzai Comics from a respected publication. I can't tell who wrote the article and/or if he/she is a staff member of the website. Do you know if this website is a reviewer or if its something else? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The link is blocked from my current connection, so I can't look at it for you at the moment. I did already go through with the speedy delete of the page, though, because it was previously deleted through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Manzai Comics. I understand that most of the objections there were to sourcing, but you might want to contact the closing admin or even go to DRV instead of just putting up a new copy--someone will find it and tag it again, even if it's a substantially different version of the article. I removed the speedy tag from Atsuko Asano (writer), since I know that she's a notable writer, but you might want to start out with more cites there instead... not everyone reads Japanese novels. Dekimasuよ! 07:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I might contact the closing admin. Then again G4 says "A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." - So if there is sourcing (which would address the reason why the article was deleted), the article by principle should survive. Also I found a Yomiuri Shimbun article about Asano and her book, so that should help. Collectionian placed a notability tag on Asano's article; do you think I should find still more sources or is it okay to remove the notability tag? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I added one from Mainichi Shimbun and removed the tag. Dekimasuよ! 07:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :) WhisperToMe (talk) 08:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Japan#Is_this_a_column_from_a_respected_publication.2C_or_is_this_a_personal_blog.3F Mantokun looked at that link, and he says it is from "MYCOM Journal" of Mainichi Communications, which is an established company. He can't tell if the writer, On Ichii was a staff or a freelance. But if Mycom published it, would this make it an RS? Would this help satisfy the requirement for notability? WhisperToMe (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Like Mantokun says, the site is mostly a news portal run by Maicomi, in much the same vein as Yahoo!, but it isn't clear whether the writer was part of the staff or freelance. I have a connection at that company and I tried asking her, but she didn't know either. Maicomi does a little bit of everything, and their divisions were too far apart. At any rate, I would consider it as reliable as something pulled from Yahoo! that wasn't a Reuters or AP article. Dekimasuよ! 02:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Slam Dunk Award

File:SlamDunkActionShot3.jpg

Slakr's Slam Dunk Award For maintaining awesome cool, being completely professional, showing excellent judgment, and basically scoring a slam dunk (in my eyes) while dealing with a hot-tempered user on User talk:Amyseekuif, I hereby award you your very own slam dunk. Use it wisely. Don't waste it on schoolyard pickup games: save it for that game-winning, send-'em-packing moment. :P Heh, anyway, keep up the great work, and cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 12:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sets

Well, the situation was rectified on the same day with no harm done, so it's really not that big of a deal at this point. As for the questions, I do not think they are at all combative. I am happy to answer any questions regarding WP:RUSSIA's activities—they are a part of the collaborative process, so there is no need to apologize. I will post a reply to WT:DPL later today. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:11, February 27, 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Feel free to borrow the blimp :) It is still in mint condition.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:11, February 27, 2009 (UTC)

Template:Melakarta ragas

Kindly explain your edits to this template a little further, so that I can understand the basis for the "de-link" of names of chakras from the articles. Thanks. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 16:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

As an example, take the first link, Indu. Someone looking at the template and clicking on Indu would arrive at a disambiguation page, where they would be asked to choose the article they wanted to look at. They would then choose "Indu chakra", which is a link to Melakarta#Table of Melakarta ragas. If you arrive at that page, however, it gives you the same information you already had in the template: a list of the ragas in the Indu chakra.

The link to the Melakarta page is also already included through the link to Melakarta at the top of the template. If you really want to link people to Melakarta#Table of Melakarta ragas from things like "Indu", though, it would be all right to do it directly by piping the links and avoiding the disambiguation page. Adding the wikilinks led me to believe I could find more information on "Indu", etc. by clicking the links, but I don't really think that's the case here, so it was kind of frustrating for me when viewing the template. Dekimasuよ! 13:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Yes, these should go to a specific pages on the names and not disambiguation pages. Also, pointing to the Melakarta pages may be only last option - but the names are a significant choice (or for that matter all 12 names) - what it represents in being the first, second and so on. I will try to point them to correct pages to the extent possible and only for those where we don't have appropriate article, point it to the specific section. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 13:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Sumo

I've noticed your edits on pages relating to the sport of Sumo. We encourage you to join WikiProject Sumo where we are working to expand, improve, and standardize all articles related to sumo on Wikipedia. If you would like more information on what needs to be done, please visit the project page. If you have any questions, please feel free join the discussion on our talk page

XinJeisan (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Modern Hebrew poetry

Hi Dekimasu! Unfortunately I don't have much knowledge on the subject, and don't have sources on it either. The Hebrew Wikipedia doesn't have such an article. Basically the most prominent modern Hebrew poet by far was Haim Nahman Bialik. Other major figures include Shaul Tchernihovsky, Avraham Shlonsky, Natan Alterman, Rachel (poet), Leah Goldberg, Uri Tzvi Greenberg, etc. More recent poets include Natan Yonatan and Natan Zach. I can give you a translation of the Hebrew section for modern poetry from the Hebrew poetry article if you wish, and possibly write a short stub to that effect later, although it's better if some sources are found first. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Translation

The modern Hebrew poetry was pioneered by Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, and it was developed by the Haskalah movements, that saw poetry as the most quality genre for Hebrew writing. The first Haskalah poet, who heavily influenced the later poets, was Naphtali Hirz Wessely, at the end of the 18th Century, and after him came Shalom HaCohen, Max Letteris, Abraham Dob Bär Lebensohn, his son Micah Joseph, Judah Leib Gordon and others. The Haskalah poetry was greatly influenced by the contemporary European poetry, as well as the poetry of the previous ages, especially Biblical poetry, but was not able to make significant innovations. It was mostly a didactic form of poetry, and dealt with the world, the public, and the contemporary trends, and did not cater to the individual or the soul. In the age after the Haskalah, the prominent poets were Hovevei Zion, including for example Naftali Herz Imber, who wrote HaTikva.

The revolution of Hebrew poetry was ushered in the last decade of the 19th Century by Haim Nahman Bialik and Shaul Tchernihovsky. They let go of the genre principles that were widely accepted at their time, and began writing personal poems, about the human being and the soul. In the national revival period, many arose as the literary heirs to Bialik, in various genres. In the 1920s and 30s, the weight of the Hebrew poetry moved from Europe to the Land of Israel. Women became prominent poets (Yokheved Bat Miryam, Esther Ra'av, Rachel and others), and an expressionist genre developed (especially Uri Zvi Greenberg and David Fogel). In the 1930s and 40s, a neo-symbolic style emerged as well, in Avraham Shlonsky, then Natan Alterman, and then the Palmach age. In the 1950s, the "State of Israel age" was active and rebelled against the style of Shlonsky and Alterman, with the poets Natan Zakh, David Avidan, Yehuda Amihai and Dalya Ravikovich. Along with these, there was a line of religious poets, such as Yosef Zvi Rimon, Zelda, and the religious generation of the end of the 20th Century.

This is an article

Thanks for taking those NA's out - appreciated - SatuSuro 05:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Closure of move request

I was surprised to see you closed Talk:Little Englander#Move? as "no consensus"; my reading of the debate seems to suggest there was a reasonable consensus in favour of no move. Shouldn't the closing comment reflect this, per the recently closed Talk:Michael Van Patrick#Requested move for example? --Rogerb67 (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I and many of the other older participants at WP:RM only close move requests as "consensus to move" (per request, page moves) or "no consensus to move" (request fails, page stays). The question to me is whether the proposal has consensus or not. Some of the newer closers may do things differently, since there are no official rules for closing move requests except for those grounded in policy. I try to point out that this is how things have usually been done whenever I notice people talking about distinguishing between "consensus not to move" and "no consensus to move" (maybe most recently at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Proposal: be more clear about dab pages), but standardization isn't strictly necessary. Dekimasuよ! 23:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

OK fine, it just seemed strange to me to close it like that when there is a clear consensus positively choosing to keep it where it is. I suppose everyone has a different viewpoint. Cheers, --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Parents' Choice Award

As a heads up, I have restored this article. If you have kids and live in the US, you would know that this is a very high profile award. I've also added references to third-party sources to establish the notability. じゃあね～ howcheng {chat} 17:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I was mostly taking issue with the fact that products using its tag were describing it as an important award (which isn't surprising), while I couldn't find third-party sources. Dekimasuよ! 00:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

More Jessica Liao socks

CheckUser has confirmed that User:Academiic (and User:Deskaheed, as it turns out) are the most recent socks for Jessica Liao. The case is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jessica Liao. You were the last admin to block one of her socks; if you get this message in the next few days, perhaps you'd like to consider these two new ones, as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been taken care of by another admin. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I will try to keep an eye on things. Dekimasuよ! 05:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much for your efforts in paring down the WP:RM backlog, especially after my bot made it twice as large.

—harej (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Dekimasuよ! 09:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

Hey, I saw this when going through the RM backlog; as an admin, you don't need to place the speedy tag before deleting it.--Aervanath (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I did delete the page, then restored it and placed the speedy tag because I thought it might be better to have a second set of eyes on the page. I know it creates a little more work for everyone else, but I did go through a lot of other things on CSD and RM today to try and make up for it. Dekimasuよ! 15:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know exactly WHY you would go about deleting my entries on both Outer Space Entertainment AND about founder Jay Luciano. This seems to be the work of someone with disregard towards Hip-Hop and the Hip-Hop community, and that is not a valid reason for deletion. A mass of people have requested more information about the label, and Google reports the name being searched in the month of April over 100'000 times. If you sir, do not find that of substantial reason enough to restore the page, i can only see the reason fitting to be a lack of knowledge towards the subject and a strong distaste for Hip-Hop and it's community. Outer Space is becoming a strong force in the music industry, and your deletion of the page will only cause an uproar on wikipedia by fans such as myself. I've noticed you have made many contributions to wikipedia, which you deserve outstanding credit for but as far as your dismissal of Outer Space Entertainment and it's accomplishments is insulting to the many fans across North America and Europe. Please inform us what other than your obvious distaste of rap music and it's pioneers would cause you take such disrespectful actions. If you ever visited South Florida (Miami and it's surroundings), you would be familiarized with Outer Space and Luciano's work on the radio. For an Independent record label founded by one person to receive mainstream success in under a year is far from not being important and worthy of an article.

Sincerly, Benjamin Chase -New York, NY Jayluciano (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

First, you might like to take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Your username indicates that you may be personally involved with the subject, or be the subject of the article yourself (I do understand that your signature above indicates that you are not Jay Luciano). Second, you should take a look at Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (music). As the articles stood at the time of their deletion, they had no references from reliable sources, and there was no indication that such sources independent of the subject might indicate that the subjects are notable. The level generally expected of articles on musicians is a charted single, a major award nomination, or coverage in newspapers, books, and magazines. Internet hits are generally not a reliable indicator of notability. Finally, I did not suggest that your articles be deleted. I simply responded to suggestions that they might fulfill the community's criteria for inclusion, and found that as written, they did not fulfill those criteria. I believe that you are aware of this, because a message to that effect was left on your talk page. The articles did not indicate why their subjects were significant, and in fact indicated that any significance was based on unsourced rumors of a buyout of the label. These things should not be taken to mean that the topics will not be added to Wikipedia at some point, but simply that certain standards have yet to be met. Thank you for your time, and I know it must be frustrating to have your work removed. Dekimasuよ! 15:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

one little question

Hello, at Talk:No_Nonsense#Move.3F, I have a small doubt about one sentence. A simple "yes" or "no" would suffice. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. In this case, the answer is yes. I've replied there as well. Dekimasuよ! 00:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Shirley Temple

Hello! Re: the recent discussion to move the article from Shirley Temple to Shirley Temple Black, seven people opposed or strongly opposed the proposal, while only two supported it, yet you determined "the result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page." Can you explain why you feel there was "no consensus" when seven out of nine opinions supported keeping the article as is? Thank you! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Dekimasu, I saw #Closure_of_move_request above and then this note; I think you can see that some people are confused by your closing messages. You may want to start to consider differentiating between not moved (i.e. consensus against a move) and a bona fide no consensus close (i.e. no consensus either way). Since this is the standard across most other discussions (e.g. XFDs), and that's the way I and previous RM admins have done closures, you may want to change your practice to fit people's expectations. There is no policy on this, of course, but it'll probably save you having to explain yourself 100 times. :) Cheers,--Aervanath (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Nicholas (2003)

Hi. I reverted your move of Tropical Storm Nicholas (2003), as, in general, all non-retired storms should have the year disambiguation per project standards. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not how I read the project's naming section, so you may want to clarify this on that page. It says, "If a name has been used only once (or is being used for the first time) and is not warranting an article, it should be created as a redirect to that season (e.g. Tropical Storm Sebastien redirects to 1995 Atlantic hurricane season)." It seems that this is why the plain title is redirecting to 2003 Atlantic hurricane season. However, there is an article on the topic, and someone who enters the search term "Tropical Storm Nicholas" is undoubtedly more interested in the individual storm than in the 2003 hurricane season as a whole, so I think the previous redirect was unfortunate. You might also be referring to the section that states, "Less infamous (i.e. non-retired) hurricanes may have a separate page distinguished by year (e.g. Hurricane Bertha (1996)), especially if it must be differentiated (e.g. Tropical Storm Bret (1993) and Hurricane Bret (1999)). The general rule is that if the name is retired, it should have the main article, otherwise it should be distinguished by year." I don't understand the distinction being made between "distinguish" and "differentiate" here. It says that they may be distinguished by year, but it doesn't say that they must be, and I still don't see what there is to distinguish it from. Forgive me if my tone is a little off here; I didn't have much time to write this note, and WP:DAB (which is a guideline) deprecates preemptive disambiguation. Dekimasuよ! 04:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but at least the way I understand it, we should strive for consistency in this case. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Quaternary Recovery

You recently denied my request for a-7 on Quaternary Recovery, and given the facts at the time I think you made the right decision. Since then, I decided to help fix it. The article has taken an interesting turn, as you can see from the talk page. I'd like to mentor the new user into a future contributor to Wikipedia. But I may need some help. Would you be willing to lend a helping hand? Or am I just a silly optimist?--Work permit (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I see you've given up, but I think I'll listen in. It's been a while since I've used my EARS. Dekimasuよ! 05:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm going to sleep--Work permit (talk) 05:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

R1Soft and CDP Agent Deletions

Hi, I would like to request a temporary review. Could you please send me the deleted articles? I intended to add them to another wiki today. Also, I added these pages to provide context for the CDP Server page and include R1Soft on the list of proprietary Backup software. I feel like the description of company and product was very objective, no words like "affordable" or other promotional words were used. Was it the brief history section?

Just trying to understand so I can learn how to create a more accepted and useful page.

Looking forward to your response

Jenlynne (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Both articles were tagged for speedy deletion under our deletion policy, and I reviewed the requests by outside editors. There were a number of factors that contributed to my decision. In the case of the "CDP Agent" article, I believe my decision was a bit hasty, so I have moved the information to the correct section of the CDP Server article. The CDP Server article remains very short and there isn't a need at this time to branch out from it; people who search for "CDP Agent" will be directed to CDP Server. However, the main reasons I deleted the article were that I had reviewed the R1Soft request already and deleted it as promotional, that I noted that both articles were written by the same editor, and that you had removed the template requesting deletion from both article pages. Please do not remove deletion templates from pages. The correct procedure is to add Template:Hangon to the article page, as was noted on your talk page at the time. Removing deletion templates from your own articles gives the impression that you are attempting to subvert the deletion process to ensure that your articles remain on Wikipedia, and this is also one thing that can lead to the impression that an article is meant to be promotional in nature.

In the case of the R1Soft article, the first thing that I noticed was the large number of external links to the R1Soft website, where the company does business, which lends the appearance that you are trying to direct traffic to the website. I next noted the use of second-person pronouns, which lend the appearance of a business relationship between the author and reader of the article. I wonder if you have a connection to the company, particularly since this is the only area in which you have chosen to edit; if so, I'd appreciate it if you would take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which describes our policies on editing subjects in which you are personally invested. I finally noted what did appear to be promotional language in the article, designed to put the products in the best possible light: "well-known product", "ultimate performance", "no interruption... even on a busy server", "[everything] needed for complete and instant disaster recovery", "protects... mission-critical servers". In general, these sorts of descriptions are all right to add to Wikipedia articles if you can present unbiased, third-party sources who have said such things (for example, "John Doe of The New York Times commended the "ultimate performance" of the product" with a citation at the end). If they are your personal opinion or the opinion of the company itself, they are generally inappropriate for Wikipedia. Actually, I did not have any major issues with the section on the history of the company in that context.

The previous contents of the CDP Agent article are available by clicking the history tab there, although I would advise against recreating the article. I'll put the "R1Soft" article at User:Jenlynne/R1Soft for your personal use. Just please be advised that it is unlikely to be accepted in the main article space here in its present condition. If you do work with the company in some capacity, I'd say that if the company is notable according to Wikipedia's standards, someone without a connection to the company is likely to write the article in the future.

I hope this explanation has been helpful to you. Dekimasuよ! 02:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is my first article so this explanation has been helpful. Thanks! Jenlynne (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Christian cult move and text

6 June 2009

(Move log); 12:06 . . Dekimasu ... moved Christian cult (disambiguation) to Christian cult (plain title, per WP:MDP and WP:DAB)

The problem is that your routine move makes a bad situation worse. Please reverse it and help fix the growing mess.

Before it was even over, Dbachmann violated the severally-declared snow Keep consensus of a "Christian cult" AfD. Here's my full explanation: [64][65]

Dbachmann has a personal POV objection to the article's notable, consensed title (not the first time: "...no consensus to support move"). He misused his tools to force implemention of his POV (not the first time: WP:RFAR/Dbachmann: "Dbachmann is reminded to avoid using his administrative tools in editorial disputes in which he is personally involved...").

{{{1}}}

Please restore the classic article's currently unconsensed title to the consensus title "Christian cult" as approved by AfD Keep, then restore the "Christian cult" article to its original referenced condition [66] before Dbachmann overlayed it with unreferenced text (disguised by heavy wikilinking) – by transfering his overlay text [67] to a stub with the title "Christian new religious movements". (Please reply here if desired) Milo 16:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my understanding, AfD doesn't determine the location or content of articles. I do not want to be involved in arguments about the content of the article. However, I do see where you are coming from and I also appreciate that you would like someone (or some group) to review these actions. Most importantly, you've shown that there was a previous discussion about the title of the article that resulted in leaving the article at "Christian cult". Wikipedia:Requested moves notes that "if there has been any past debate about the best title for the page, or if anyone could reasonably disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial [and create a new place for discussion before moving the article]." Thus the article should be moved back to Christian cult, and then Dbachmann can request a move if he wants. But because I would like to avoid the appearance of participating in a wheel war, I will contact Dbachmann first. Dekimasuよ! 18:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for undoing your procedural move. I agree that the next step you've suggested is reasonable.

"AfD doesn't determine the location or content of articles." Perhaps not technically, but those things are done in practice to avoid deletion. Merges are frequent AfD outcomes that affect both location and content.

A central issue in this case is a violation of WP:GAME. When AfD participants vote to "keep", they are voting to keep a particular name and a general content as reliably referenced. When both get radically changed after most of the AfD participants have snow voted "keep" and departed, that is a backdoor deletion by abuse of process and consensus. Also for this reason, a requested moves vote immediately following a snow "keep" AfD is process and consensus abusive. Milo 22:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• first of all, if there is a problem with an article, the traditional approach is to use the article talkpage, in this case Talk:Christian new religious movements
• secondly, the move was fully above-the-board, and was the result of the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian cult (2nd nomination).
• thirdly, I resent the belligerent approach of a user with whom I have never interacted before, who did not bother to as much as drop me a note, and who digs out an ancient and dubious arbitration case completely out of context to try and smear my reputation just to support his opinion on some article move. This isn't wikilike at all. If Milomedes has a case to make, let them make it at article talk. If there is a genuine problem, I am sure we will come to an understanding. So far, I can only see wikilawyering and uncalled-for animosity.
• finally, I see no valid argument is being presented against the existence of a "Christian new religious movements". If Milomedes feels we need a "Christian cult" article with a more narrow scope focussing on "cults" exclusively, he is free to branch that title out again, which will essentialy amount to a {{split-section}} of Christian new religious movements#Groups_classified_as_.22Christian_cults.22_in_government_sources. There isn't necessarily a problem with such an account, but I see no need for the split at this stage of the article's development.

I do not have any "pov" in this, and I resent the passing implication that I do. It is beyond me what my "pov" is even supposed to be. My involvement here is entirely dedicated to WP:NAME. The primary meaning of the string "Christian cult" is Christian religious ceremony. The low-brow meaning of "cult" as "zomg evil psycho-sect" has notability, but it cannot be treated as the primary meaning and needs to be properly disambiguated, and needs to be classified under Category:Pejoratives just like our Nigger article. Wikipedia doesn't call religious movements "cults" any more than it calls people "niggers", it simply reports quotable sources that call something a "cult". --dab (𒁳) 07:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure whether your first comment was directed at me, but the same is true for move requests -- they are traditionally discussed on the article's talk page -- and the only move discussion linked at Talk:Christian new religious movements shows little support for a move. I understand that there was some support for moving the article expressed at the deletion discussion, but it's not clear to me that it amounts to a consensus decision, and the fact that you had previously requested the same move creates the impression that bias may have been a factor. I am still hoping that we can use the normal move procedure in order to come to an understanding. There is no unsurpassable problem with leaving the page with where it is for now and having the move request be for a move to Christian cult. However, please be aware of Wikipedia:Moving guidelines for administrators: "Sometimes a requested move results from opposition to a recent bold move from a long existing name that cannot be undone. Where there is no consensus on these types of moves, administrators may move the article back to the most recent stable name." Thus, a "no consensus" close for that request would result in moving the page back to the old title. And I'd also like to make it clear that I'm uncomfortable with that setup. If you were not an administrator, any of the regulars at Wikipedia:Requested moves would have reverted the page to the old title. It is good to avoid wheel warring, of course, but the fact that we're not reverting you as a matter of course here can only lend credence to the frequently voiced objection that administrators get special treatment. Dekimasuよ! 08:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I count roughly 8 editors at the AfD who expressed a preference for keeping the title "Christian cult", 4 editors who expressed a preference for a move, and 7 who were mostly unclear or suggested merging the page with Christian cult (disambiguation). I know numbers aren't everything. But I don't see enough evidence of consensus for a move at the deletion discussion, and you expressed your own opinion there, which makes it seem inappropriate for you to determine the outcome of the discussion. Dekimasuよ! 08:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"...a user with whom I have never interacted before..." Dbachmann/dab has a faulty memory. Here is a list of seven posts in which we collectively interacted well prior to the Christian cult AfD, 23 May 2009:

Talk:Christian cult#Merge or move

dab 07:57, 16 August 2008

Milo 10:37, 16 August 2008

Milo 21:45, 16 August 2008

dab 15:47, 20 August 2008

Talk:Christian cult#Fixing synthesis issue

Milo 05:37, 19 August 2008

dab 15:44, 20 August 2008

Talk:Christian cult#Removal of sourced text and addition of list controversy

Milo 06:35, 21 August 2008

Milo 19:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The disambiguation of Kanye

I am really not that interested, but I would like to see one reliable source that refers to Kanye West as "Kanye" apart from his mother. I work in the music industry and I have never heard of anyone refer to him as plain "Kanye". Disambiguation seems more appropriate given that in it is a popular/common name in at least one region of the world. We don't have other common names go straight to an individual - try Mark, Peter or John, or more relevantly, even Madonna. Mfield (Oi!) 21:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not sure we usually need to back redirects up with reliable sources (they are just navigation tools), if you do a Google News search for Kanye -"Kanye West" you will get a large number of hits. Some are from less reliable sources; others are from Rolling Stone, MTV, The Sun, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Daily News, Entertainment Weekly, Village Voice, etc. While most of these aren't written in a formal style and some are from quotes rather than in running text, they exhibit that many people are referring to Kanye West when they say "Kanye". And unlike Mark, Peter, John, or even Madonna, there is only one person on Wikipedia whose name is "Kanye", per Allpages. Dekimasuよ! 00:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of article on Donna Meistrich

Hi Dekimasu,

We understand that you deleted the article we set up about Donna Meistrich. The reason given was: (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject).

Donna is the co-creator of an up-coming television show called Tacky People. They currently run teasers on their website. She practices various art forms professionally and has worked with the biggest names in Hollywood. These facts are mentioned in the article to highlight her significance. As part our marketing campaign for the launch of the new show, we set up Donna's Wikipedia entry. It is our opinion that Donna is at least as significant as some of the other people with bios on wikipedia. In all fairness, we request you to reconsider deleting her article.

Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolfalmao (talk • contribs) 05:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

None of that gives reason to create a wikipedia page. When "Tacky People" is released we can see how notable it is, but as of now there is no notability or importance evident. Making jewelry for Hollywood stars is certainly not noteworthy, I could do that myself, doesn't mean that I should have a page on wiki, especially as none of the references you listed actually backed up these claims. magnius (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Two editors expressed their concerns with the notability of the article, including User:Magnius, who suggested that it be deleted. I reviewed this deletion request and did not find a significant claim of notability. Wikipedia:Notability shows our basic standards for inclusion. In general, an article should show that the topic has been covered to a significant extent in reliable, third-party sources. The major claim made by the article which you submitted is that Ms. Meistrich is one of the creators of a program that has yet to be aired. This makes it unlikely that such sources are readily available at this time. You can try to write another article that contained such sources if they are available to you. However, I would advise against that as well, because you have implied that the article was related to a marketing campaign, which indicates that you may have a conflict of interest as pertains to the article in question. It is certainly possible that when the show airs, a Wikipedia editor may find the subject to be notable and write an article on it.

I have another suggestion as well. You inserted many, many external links into the article. At first glance, they might have been seen as attempts at citation; however, you were in actuality only inserting external links to the things themselves. For example, you said that Ms. Meistrich has worked with Harley Davidson. Adding an external link to the Harley Davidson website does not help us verify that statement. Unsourced statements are strongly discouraged by our policy on biographies of living people. Other links appeared designed to drive traffic to the "Tacky People" site, which is strongly discouraged if you are involved with the program, and can even be considered spam. Dekimasuよ! 13:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Judicial Review

Hey, thanks for pitching in at Judicial Review. However, the changes you're making are conflicting with the goals we set out on the discussion page at Judicial Review. We decided to create independent pages for each country, and I'm in the process of doing that now. If you'd like to propose an alternative, please mention it at the discussion page. thanks. Agradman (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I saw redlinks and figured they were unintentional, so I piped them to the place where the information was. I don't object to creating new articles. Dekimasuよ! 03:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Uncontested move requests

Hey, I saw this. If there's no objections to the move, then just go ahead and do it. If there's no other participation in the discussion, it likely means that no one else cares, so you can treat it as uncontroversial. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I chose not to. In the case you mention, there are lots of other articles about this earl's successors that also use camel caps. Relisting the discussion was the result of balancing the lack of objections with the inconsistency that would be created by moving the article, and wanted to see more actual discussion. I suppose I could have made a comment to that effect, but I was probably in the process of clearing out several entries from the backlog and overlooked it. Dekimasuよ! 03:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Las Vegas Stars

While you are correct about the team still being active (I didn't read the article just looked at the IBL's website and they were gone), they no longer compete in the International Basketball League. Generally, when teams drop out of the IBL, they have gone defunct and I could've sworn I had read that somewhere. According to the article, they are now playing exhibition games, so I'm not sure what "league" to give them on the Nevada Sports template. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 04:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe "Ind" for independent? There's another team on the template with that designation, although it's a redlink. Dekimasuよ! 04:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

WB

As much as I respect your judgment, I think you made a mistake with WB. I find it hard to believe that an Indian cable channel is the primary topic for this title; Warner Brothers alone is certainly a more common usage, and there are many others. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Argh. I clearly made a mistake and should have checked WB Channel to be sure it was what I was looking for. I thought it was the rebranded name of The WB Television Network, but that's The CW Television Network; I would guess that the American television network is the primary topic, but I'll probably leave it alone now that I've missed once. I've undone my edit. Dekimasuよ! 11:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

International Commission...

Hello, if you google its old name: International Commission of Agricultural Engineering, you will be able to establish its Notability: http://www.google.com/search?q=international commission of agricultural engineering&hl=zh-CN&lr=&start=10&sa=N regards, --Jhjlj (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

For you

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jessica Liao again. I'm hoping to get this pair into the "checkuser confirmed" category. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this looks like another clear case of socking. Since Jessica sometimes accesses Wikipedia through computers at libraries, even if the IP addresses don't match, I'd be inclined to block based upon the contributions. You point out that her original block was for socking and wonder if someone would be willing to unblock her main account, but she's really never shown any willingness to admit that she's done anything wrong. Having explicitly denied socking again in the last case and then getting caught by checkuser, I doubt there would be many people willing to unblock her. The best we've been able to do is keep down the number of socks that she's using at any given time to close to one, to prevent the socks from backing each other up. Dekimasuよ! 09:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we can really say that she 'explicitly denied socking': I think she simply said that she wasn't a vandal.

I'm about to run out of patience with the SPI folks. We now have 33K of trying to convince her that special education cannot be defined as the act of putting some kids (e.g., herself) into a self-contained classroom. This seems to be important to her because she's doing poorly in college and wants to blame the physical location of her previous education instead of her own disabilities.

And, no, of course it's not working. She can't be reasoned out of her POV (because she was never reasoned into it), and the complete absence of sources don't seem to phase her one bit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Most of the time she just says she's not a vandal, but the cases I can remember off the top of my head where she denied socking were User:Risa1991 and User:G2ace. The talk pages of those accounts have since been deleted, though. You can revert any problems she's introduced to the article once the sock is blocked, noting that she is avoiding a block to edit. As for trying to change her mind about either the articles she edits or the way she socks, I agree that it doesn't seem likely to be effective. Dekimasuよ! 03:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

And I'm sure that it's against Wikipedia's policies to call her parents, tell them that she's been banned for repeated abuse, and ask them to pay a little more attention to what she's doing on the Internet. At least, I'm telling myself that, over and over again, although I haven't actually found such a policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

And we're done, for this round. She admitted on the SPI page that she's the same editor, and she is (finally) trying to figure out the appeal process. One snag I hadn't predicted (but should have) is that she almost certainly needs to demonstrate a year of compliance with the ban before an appeal can be considered. I'm unconvinced that she'll be willing/able to do so... but we'll see. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Dekimasu

Hi. I'm attempting to verify your statement. Could you fix the link to "negotiate blocks or bans, represent [its members] at arbitration, and support [them] in content issues"? This not something I remember or ever endorsed though it may have come up somewhere. Regards and thanks. --Kleinzach 09:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This was near the top of the association page (not the talk page) for about three days before User:Peter Damian blanked the page, and the page went from 2K to 22K over that period without anyone removing the phrase. The link was still functional and the page still up when I submitted my statement, but now I've switched to a permalink per your request. The permalink is the first revision that contains the statement from the period when I was paying attention to the page, but it also existed in earlier ones before the first blanking on June 14; see, for example this on June 1. Thank you for your polite message despite the fact that we seem to disagree on this issue. Dekimasuよ! 09:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Madness Script

Hi. I'm just wondering. You deleted the article for not following A7... But Madness Script is neither a person, organization or Web content? It's a programming language so I'm just wondering how it falls under that criteria? I would agree that it ain't very known and there is only one source (the creators web page) for mscript which makes it unreliable since it's only one source. But isn't the given criteria wrong?

My friend worked hard to make that article ^^

Sorry for not writing with my account. Lost my old email so can't restore password :P Send your response to [email protected] Thx!

Sincerely, Groogy.

Hello. Hopefully a reply here will be sufficient; you are correct. At the time I reviewed the article, I understood Madness Script to be equivalent to an organization that was developing it, but having reviewed the website links, I see that's not the case. It was my mistake, and I've restored the article. I've placed a different proposed deletion tag on the article, because I still don't believe it meets our notability criteria. You might wish to review and possibly remove the template, but I doubt that the article would pass a full deletion discussion. I assume that your friend is User:Sentroy? If Sentroy contacts me, I could instead move the article to the userspace (User:Sentroy/Madness Script or something similar) until notability can be established. Dekimasuよ! 13:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

William Robertson

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#British peerage No. 4 Baronets, the form Sir Wiliam Robertson, 1st Baronet is acceptable when disambiguation is required. David Underdown (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that you are correct. I was unaware that there was a more specific convention than what is related in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), so I'll keep that in mind in the future. Is disambiguation really required here, however? He had been considered the primary topic of the search term "William Robertson" until now. Dekimasuよ! 15:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the list, I'm not sure anyone really has an undoubted claim to primacy. He's not one of the better known British Field Marshals, perhaps strangely, I haven't looked at incoming links though, it may be that the vast majority of links here do mean him. David Underdown (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a large number of the links to the main title are due to templates. I'll try linking those to the longer title and then we can see what the rest of the links intend. Dekimasuよ! 01:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yo!

Hi, I saw the kana for 'YO' in your signature and thought I'd just click on it to see what would happen . . .

I'm a computer programmer, and I've written software in Java (and Javascript) to transliterate between romaji and kana (and back). (I'm also the guy who initially programmed the {{age}} template which is used in tens of thousands of Wikipedia biographical articles.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed you around, of course. I don't really have any computer programming experience, but it seems like it must be difficult to program in all the conditional romanizations (ん going from N to M before B, etc.), depending on what romanization style you used. We're always looking for new opinions at WT:MOS-JP, so it would be nice to hear from you sometimes there. Most recently there's been an argument about how or whether to distinguish between オー and オウ when romanizing. Dekimasuよ! 23:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Primary Topic

Hi, please see my comments about this topic at WT:Disambiguation#Primary_topic_uber_alles. I think we have lost the definition of "Primary Topic." (John User:Jwy talk) 16:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I think there are a lot of different opinions floating around, but that doesn't necessarily mean any of us are wrong about what constitutes a primary topic. There just isn't a good consensus for how that section of WP:DAB should read right now. Things were traditionally treated on a case-by-case basis, so we can do that until we can figure out something better. Dekimasuよ! 23:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm working to come up with that something better. May be too early, but I think the discussion is going well. Join us if you have interest and see something we are missing. (John User:Jwy talk) 01:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Japanese cultural artifacts controversy

If you have any interest in the matter, please read my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese cultural artifacts controversy (2nd nomination), and then go ahead and look at the all-new version of Japanese cultural artifacts controversy. I would like to know if this radical change might change some minds. Unschool 03:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Gambling

I don't suppose that you've noticed Special:Contributions/Alchaenist? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, the first three edits (creating two articles) were blatant copyright infringement of this page. I'll keep my eye on the situation. Dekimasuよ! 07:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The investigation just finished: see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jessica_Liao.

I assume that Jessica noticed the SPI, because she "retired" a few hours ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of move of peer-to-peer

Thank you for your action. I fully support your reversal of the recent move. Would you also please delete the redirect created in the move back, i.e., delete Peer-to-peer (network architecture), as this classification is not proper, P2P is a distributed application architecture and not a network architecture, P2P can be implemented on many different network architectures in the common sense of the term network architecture. Kbrose (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable deleting the redirect unilaterally, because I know there's at least one person who disagrees. You might want to consider WP:RFD if the current request to move the page back to the new title at Talk:Peer-to-peer fails. Dekimasuよ! 23:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

P2P is an overlay network technology. It is not necessarily application layer technology in fact, although all the common ones are.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Nassau and Suffolk Learning Centers

Why did you delete the articles? It had references so therefore it can be improved. Is it possible that we can paraphrase it rather copy from word to word? I have seen articles where editors have copied it word to word but provided references to it. --Alchaenist (talk) 01:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said, they were copyright violations. If you see other articles that are copyright violations, they should be deleted as well. You can tag them for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G12. At any rate, it would be inadvisable to recreate the articles without references from third-party sources to demonstrate notability. Dekimasuよ! 01:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If all secondary schools are considered notable, there is no reason to make this an exception. Its existence is easily verified through, for example, this official school website: [68]. Wikimapia even has a picture of it: [69], [70] Forget it I won't win this argument. There isn't enough references to make it notable. --Alchaenist (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it's non-notable, but rather that you should have third-party sources for what you add (note that the school's website is not a third-party source), and that it should not be copyright infringement. Dekimasuよ! 02:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I meant that it wasn't notable for Wikipedia. It certainly is notable in the school community. But that doesn't matter. I got it now. Not all schools should have its own article if it doesn't have third-party sources. A school website is not one of them. It needs more references other than the school website. And that editors cannot plagiarize. However, they can write it in their own words. Thanks for taking the time to help me understand this. --Alchaenist (talk) 02:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Resident Evil Franchise

I'll just keep this short....thank you for using my idea of editing release dates and putting it into their own cause it shows that some people here are appreciating my work....thank you. :) 69.125.30.234 (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Vector

Sorry for the reverting! I thought I already did it and thought that I did not hit the save button. Again sorry for the work.--Stone (talk) 04:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Village School (Great Neck, New York)

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Village School (Great Neck, New York) (2nd nomination). Thank you. Alchaenist (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

'Doru' page

You changed the 'Doru' page from a disambiguation page (pointing to 2 items - to a Romanian name and to 'Dory spear') to a indirection pointing only to 'Dory spear'.
Two problems:
1) There's absolutely no relation between 'Dory spear' and 'Doru', and you enforced this mistake. Check update at 18:50, 14 April 2008 by T.elias13. Please provide a link between 'Doru' and 'Dory spear' or remove the 'Doru'->'Dory spear' indirection.
2) 'Doru' does mean something: it's a Romanian name. Check just one reference here. That's exactly the association that you cut out. Why?
Doruuu

Disambiguation pages and redirects are tools for navigation, and they aren't related to statements of fact. As far as a link between "Dory" and "Doru", I don't know which is correct, nor have I looked into it at all. However, a Google search for "Doru" shows that many people do use it to refer to the spear. This makes it significant to note from a navigational standpoint; as was alluded to by T.elias13, we want people to get to the articles they're searching for, and the validity of what they type into the search box is a secondary concern. As far as the removal of the statement that "Doru is a Romanian name", there does not appear to be a Wikipedia article on the topic. There were no links in the line, and since disambiguation pages are for navigation and not for content, preemptive disambiguation is discouraged. You might want to consider writing an article on the name, if it is common and notable, but as it stands, there is only one article target to be linked from "Doru", which makes a redirect more appropriate than a disambiguation page. Dekimasuよ! 01:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've got it. Makes sense. I added the page "Doru (name)" and made "Doru" again disambiguation page. Hope this time it's ok. Thanks. --Doruuu (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

"Judaization of Jerusalem" move

Hi there. I've been away for a couple of months and was surprised to come back and find that you closed a 3rd move request for this article by invoking WP:NPOV, claiming that the original title was not netural. (Have you have not seen the articles on Judaization of the Galilee or Judaization?). Anyway, I searched for evidence from reliable sources attesting to the non-neutrality of this particular phrase, but could not find anything on the talk page or in the larger virtual arena. Would you mind explaining which scholarly sources informed your decision? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 11:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I did not make any claims myself, nor (and please do not take offense at this) do I have any special interest in the subject, so I cannot point you to scholarly sources that informed my decision. It is generally considered good form for the closer of a requested move to be someone who is uninvolved in the discussion, just as in deletion debates. When closing the requested move, my task was rather to enunciate the consensus view and then to evaluate it in terms of policies and guidelines, which is what you can see in the closing statement at the top of the request. If you feel that this move was incorrect on procedural grounds (that I misinterpreted the consensus), you might be interested in asking for a review of my close at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves. If you think that the views of the editors expressed on the talk page were in error, you can feel free to initiate another move request or further discussion at the article's talk page in order to convince them of such. Dekimasuよ! 11:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response (and no offense taken by your lack of special interest in the topic). From your comments, I understand that you took the opinions being expressed by some editors regarding the offensiveness of the term at face value and that you did not look into whether these feelings were reflected in scholarly literature on the subject. There was no strong consensus that the term was not neutral, a fact reflected in your closing comments which invoked WP:NPOV as tipping you towards accepting the move request. And yet, with no evidence that Judaization of Jerusalem violates NPOV, your decision is based simply on a privileging of some editors' opinions that the term is not neutral. Nevertheless, I do appreciate your response and will either re-open the discussion at the article talk page, open a new move request or bring it to the requested moves talk page where the decision can be reviewed. Thanks for taking the time to address this issue. Tiamut^talk 19:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Disambig

Yeah sorry, in a lot of cases the names were of small towns with articles barely a paragraph long, I can see that was a mistake in the case of Takamatsu though. Even so, it's bound to be the name of other people. Would it be worth posting a disambiguation note in italics at the top of Takamatsu, or if we find enough people, creating a Takamatsu (name) or something to direct to instead? I did notice that Smith does mention in the second line a Smith (surname) and List of people with surname Smith. I would have done that except at the moment I don't know any other Takamatsus so I figure list projects get started that way as more people get discovered. There is also Smith#Fiction. My main focus tends to be on redirecting the names of fictional characters, but a lot of times the creators of certain series might be more notable than some of the minor characters in those series so I thought I should try to include them too. But yeah, for major populace centres it does make sense to only have a small mention of people with the name, as opposed to the smaller towns. Tyciol (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

In most of these cases there are already several people with Wikipedia articles who have the name, so it would probably be worthwhile to do something like (for example) create Takamatsu (surname), link to people with the surname, add Template:Surname to the bottom, and put a hatnote at the top of the Takamatsu article. I'm not sure I'm up to date on the guideline for adding people to those lists when they don't have their own articles, though. If the names redirect to anime series or the like instead, it's possible they may be considered substandard for lists in surname/given name pages. Dekimasuよ! 05:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Someday

Someday, I'm going to guess wrong, but Special:Contributions/Legihatp should be on your mind. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Rigsdag article

You have reverted the Rigsdag article, which I recently turned into a disambiguation page. Perhaps the format I chose is not right, it might need a rewrite, perhaps I should have placed a hatnote on the Rigsdagen article to an article called Rigsdag (disambiguation). What do you think, perhaps you have suggestions for improvement? ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 15:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

When I looked at the disambiguation page you created, I saw that all of the alternate "Rigsdag" articles referred to foreign-language usages. On the English Wikipedia, though, we set up extra navigational pages only when they include entries based upon English usage. For example, while the Reichstag may be called something else in other languages, I don't think it is ever referred to as the Rigsdag in English. Someone who typed "Rigsdag" in the search box on the English Wikipedia would not be searching for the Reichstag, which means it is an unnecessary entry on a disambiguation page. Hope this helps. Dekimasuよ! 03:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy Dekimasu/Archive1's Day!

User:Dekimasu/Archive1 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Dekimasu/Archive1's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Dekimasu/Archive1! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Since you've noticed me, does that mean I can't call myself a gnome anymore? Dekimasuよ! 03:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Even gnomes deserve recognition. Your fellow gnome, --Aervanath (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Trying to parse this...

As for "metro", there's no indication that it's the primary topic for the title

Sorry, I don't understand this statement. What would be the "primary topic" in this context, if not the "subway like things most commonly called 'metro'"? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Some people commenting on the move request indicated that they preferred the plain title "Metro" for the Rapid transit article. However, aside from the question of whether that is the most appropriate name for the article itself, it can't be used without qualification if it is not the primary use of the search term "Metro". In this case, Metro is a disambiguation page, indicating that it is not considered to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the search term. If it was considered the primary topic, Metro would redirect to Rapid transit and the disambiguation page would be at Metro (disambiguation). Suggesting a move to a title where there is already content (or a non-redirect navigational page) is deprecated. From my personal perspective, the primary topic of the search term "Metro" is Metropolitan area. I hope this helps. It took me a while to remember what you were referring to, so please forgive me if my response is somewhat convoluted. Dekimasuよ! 14:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, got it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk

Thanks for fixing my mess up there. I meant to do it myself but got distracted and then forgot about it. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 09:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem! I know you've been busy with 7500 other things. Dekimasuよ! 10:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation (disambiguation)

Hi there. While I understand your reversion of my edit to Disambiguation (disambiguation), I'd like to discuss it. I do know that general practice is to keep from categorizing DAB pages, but this does seem like a special case. The page is, by its very nature, an excellent example of self-reference and (non-mathematical) recursion; not acknowledging this fact is arguably a disservice to the reader. Aside from the fact that DAB pages usually aren't categorized, what's the argument against leaving this categorization on the page? Thanks. Cakedamber (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Categorization is normally based upon the topic and content of articles. One of the reasons this is usually avoided on disambiguation pages is that by their very nature they are (1) not articles, and (2) categories that may apply to some linked articles individually may not apply to others. In this case, none of the articles linked from the disambiguation page discuss the topic of self-reference, and that is one reason to avoid adding the category. Another reason is the general directive to avoid mixing mainspace and meta content. The page is only recursive from the analytical point of view of those of us reading it, and even then only in its title, and not so from a navigational standpoint. Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid#Articles are about their subjects might be an appropriate guideline to refer to here. Dekimasuよ! 17:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid#Articles are about their subjects does raise a fair point, as do you -- the disambiguation page is not directly about itself. However, the page is self-referential; in light of that, I've placed a link to it over in Self-reference. Cakedamber (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You're quoted in a related matter

I've reverted a see-also link to Disambiguation (disambiguation), and discussed why in some detail at User_talk:Cakedamber#WP refs in WP articles, including quotation of the preceding section that is parent to this subsection.
--Jerzy•t 06:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Prerana Shah (model)

Hi, I understand she was not miss nepal winner but she was miss nepal asia pacific and it's a title for a runner up so plz return that page plz thanxz (FatDuy (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)).

A deletion discussion had already resulted in the deletion of this page. Its recreation falls under the scope of a speedy deletion criterion advising against the recreation of deleted material, particularly since there is no indication that the notability of the topic has changed since the previous discussion. Dekimasuよ! 10:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

My intrusion at Template:Incoming links

I share your concern for the need for Dab-bypassing work, and trust you will regard my reversion (of a new user) at Template:Incoming links as being friendly to your goals. I'm going to start a temporary substitute Cat (unless you accomplish that during my breakfast- and rock-gym-slab-climb break) without worrying much about getting the title or parent Cat right -- to serve the purpose that IMO the Dab-CU Cat is (at least superficially, but perhaps deeply) unsuitable for: it seems to me that "cleanup" has always meant, everywhere on en:WP, "fixing a page by changing its content" while the new template is about something that has always AFAIK been a separate issue, fixing the widely dispersed misuses of a given Dab. (But i think there's no need to see the change of Cat as prejudicing against an adequately discussed future decision that, after all, the earlier choice was the right one.) Pending discussion, IMO

_ _ the extensive knowledge (Dab & MoSDab, and principles agreed upon on their talk pages but intentionally not codified on the project pages themselves) and habits of mind required by the Dab-CU tasks are far less related to the incoming links task,

_ _ the attention of those habitually doing Dab-CU might even be disruptive to the link-Dab'g task,^* and

_ _ the Dab-cleaners' long-standing efforts to reduce "their" sometimes wildly fluctuating backlog may suffer from what amounts to an unsolicited attempt to recruit them away to a separate and -- despite its nominal focus on the few Dab pages -- enormous workload^* of articles needing such editing

all are problems needing addressing before including the Cat on the IMO desirable template.
--Jerzy•t 19:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

* I wrote "might even be disruptive to the link-Dab'g task" and "enormous workload" before checking, and i find the Cat reduced from 73 to 29 members around the time of my reversion -- Hmm, from 29 pp. to 29 44*100 is a minimum of a 152-fold increase in pages listed as needing editing, and the increase is not from the often short Dabs but the often long articles that set a context that must be grasped to deduce the article to use in bypassing the Dab. As to that "minimum", the first two {{Incoming links}} Dabs i looked at were Islamic Jihad (apparently close to 250 uses) and Interpretation (150-200), so make that read "probably at least a 300-fold increase", and note that the relative few 1,000-and-up-link pages in the long tail of the distribution could dominate the increase, and kick this primitive estimation scheme into a cocked hat. (Perhaps an {{Incoming links}}-placing bot has provided you with the actual total of articles linking 100 -link Dabs?)
--Jerzy•t 19:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Just read what you wrote while i was writing, but i gotta run. Tnx.
  --Jerzy•t 19:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  

In practice I think that many of the same people clean incoming links to disambiguation pages and clean the links themselves. However, I respect your opinion that cleaning of incoming links doesn't represent "cleanup" in the Wikipedia sense of the word. You've convinced me that if a category is to be readded, Category:Disambiguation would be a better parent. As for your other questions, there are currently about 800 pages with more than 100 ambiguous links. It was never my intention for the template to be placed on all of them, and in fact, until last week it had never been placed on more than 10 of the worst offenders at one time. Another user since decided to add it to 40 or 50 pages from the WP:DPL list. If such a condition continues, having a category on hand will probably be useful to keep the application of the template manageable and up-to-date. Dekimasuよ! 14:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the disambiguation project

		The Wikilink Barnstar
		Without your contributions I wouldn't know what to edit. J04n(talk page) 09:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll try to get the new list up soon (working on it now). And if Russ can make a better one or the reports sort themselves out, we can switch over anytime. Dekimasuよ! 10:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Fringe theory

The novelty you reverted at Japanese people has corollaries -- see

• Talk:Sakanoue no Tamuramaro
• Talk:Sakanoue no Karitamaro

This problem is likely to be recurring. --Tenmei (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I tried to revert in the least controversial way possible, by referencing the copyright violation, but I didn't know that this has happened elsewhere. Dekimasuよ! 14:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:68.190.34.181

You blocked this user, now operating under the sockpuppet "Yakuza Libra"-please block the sock as well. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Rather than have him complain that he's not a sockpuppet, we may as well wait for him to violate the 3RR. The reason I haven't blocked that account is that there's some evidence he may have others and the more names that get involved, the harder it is to chase people around. He appears to have stopped at the moment. Dekimasuよ! 18:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Convergence

Hello, I've started a discussion on the above link. I thought I'd let you know as you tagged it for clean-up and have done a lot of work on it. Thanks, and keep up the good work! Boleyn2 (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and sorry for the slow response (I was away for a few days). I've replied at the talk page there. Dekimasuよ! 07:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Informatics

What changes to Informatics do you suggest in order to make it better comply with the Manual of Style? Regards, —Ruud 19:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and done most of the changes myself; at first I thought you might be put off by that since I had reverted the move of the academic field page, but having contacted me here, I suppose that's not the case. I removed the bold text at the front of each entry (that's reserved for a primary topic) and the subsequent blue links in each line (there should only be one blue link in each line on a disambiguation page). Whether the individual "XYZ informatics" pages should be included is the last thing to discuss. Generally, things that only include part of the title aren't included on dab pages, per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Lists. On the other hand, if Ecoinformatics is often referred to as simply "Informatics", it should remain on the disambiguation page. What's your opinion on that? Dekimasuよ! 03:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was a little put off by the combined effect of your revert without a note on my talk page, and being slapped on the fingers for not properly splitting the page history right away myself. Nothing I'm still bothered about, though. To be really honest, I don't think the current presentation of page, while maybe more strictly compying with the style guide, does a better job of leading a reader to the correct article, nor that your hierarchy is entirely ontologically correct. I will see what I can do about disambiguating the links currently pointing to that article.

P.S. Sorry for what happened here. I had your contributions list still open in a tab when I restarted Firefox and must have accidentally clicked rollback. Cheers, —Ruud 19:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If you can improve the page or the hierarchy, please feel free to do so. Hopefully that can be done while retaining a single link for each line. Anyway, part of the reason I left the cleanup tag in place was so that more eyes would be drawn to the page. I will try to be more vigilant about notifying users who create new disambiguation pages I have questions about; a lot of them are hit-and-run or creations that haven't been fully thought through (that wasn't the case here), so I may have gotten too careless about evaluating each one individually. Dekimasuよ! 05:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Admin capability?

Hey, first of all, thanks for closing this; rarely have I seen so many contributions to such an obviously one-sided issue. My question is, in closing that discussion, did you have to exercise an administrative tool, or could anyone with sense have done the same thing? Unschool 04:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, anyone could have closed it; I didn't consider myself to be acting in an administrative capacity when I did. There's no tools involved. On the other hand, there's probably a higher chance of someone objecting if the editor closing the discussion isn't an admin. In that respect it's similar to non-admin closures elsewhere. Thanks for letting me know you agreed... Dekimasuよ! 04:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Unschool 05:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

2009 in television

2009 in television probably should be expanded into an article but not "like all the other years". Instead what was done here should be the model for the other years. See Talk:2009 in American television. JIMp _talk·cont 14:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I just read it, but I can't say I really understand it. Is the only reason to make it easier to disambiguate the names of networks? The other articles look fine to me. Dekimasuよ! 14:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguating the names of networks was part of it but there was the issue of US bias in the former article and the issue of treating the US the way Australia, Canada & the UK are treated. JIMp _talk·cont 15:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Japanese Language Test

Why do you insist on removing information which relates to a japanese language test?!

If you are seeking further clarification on the validity of the examination or its content i suggest you contact the Vice President at the Japan Testing Association - Miyoko Kawasaki ([email protected])

LICMU (talk) 11:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There are several reasons. First, the page you are editing is about one specific Japanese test, and the information you're adding appears to be about a different test. Second, assuming it is the same test, the test sites are all treated equally on that page, whereas this appears to be more about the test site than the test itself. Third, it appears that you are promoting the test location or acting on its behalf, based upon your user name. I'd like to welcome you to Wikipedia, but it would be advisable for you to change to a different user name as soon as possible. Such a name is blockable under our policy for user names; please read this page for more information. Dekimasuよ! 12:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Off Road

Why did you remove the disambiguation page I created at Off Road? Those three computer games are all commonly known as "Off Road" to fans. People who type that into WP looking for information on the games will now be left confused. 2fort5r (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I did this on the basis of Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Lists, but since you say they are also known as "Off Road", I've restored the disambiguation page. The lowercase redirects should still point to Off-roading, based on the links. You can put a hatnote on Off-roading mentioning the dab page, if you like. Dekimasuよ! 14:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

National College, Bangalore

Hi, why do you think the two articles should be merged? They are different colleges, formally independent, with separate administration and always listed separately, neither is a "branch" of the other. (Also, why did you remove the external links?) Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The first of the articles stated that they were branches (twice in the article: here), and the second listed alumni grouped together from both schools. If they were independent, it wouldn't make sense to list their alumni together. If they are really independent of each other, I suppose that they could be separated again, but the contents would also need to be sorted out (including the template which links "National College, Bangalore" over 100 times without further elaboration). I don't have any strong opinion about the external links, but I couldn't figure out how to distinguish them from each other adequately. Dekimasuよ! 14:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I see. They were founded by the same person (and have the same name), but AFAIK (and I went to one of them!) they aren't really branches. Anyway, I don't feel like digging into the history and finding sources right now; so let's leave them together for now. :-) By the template, do you mean Template:Bangalore topics? Shreevatsa (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one I meant. The separate pages would need to be linked separately on that template. Dekimasuよ! 06:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Overlinked

As part of my regular wikignoming, I removed almost 70 internal links from the rather short article William McKie. And I removed the overlinked template. Please have a look to see if you agree with that assessment. If you happen to disagree, I'd appreciate it if you would remove those internal links you consider superfluous, rather than just tag the article again. Thank you, Debresser (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. I'll go particularly careful with allthose AfDs, PRODs and CSDs. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

African Empires

Greetings. I stopped talking to dbachman, because his mind is already made up. I wanted to explain to u my revert and hope to keep our contact civil. First I want to let you know that the article is not wiki sync. I do use sources that talk specifically about African Empires. This is not an article based solely on the combination of two definitions. I believe that is dbachman's main argument; however, I think things have simply gotten too personal between us for any light to shine through. I also have an issue with a merger (which was rejected via talk page months ago by someone who I think was relatively neutral to the debate) is that the African Empires page existed before the pre-colonial African kingdoms page. not to mention, a kingdom is not an empire. The Mali Empire is pretty obviously not a kingdom. I think you would agree. There are sources for these statements within the page. I was going to go thru and source every single polity, but I realized that only dbachman was making that demand and I don't edit on his behalf. I believe that people should contribute or get out of the way. i know that is rather frank, but that is my honest opinion. Please contact me via my discussion page so we can discuss this further. Best Wishes. Scott Free (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Popups

Hi, i have seen you use popups when sorting out disam links, i was wondering could you please explain to me how? Ive tried several times in recent days adding different text to the monobook, and just now i copied the text from your page (sorry lol), but i still do not see where or how to use it to alter where the link directs to? Hope you can help thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I've had trouble before, too... it didn't work for me at first. Have you tried clearing your cache? I know that it says to try clearing your cache with keyboard shortcuts, but I'd recommend doing it manually and restarting your computer, or trying to log in using a different browser. I can't tell you why it doesn't work sometimes, but I can assure you that since you're using my monobook, it will work eventually. Firefox seems to get with the program more smoothly than Internet Explorer, but that's just my anecdotal experience. Dekimasuよ! 17:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

What exactly do i do to make the disam changes? Im not sure if its just not working or if im not doing the right thing to make a change, what page / menu should i be looking at to make the changes? Ill try switching browsers now, currently using FF thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Still nothing, i tried clearing cache and using a different browser but i still cant see any difference. I must not be doing it in the right place, where abouts are you meant to go to use the popups to fix a disam link. Which page? Whatlinkshere page, the article page itself? I dont see any options for how to change links, i see whatlinkshere as an option on the popups but nothing that changes the link to somewhere else. Am i misunderstanding what this feature of popups is meant to do??? BritishWatcher (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

First you go to the article that has an ambiguous link, and then move the cursor over the ambiguous link (as with other popups, if you've used them before). Waiting for a second or two should give you a popup preview of the disambiguation page. Below it there should be another solid line, followed by a number of potential links and an option to remove the link entirely. Clicking on one of those takes you to the "Show changes" screen with the link changed to what you have selected. Like I said, if you're using my monobook, there's no reason it shouldn't work (eventually)... you may just have to wait for a while. Sorry you're having trouble. Dekimasuよ! 15:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahh thanks for the information. im not missing something then, its just not working for me at the moment. I just see the preview of the disam page, nothing below it. Will wait and see if anything changes over next few days. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I have figured out why it was not working, ive been using the Wikipedia Beta. When i go back to normal the popups work properly and i can see the section below where you choose the Disam link. Thanks for your help :). BritishWatcher (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Brocade

Hi Dekimasu, if a user searches brocade it takes three page browsing to get brocade communications system. and one page browsing to brocade fabric. If there is an index page user can select the page which he wants and could get both pages in two page browsing.And also he could save the time without browsing unnecessary page. pls search Myway or RT everything gives an index page,so pls dont say that disambiguation in one page is the standard.-- naveenpf (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

When I visited at the page, Brocade was a redirect to Brocade (fabric). There was no disambiguation page at the title. When a plain title directs to one using a disambiguation term in parentheses, it is standard procedure to move that article to the plain title–the term in parentheses is considered to be redundant. I believe that the current setup for the page is correct given the common usage of the term "brocade". This is unrelated to what the common usage may be for other terms. Thanks for your message. Dekimasuよ! 02:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

...I believe that the current setup for the page is correct given the common usage of the term "brocade".... I think its your personal perspective. Let page brocade must be a index page.We must give user to select which page he wants.Why we want to confuse the user ?--naveenpf (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

To reiterate, when I moved the page, the plain title was already redirecting to Brocade (fabric). Thus, the setup is the same as before, and only the title is different. Dekimasuよ! 18:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi i am telling about search results of Brocade Communication Systems.If i search for brocade i need to browse three pages.so can u revert back--naveenpf (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC soon

I have a feeling that page will need an RfC. I will be drawing up a request to restrict many of them from the page. I have posted tons of links about uses of Persian Empire in multiple books that 100% contradicts their claims. I have posted up evidence from Farsi itself and what the words mean in Farsi, and they have no defense against it. I have posted up how we have organized pages on Wiki and they have no clue. They make a claim and I point out the absurdity both on Wiki and in the sources. There is no way that these individuals actually care about the page but mostly just want to troll. The ANI ended telling them to back off from the page for a few days and what do they do? Keep on spewing the same nonsense. Sigh. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as backing off from the talk page is concerned, most of the people at Talk:Persian Empire weren't involved with the ANI thread you're talking about. I only found it a little while ago because your post on the talk page there prompted me to search for it; I don't think it was mentioned on the talk page there, or if it was, it was drowned out in the other 75 posts yesterday. Many of the other participants there are probably unaware of it too.

As far as the article is concerned, I think you may be correct that it's heading towards an RfC. However, you can't place the blame solely on them, because you have also been combative. The atmosphere on the talk page has not been one conducive to finding a mutually acceptable solution. There are reasonable editors on both sides of this issue. There is only one issue here as far as I can see: (a) the term has been used in the West to refer to many things based in the region as different incarnations of "the Persian Empire", but (b) many of these things were institutionally and culturally independent of one another to an extent that's not true of the Roman Empire, or as was briefly alluded to elsewhere, France. At a basic level, what's being argued about is the relative importance of those conflicting usages. I think it would be acceptable for those conflicting views to each be given voice in the article. One way to do that would be to reduce the size of the summaries, as proposed by Nathan. That doesn't mean the original article would be discarded. Can you explain to me your feelings on that? Dekimasuよ! 15:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Nathan stated it on the talk page along with others. I even linked to the ANI discussion in my response to Nathan saying that I was willing to do so. Combativeness is not a justification to ignoring reliable sources, going against our standard consensus procedures, and all sorts of other problems. In Farsi, the term refers to what I've been discussing. And they were not institutionally or culturally independent. I can provide you many sources for that. I can also provide you many sources where the Roman Empire switched control, had radical changes, split into four, had assassinations and coups, and other problems that show a lack of continuity. Furthermore, the Chinese Emperors are all part of the same system with strong distinction between the various dynasties and even long breaks. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I may have misinterpreted the extent to which Nathan wants to reduce the size of the summaries. I see that you are against reducing them to any great extent. My point was rather that part of the focus in the article could be given to the variety of ways in which the term is applied, rather than treating the subject in a completely unitary fashion. Dekimasuよ! 15:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Nathan's proposal is merely the short stub of Folantin, which is why she agrees. What I want is a restoration of what the Farsi page looks like (which is the long form), with a focus on what the various political dynamics were during each phase. As I keep linking, the "Persian Empire" was what the Mongols invaded, but they also became the next dynasty in the "Persian Empire" (sometimes called the Mongol-Persian Empire, sometimes just called Persian Empire) in the same way that they became a dynasty in China. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I know that a lot of the arguments on the talk page have been related to the Mongols, Mughals, etc., but I don't think that individual dispute is a vital aspects of the question as to whether the page should be an overview and guide to more specific articles or itself be as comprehensive as possible. I think that concentrating on that question alone would make negotiation on the format considerably easier. Dekimasuよ! 16:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There are four people that want to remove the page. The arguments they have put forth have wavered between "Persian Empire only means the Sassanids" or "It can mean them and this one other later group". As I point out, the term is used consistently for the various dynasties and even the Mongol invaders. This only exposes that they are not here to improve the page but merely want to delete encyclopedic content. Those people need to be removed to allow a true discussion on how to reword sections while preserving the whole history and use of the word. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Shah is the Farsi equivalent to "Emperor", and a dynasty is used to describe an Imperial system. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

A pragmatic approach

(Har har har.) I believe that Pragmatic, at least, must be disambiguated: many incoming links to pragmatic are intended to refer to Pragmatics, example: see Pragmatic language impairment.

I find it a little problematic that many people link pragmatic and are referring to "doing what is practical at the temporary expense of idealism", but are instead brought to a page about a philosophy that is likely unknown to the person or unrelated to the act described in their use of pragmatic.

Also, I just unearthed Pragmaticism, which itself is apparently considered a form of pragmatism; apparently "pragmatic" and "pragmatist" can be used to describe adherents to this branch. What to do? Whatever404 (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

There are probably a couple of different questions to consider. First, is it really many links that are intended to point to Pragmatics, or just a few? If it's just a few, I think we can eliminate all three dab pages (pragmatic, pragmatist, and Pragmatism (disambiguation)) and put two hatnotes at the top of pragmatism, leading to Pragmatics and Pragmaticism. This would recognize Pragmatism as the primary topic of each, while at the same time eliminating the need for parallel dab pages (since the links to Pragmatics wouldn't otherwise be appropriate at Pragmatism (disambiguation)). What do you think? Dekimasuよ! 14:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Howdy: I'm not sure where you consider the threshold to be. It looks like there are quite a few incoming links intended for the colloquial (non-philosophical) usage ("she took a pragmatic approach..."), and a lesser, but still significant number of links intended for the linguistic field. Considering that either of these is intended a significant amount of the time, I would be inclined to use a dab page; the part that confuses me is what to do when an oft-intended meaning is a dicdef with no article of its own. Any thoughts? Whatever404 (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Dicdefs shouldn't be added to disambiguation pages, since they turn out to be lines without links. The Wiktionary reference should be sufficient. If links intend the dictionary definition, they should generally be removed per WP:LINK (which says "plain English words" "generally should not be linked") and the instructions at WP:DPL. There might be an argument to be made that a link from the colloquial usage to the article on the philosophy would be a useful link, though. (I don't know whether the word was popularized by the philosophy or the philosophy chose the popular word.) Dekimasuよ! 10:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Guinness#Requested_move

In case you wish to comment. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 10:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Weightlifting

Thank you for sending me a message! I've messed up, Powerlifting is a different sport than Olympic weightlifting. The Olympic weightlifting article refers to the sport that is in the Olympics but even not when it is in the Olympics context, it should be called Weightlifting (sport), but that doesn't excuse my mistake. I'm going to go back and fix everything. J04n(talk page) 11:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem! I wasn't sure which way to do it myself. I hope it won't be too much work. Dekimasuよ! 12:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I made all the changes :( and proposed the name change here. I could probably use some support on the name change. Thanks J04n(talk page) 13:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I added a move template and some comments there. It still might be better to have a disambiguator that distinguishes the Olympic version better from "powerlifting", since they're both sports.... Dekimasuよ! 14:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sheep dog

Please see further comment at talk:Sheep dog. Regards, Richard New Forest (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Two things

Firstly, thank you for offering to nominate me to be an admin. I never put much thought into requesting adminship, but why not? Throw my name in and we'll see what happens. Although I'm not sure how I will answer "What admin work do you intend to take part in? "

Secondly, it looks the the issue with Computed tomography is all set, it was redirected to X-ray computed tomography. J04n(talk page) 12:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible for you to register an e-mail through the preferences panel? I'll try shooting you a mail to try it out, if you're up for it. That's one of the things that sometimes comes up in RfAs, although I haven't seen anyone mention it lately. (Perhaps you know already, but your e-mail address isn't seen by the person sending you messages, so there's no privacy issues unless you choose to reply.) Dekimasuよ! 16:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I would rather not have my email as an option for communicating. I understand that others will not see my address but I still prefer not to. J04n(talk page) 17:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

At any rate, I've written up a nomination statement for you. I think it's worth a try. There are never any guarantees over there... it's a pretty idiosyncratic corner of the encyclopedia.

I anticipate that you'd face a few questions about the fair use policy for images because of the sections related to images on your talk page, and questions on deletion and blocking policy since you don't seem to have much direct experience with those. There might also be a few objections to the absolute number of edits you've had in the discussion spaces. If you feel comfortable handling questions in those areas, please take a look at Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship and get back to me; I'm ready to post the nomination anytime. And no problem, of course, if you decide to change your mind. Dekimasuよ! 18:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

What the heck, what's the worst thing that can happen? I get rejected, so what. Thanks again for thinking enough of me to do this. J04n(talk page) 19:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

And thanks for the note on computed tomography. Dekimasuよ! 16:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The Tomorrow People

Re "moved The Tomorrow People (TV series) to The Tomorrow People: contesting move; TV series appears to be the primary topic": I guess the principle here is that any TV show, video game, album, etc. trumps any serious work of literature in terms of "notability". Thanks for enlightening me. So, I recommend that Homer's Odyssey (The Simpsons) replace Odyssey as the primary. Do you agree? No? Why not? GHJmover (talk) 07:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The TV series is extremely well known (on both sides of the Atlantic), and likely to be the primary target of most searches. Just because it's a TV series doesn't mean that it is worse than a novel, and you can't extrapolate from this single example. Stephenb (Talk) 09:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Moves boldly performed by an editor should not be considered fait accompli; they may be reverted. If someone wishes to revert a move, it indicates that the move wasn't uncontroversial in the first place, and a discussion should be held to determine the best location for the article. This was why I added a link to Wikipedia:Requested moves in my edit summary. In this particular case, there is evidence to suggest that the television series is the primary topic of the search term "The Tomorrow People", including that the article on the novel wasn't created until last week, and that a Google search returns less than 500 hits for "Tomorrow People" "Judith Merril", but over 17500 hits for "Tomorrow People" "Roger Price". (As far as your hyperbole is concerned, "Homer's Odyssey" Simpsons yields 15400 hits, while "Homer's Odyssey"-Simpsons yields over 200,000.) This evidence is not conclusive, and you remain free to propose a move through WP:RM. Dekimasuよ! 10:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

about a page

Hi;

I am Daniel Arnaldo Roman, on june you deleted the wiki info i have assuming it was a copyright infringement. Well I am not doing that as I am the owner of the information, and i was the one who created both pages, Wiki and Saatchi. Can you please reconsider?

Best Beheriter (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Daniel Roman

Hi. I'm sorry, but your note to me here is not sufficient for me to verify that you are the owner of the copyrighted material. If you would like to proceed with releasing the information to Wikipedia, I suggest that you look at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for further details. However, please be aware that the information can then be used or altered, including for profit, by non-Wikipedia sources. Also, please take a look at Wikipedia:Autobiography; adding an article about yourself to Wikipedia is strongly discouraged. It's possible that after licensing the information for use on Wikipedia, the article would still be deleted for that reason. I hope this helps. Dekimasuよ! 01:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Rowing as a disambiguation page

Hi Dekimasu. I moved the current 'Rowing' page to 'Rowing (disambiguation)' a while back. My idea was to keep the disambiguation page there and move 'rowing (sport)' to 'rowing', with a link at the top to the disambig page, as this is the main usage of the word (google the word 'rowing' and you will have to scroll though a few hundred pages of search results before you find something that doesn't relate to the sport). It seems an admin is needed to make these changes, so perhaps you could have a look at it?--The Spith (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems like you might be right, but I'm not convinced that this would be an uncontroversial change. Watercraft rowing was the article at Rowing until 2005, when it was moved and the disambiguation page was created. Recently a similar question came up that resulted in moving the sport of weightlifting away from the plain title to disambiguate it from Weight training. I'd suggest creating a move request through Wikipedia:Requested moves so that other editors can have their say. Let me know if you have any questions about the process. Dekimasuよ! 01:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No need to be sorry

It was certainly an interesting week! Absolutely no need for you to be sorry, I want to thank you again for the nomination and the kind words you wrote about me. I still enjoy the editing that I do and will continue to do so. J04n(talk page) 02:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

National Socialism

You restored the National Socialism page to its original slot, but made several notable, unfortunate mistakes:

1. You did not discuss the revert on the talk page, nor did you notify me of your intentions to revert it
2. You gave no material reasons for the revert in your explanations, only a vague reference to its alleged 'non-controversiality' and a link to WP:RQM
3. You did not save the disambiguation page material itself from the move - you simply overwrote it.
4. You did not attempt to recreate a disambiguation page
5. You did not consider providing a link to such a potential page

Apparently you thought that a generalistic topic article such as one about an ideology did not need disambiguation. That was indeed the root of why I moved it, and why I created the disambiguation in the first place. That you did not understand why we disambiguate terms, was your 6th error.

What I want from you now is to make every attempt at recovering the material I wrote for the disambiguation page, and then add it to National Socialism (disambiguation). Thanks for your compliance -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 23:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Dekimasu, please do not feel that you are under any obligations to clean up Stevertigo's messes. Reverting a page move that itself had no discussion beforehand was not an improper thing to do. Cheers. Tarc (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

At any rate, I did discuss the revert on the talk page. Please note that I was not making any statements about the controversiality of the reversion; I was making the point that your original move was controversial, and thus required further discussion at the original location to avoid a fait accompli move of the page. The material from the disambiguation page could be recovered, but after removing the material incompliant with WP:MOS-DAB (things like "Reductio ad Hitlerum", which is not referred to as "National Socialism") and reducing the number of blue links to one per line, the page would only have links to National Socialism and Nazism. In such a case, a hatnote at National Socialism is the preferred route, and I considered this before overwriting the links you had added to the page under the plain title. Dekimasuよ! 06:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the point remains that you made editorial decisions in the context of a revert - one that deleted writing that explained the ambiguities. And you did not "discuss the revert" on the talk page, you simply left an explanation after the fact. I ask again that you make some effort to recover the lost material. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 17:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why such an undeletion would be necessary, since regardless of whether or not I made an error in process, the disambiguation page would then be eligible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G6 and the criteria listed at Template:Db-disambig. If there is something else you're planning to do with it instead, I can move it to your userspace. Dekimasuよ! 01:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Miwa Takada

Hello Dekimasu. I'm a Wikipedia contributor from Macedonia, and I am a great fun of the Zatoichi saga. In two of the movies I have seen so far I met a very sweet actress called Miwi Takada. I looked her name in the internet, but there was literary nothing about her, not even a photo of her, although she stared in several of Japan's most celebrated movie classics. That's why I decided to create the Miwa Takada article, and wrote all i knew about her. I also made two screenshots of her from the Zatoichi movies. Dear Dekimasu, could you please find something about her in Japanese, and add it to the article, or give me some additional info about her directly to me, because, I am about to became her fan :) Regards from Macedonia. --Revizionist (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Monthly disambig update

Hi - my bot should produce the monthly disambig list update tomorrow at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/October 2009; probably shortly after the daily update of The Daily Disambig pages (as long as nothing goes wrong with the Toolserver between now and then). However, the main WP:DPL page needs to be edited manually to replace the September list with the October one, and I will be unable to do this tomorrow because I will be traveling. If you could keep an eye out and replace the list at the appropriate time, it would be a great help. Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Just got home; it's up now. Dekimasuよ! 12:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!!!

I want to thank you for making the changes to World Domination. I have tried for the last two days to make it like you have while not tearing at the editors on the talk page. Keep an eye on it, The Protocols of Zion won't stay off for long :/ - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support; I've left a note on the talk page there. I do disagree with your reinstation of the final item there, per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Partial title matches; the question is not whether the entry contains the title in question, but whether it is often referred to by that title alone. Dekimasuよ! 01:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I had deleted the film/tele/radio section before and got countered with the argument that it 'contained the term'. I felt it easier to smile and nod rather than convince them that the policy. Now that you mention that, however, out with 'em.

What about the short, short definition of the term, since it is not defined by any of the articles that link to it? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I moved the book's entry to the see also section, for the time being. Personally, I don't think a definition is really necessary here; "world" and "domination" are both words that we would usually assume to be understood without qualification by a reader, and the meaning of the combination of the two words seems to logically follow. Dekimasuよ! 01:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Very true... Its amazing though how many objections were raised to a definition that basically explained it as "a person or group dominating (or seeking to dominate) the world", claiming that it was crap or OR. I just took out the Family Guy entry outright, you're right about it not belonging (And I'm sure that if that was what they were after that they could find it quickly enough) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Seeing as you're an admin, and sort of already in this corner here, could you delete Global Domination, so that I can move the single onto that page, and remove it from the World Domination page (Global domination will still redirect to the dab though)? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

World domination

• Thanks for the advice - and reference. You put it extremely clearly. Very helpful to me personally. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• You put it so well that it deserves repeating and bold facing: "In general, anything that is not referred to by the unqualified term "world domination" should not be added back to the page (disambiguation pages are navigational aids, not search tools); thus, a fictional character whose intention is to dominate the world doesn't really belong here, nor does a book which has the idea of world domination as its theme.". It's you that I'm quoting here. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that is not an end all be all rule that applies to everything in every dab page. When a term does not have an article itself, it should also have links to pages that are most similar to the topic. I don't believe that Dekimasu implied removing the politics section. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well.... He pointed to said manual. So he's telling us what the "law" of Wikipedia is, so to speak. He's somewhat like a judge giving his judicial interpretation. And I find him extremely convincing. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Meant well. --Ludvikus (talk) 05:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• I believe, User:Dekimasu, that it's your responsibility now to bring this discussion to the Talk page of the Article in question, so that all Wikipedians may benefit by it. Thanks, --Ludvikus (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Tshelton30

I only work with gomezbuster and hunter2727. There are a few other people at work that get on here every now and then but I can't tell you all their screen names. In any case, we work for a relatively large company and I only know who the guy is. I had heard of gomez's prank or whatever. It started with an office joke or something but obviously got out of hand. Another one of our friends is pretty mad that gomez caused everyone to get blocked. I only know his real name and not his screen name. He edits grammatical errors on here. In any case, my contributions have been mostly Minor League/Appy League baseball contributions. I used to work for the Kingsport Mets and fixed a few things there and added links to the page. Thank you for your time! Tshelton30 (talk) 03:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

PennySeven unblock

I made it pretty clear on AN/I, which PennySeven has obviously been tracking, that it was their continued disruptive editing on AN/I that caused me to block. You might want to review that and either grant the unblock or modify your decline reason. Sorry for any confusion.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have more time to spend on the extra information now, so I've removed my decline and I'll let someone else review the request. Thanks for the note. Dekimasuよ! 13:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks a lot for helping me out with this mess. Is there any way the Sandor Clegane account could be unblocked as I had informed about the ArbCom about it when I registered it?--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you confirm to me that DrBat won't be using that account for the duration of his block? I just want to make sure you understand that if the edits of the accounts become intertwined in a suspicious way, it will be difficult to justify leaving any of the accounts unblocked. Dekimasuよ! 00:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I promise that won't happen. I don't know if I'll be using the account myself anymore as the main purpose was for one that wouldn't be connected to my CGF account, and that lid has been blown, but this is just in case I need to make an edit on it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked as per your request. Dekimasuよ! 14:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. :) --CyberGhostface (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No prob...

Thanks for letting me know about the unblock. I didn't think I was being "bitey" since it was a simple username block, but in any event, it's taken care of. Thanks again. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

DrBat

Greetings. I note you have unblocked this user. I have no issue with this, however I think that the following information may need to be stored away, as you may not have seen it. The Checkuser page for DrBat :[71] lists a suspect editing of the article Juggernaut - [72], which was confirmed as being DrBat here [73]. Note that this edit comes after already being blocked for sockpuppetry. The editor has also taken a shot across my bow here: [74], at the Talk page for the same article, after being unblocked.

For your consideration.

Asgardian (talk) 05:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I was aware of certain IP edits before I unblocked the user. Ideally both of you would walk away from the Juggernaut article, since a friendly compromise seems unlikely. It appears that's not going to happen, so I only ask that each of you stays as focused as possible on future options rather than past events. Dekimasuよ! 06:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm certainly trying. Regards Asgardian (talk) 06:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Greetings. I'll mention this here and you made a comment on the Juggeranut Talk Page. I believe a medical condition to still be a valid cause for an editor's irrational behaviour. One very emotive editor who made inflammatory comments and insisted on trying to insert invalid source material admitted to having a serious condition which then explained everything. I also also fairly certain that this person wouldn't be the first to edit Wikipedia.

Given we only "exist" here as code and data and the other people are never seen, it is reasonable to ask the question if the behaviour continues to defy explanation (I know of one administrator who also asked the question of someone). How it is asked should probably be the focus. In this case, there was no rudeness. I am simply trying to get to the bottom of this and understand why an editor continues to defy logic and the argument presented and reverts back to an inferior version. The sudden appearance by this person and possible obsession with the article suggests it is one of the three scenarios I presented. The failure to acknowledge the case presented to them and the fact that another editor supports the revamped version is very telling.

For your consideration. Asgardian (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Timely comments

Thank you for your thoughtful participation in the thread at Talk:Order of Culture#Requested Move. I'm especially delighted by the phrase "preemptive disambiguation" because it manages to distill what I've struggled unsuccessfully to express for more than a year.

Caspian blue's response suggests that you managed to hit the nail on the head. In this, perhaps, you achieved more than you could have intended; but there you have it. --Tenmei (talk) 02:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Aleksander Michał Lubomirski

Am I missing something? Where is the disambiguation? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It should have gone up at about the same time you posted this message. Dekimasuよ! 01:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

:) All's fine now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if all of the topics of these articles are to be considered notable on the sole basis of the nobility of their subjects. Some appear to be violating the idea that notability is not transitive, e.g. Krystyna Lubomirska (d. 1669). Do you have any thoughts? Dekimasuよ! 01:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree she is not a paragon of notability, but being an inclusionist I chose not to take any action :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

File:Father Winter Solstice.jpg

J04n(talk page) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

About SPD-redirect

Hello User,

don't you think, that such redirect to the German political party is more too focused on the German point of view? You can see that abbreviation has many meanings and redirecting it to the German political party would wrong many non-German users. If you revert it to the version, in which SPD redirects to the German political party, it would be then fine for me, ok. Just wanted to let you think about it and consider also the non-German users. -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

External Google Map Links in SEPTA articles

I've been working to bring additional useful info to the SEPTA articles (particularly the Market-Frankfort line), and noted in the recent revision history that someone added an external link to a Google map image of the line; but also saw that it was quickly removed as being spam. Looking at the link itself via the diff page, it looks like a perfectly reasonable addition to the article, and i can't understand why it was marked as spam in the first place. Granted, the user that added it seemed to have issues with consensus building and personal attacks; but the intent was still Good Faith. I'm not suggesting any kind of removal of their ban (that's not my fight, they can earn it themselves if they're interested); but i would support the re-addition of the google map link. I would like to put it back; but i'm not going to stick my nose out to add good data if the only thing it will get me is a cauliflower schnoz. Would you consider taking a look at the link itself and allow me to add it back to the MFSL page? If not, would you be willing to discuss your reasoning why? Hiroe (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Advice

Greetings. I was hoping for some advice regarding DrBat, who you cautioned and unblocked after some sockpuppetry ([75]). His editing behaviour hasn't really improved any, as I've tried to speak with him regarding the blind reversions without comment ([76]), as have others ([77]). There is currently a small dispute at Juggernaut which I've tried to resolve ([78]), but given his response ([79]) I don't know. What could you advise? Regards Asgardian (talk) 07:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Asgardian --DrBat (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Reason for sectional redirect

Why did you change Monoculturalism to redirect to the opposition subsection? LokiClock (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit. If you'd like to discuss this, leave a message on my talk. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Nice of you to notice. Talk to you soon. J04n(talk page) 21:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of International Hockey League (disambiguation)

Hello Dekimasu, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created, International Hockey League (disambiguation), has been marked for speedy deletion by User:Dolovis. This has been done because the page is a recently created article that that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add "{{hangon}}" to the page text, and edit the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:Dolovis. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of Dolovis (talk · contribs) 21:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Conversation on admin noticeboard re: block of ISP for low-income users

I have started a conversation regarding a block of an ISP for low income users that was initiated two and a half years ago and was recently lifted. You were one of the people that helped review the initial block or helped review it when it was lifted. I am cordially inviting you to join in the conversation.
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Two and a half year block of ISP for low-income users
Thank you very much for you thoughtful consideration. - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 03:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this page necessary?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_influence_on_Japanese_culture

I dont think this page is necessary on a separate page. I would be grateful if you can look at this and decide.The information too, on this page is at best, dubious.

Best regards,

Lumber —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.47.79 (talk) 12:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

J04n(talk page) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Balloon}} to your friends' talk pages.

Service award level

There has been a major revision of the the Service Awards: the edit requirements for the higher levels have been greatly reduced, to make them reasonably attainable.

Because of this, your Service Award level has been changed, and you are now eligible for a higher level. I have taken the liberty of updating your award on your user page.

Herostratus (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Dekimasu,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at [email protected] (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at [email protected]. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlopeck (talk • contribs) 23:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Incoming links has been nominated for deletion.

Please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_5#Template:Incoming_links for the discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. Hope all has been going well. Dekimasuよ! 18:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

CBS Records

The reason the CBS Records page is a DAB page is because the most famous CBS Records is not the current one which was founded in 2006, CBS Records (2006). The entities which were formerly known as CBS Records now go by other names which are Columbia Records for the record label and Sony Music Entertainment for the record company. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I was suggesting referring this to Wikipedia:Requested moves because the page is useful for establishing a consensus, not because I favor setting up the CBS-related pages in a certain way. I hope you will consider it, and thanks for your message. Dekimasuよ! 21:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the Talk:CBS Records (2006) which was the "CBS Records" page before it was tampered with by Norton (who is banned from creating new articles) who tried to add too much material about the former incarnations of CBS Records despite the hatnotes and brief mentions already in place. Before the CBS Records page became a DAB page, this had been a problem every few months or so. I suggest you look at the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/CBS Records which has not been mediated yet and may not as Norton is not agreeing to the mediation as I type this. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Close

I'm sorry but can I please request revert this close or move to Shout (Idoling song) there are 7 out of 8 support for adding the name of the band (whether as (Idoling song) or (Idoling song), we don't need 3 RMs to make such a simple move when 7 out of 8 support it. I simply made a mistake in not also deleting the !!! from the template when I corrected it according to Cuchullain's request. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not comfortable with undoing the close; I personally would usually argue that all of the exclamation marks should be removed, but there was not consensus for the title proposed, which was the title outside editors were asked to reflect upon. It's also not clear from the discussion that you made a mistake in your request, since Cuchullain and benmoore each brought up the issue in their opposes on the 7th and it wasn't subsequently straightened out. I'm also sensitive to the fact that the move would also create typographic inconsistency, since the exclamation points for the group remain and apparently no move request has been made there. Certainly WP:NOTCOURT and I understand your frustration, but I would suggest you either repropose the move with the title you want or ask someone at WT:RM to review my close. I wouldn't object to the result of any review. Thanks for your message. Dekimasuよ! 09:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not frustrated, it just seems like a waste of time when the main issue is disambiguation and after 7 editors supporting addition of the band name we have 2 RMs with no band name. You do realize you can relist RMs rather than closing them? Or even ask editors. If you're sensitive to the fact that the move would also create typographic inconsistency, since the exclamation points for the group remain and apparently no move request has been made there you could also have noted this in the RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Alternatively you can relist the RM yourself with a new template. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I do know what things can be done with RMs. If I had felt consensus for the unproposed title was evident I would have moved the page despite the wording of the request. In this case, I'm not sure the tension between natural disambiguation and WP:MOS-TM concerns has been worked through/ironed out. Dekimasuよ! 09:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, understood. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

This was definitely the right call, in fact it could have easily been a "no move" close. There was some support for Shout (Idoling song) in the previous (flawed) request, but this was not that request. There was no support for a move, let alone for any of the several flawed titles that were actually proposed. Thanks, Dekimasu.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Another move request regarding Ukraine and Crimea

Hello, you participated in a previous move request regarding Crimea and Ukraine, so I thought you might be interested in this new request that is intended to address objections to the previous one. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation

Dekimasu, I would like to take this moment and thank you for taking part in my RfA that happened a while ago. Although it didn't turn out as I had planned, I certainly appreciated all the comments and suggestions given by you and other people. I will learn from all of them and will hopefully run again someday when I'm fully ready. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Chitram Bhalare Vichitram

I mistakenly voted "oppose" without realizing that it's a movie, not a person. "Chitram!" is more accurate than "Chitram", and I didn't notice comparison between Chitram and Vichitram. Can you undo closure and then relist please (using {{subst:relisting}}), so I can change my vote to "support"? --George Ho (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I have put this article on move review. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. --George Ho (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I have replied at move review. Dekimasuよ! 17:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Durham

I assume you know of a quick and easy way to migrate all of the links for the English Durham that currently go to Durham to its new location following today's move? Bob talk 13:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm unsure whether you're indicating that I should have cleaned up after myself more after closing the move discussion, but the changes have to be done manually or semi-manually with something like Dab Solver. After the move I pointed all relevant double redirects at Durham, England immediately, but this is clearly not a task that can be finished all at once in this case. Because a dab page was moved to the original location of the English Durham, {{Incoming links}} (which I created in 2007) has already been transcluded there by a bot and the Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links project has been notified that many links need to be redirected. I would not be surprised if they have started on resolving this issue already. Unfortunately, the move did create work for some people; on the other hand, I think it reflected the consensus of the discussion. Dekimasuよ! 16:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Artificial

When you make moves like that one, please remember to add the necessary mechanism to enable readers to find the dab page. I've added hatnote at Artificiality in this case. PamD 07:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder. This is probably an indication that I've processed too many move requests over the past few days; I'll slow down. I'll fix Man-made, as well. Dekimasuよ! 07:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Move review for Sex Tape (film)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Sex Tape (film). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Steel1943 (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I have replied at move review. I'm not sure it was necessary to go to move review instead of asking me about this, but I've still got a pretty good batting average considering the number of weeks-old discussions I've cleaned out of the RM backlog. Dekimasuよ! 02:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Dekimasu, thanks for your reply there, and on the review. By the way, thanks a TON for closing a lot of the discussions on the RM backlog; that backlog is getting a bit out of control. Me taking this close to MRV is the equivalent if why I haven't been closing the RM discussions that have been in the backlog; fear of closing them in a manner that could be disputed. (That, and being a non-admin, I can't close discussions that require deletions, and my closes would be subject to even more scrutiny.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Port Authority Trans-Hudson

Hey, would you consider relisting instead of closing the discussion at Talk:Port Authority Trans-Hudson? I meant to make a comment that I'm pretty sure negates the one oppose argument (and the other per him argument) but never got around to it. Thought it would make more sense to include it there rather than have to start a new discussion.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I have reopened and relisted the move request. I hope consensus one way or the other can be reached with a bit more time, as you suggest; not sure I'm as optimistic as you are, though! Dekimasuよ! 07:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Hopefully something can be worked out -- I was just so shocked to hear the rationale that Port Authority Trans-Hudson was just as commonly used as PATH, and that this was the basis for both oppose !votes, that I just had to speak up.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Renaming of Japanese articles

Hi Dekimasu,

I have left a response on the talk page for the MoS. Gryffindor (talk) 09:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Nagano x3

Hi Dekimasu, I'm slightly confused by the recent Nagano moves.

From what I see, before September 2014, Nagano was a redirect to Nagano, Nagano. My reasoning:

• Looking at logs of "Nagano" and "Nagano (disambiguation)", I don't see any records of "Nagano" being the disambiguation page before today. If "Nagano" had been the disambiguation page, then there would have had to been a move on 10 September 2014 of "Nagano" to "Nagano (disambiguation)".
• Furthermore, looking at the hatnote on "Nagano, Nagano" page, "Nagano" has been redirect to "Nagano, Nagano" for a very long time.

So my timeline:

• 'Stable' version of Nagano was a redirect to Nagano, Nagano. Nagano (disambiguation) was the disambiguation page.
• On 10 September 2014 there was an undiscussed move of "Nagano, Nagano" to "Nagano". "Nagano (disambiguation)" was not touched.
• Over a month later, today, the September move was reverted. Then "Nagano (disambiguation)" was moved to "Nagano". As far as I can tell, this was the first time "Nagano" was the disambiguation page.
• Wbm1058 reverted the move of "Nagano (disambiguation)" to "Nagano". This puts us back at the 'stable' version.
• Then revert of Wbm1058 edit, with reasoning that the 'stable' version is for "Nagano" to be the disambiguation page (which I think is wrong).

Is there something I'm missing (e.g. some logs that are only visible to admins)? Because judging by logs & hatnote, the stable version is to have "Nagano" redirect to "Nagano, Nagano". If we're reverting to 'stable' version while discussion is taking place (btw, where is this discussion?), shouldn't be go to that version? If the consensus is to have "Nagano" be the disambiguation page, then as Wbm1058 stated, all the links have to be edited before the move.

Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 01:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me like the two of you are right on this one. I was working on reverting a series of parallel moves that all replaced dab pages with city pages, and I appear to have overlooked that in this case the base name originally redirected to the city. The correct reversions do not require the initiation of discussion, but were done per WP:RM rules on reverting controversial moves; initiating discussion is incumbent upon someone who wants to change the status quo. The main discussion, though, that caused the reversions is currently at Talk:Shizuoka, Shizuoka, and the same user who moved Nagano, Nagano made many changes that were the inverse of the moves I made today. I'm not sure I'd agree that the relationship of Nagano (the city) to Nagano (the prefecture) represents a different case from Shizuoka, Saitama, Chiba, etc., but my reversions to "stable" versions were not intended to be judgments and should have been limited to the article and not the disambiguation page in the case of Nagano. Will revert my move of the dab page on Nagano and change the redirect. Dekimasuよ! 01:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I had guessed it may have been a small oversight considering the number of pages involved. If the decision is made to make Nagano the disambig page, the wikilinks to "Nagano" should probably be edited before the move to prevent Nagano ending up on the Daily Disambig with practically a 1000 links. Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Falcons

Hello - just wondering how you justified the move here. Where is the consensus in a 5-3 !vote, where several of the supporters offered no policy justification? (E.g., "Obvious" is not a policy justification, especially when other participants have invoked policy.) Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I am not a great fan of the idea (see Talk:Secrets, which I know you know about), but I found bd2412's suggestion that the sports teams could be referred to in the main article on the birds a reason to think that the objections had been partially satsified, and I found the references to other similar cases persuasive. I also don't think that WP:PLURALPT is as clear on what to do here as was implied; Falcon is certainly not a dicdef, and while WP:PLURALPT recognizes that people who search for a plural may have done so intentionally, the very fact that most of these users are likely aware that there are many teams called "the Falcons" is a likely reason to not search for the team via the search term "falcons." At any rate, there will be a hatnote on Falcon directing those users to the dab page, or you are welcome to move this to move review (which is mostly a discussion of my closes this month, but that's because there are few other people closing, I hope). Dekimasuよ! 15:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to add: while there were many of these move requests, when closing them, I have been trying to evaluate the discussions individually, although many involve the same editors. This has resulted in closing some discussions as "consensus to move" and others as "no consensus to move." Dekimasuよ! 15:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, it just seemed like taking these ones individually, this one had one of the weaker bids for consensus. I thought the suggestion to put all the "falcons" in a trivia section was not very useful, so it did not address my objections. We're hopefully moving towards a global consensus through all these RMs of when plural articles and dabs are appropriate, and it seemed to me like this one was on the one side of the line. Dohn joe (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for closing out the RM discussion and moving the page. Glad that's over with. Appreciate it. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but it appears a new move request is in the works already... Dekimasuよ! 00:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

LOL, yes, it's a different thread, but same old (fill in blank). SW3 5DL (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:I Like It Like That

How is the move discussion different from Talk:Love You like a Love Song#Requested move? --George Ho (talk) 01:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:UCRN is policy, whereas the manual of style is a guideline, and common usage appears to favor the capitalized titles; the requests are similar in that the default is for pages to stay at the same title when consensus to move has not been established. Move requests have to be evaluated on an individual basis, and do not establish precedents, so the result in one occasion cannot be taken as a guarantee that a similar request will succeed. I like consistency and would have been happy to move the pages if the discussion had shown a consensus in favor of the moves, but it did not; in fact, it came closer to showing a consensus not to move the pages. Dekimasuよ! 02:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for delayed response. I don't see how the capitalizing the 2nd like is okay, even though the 2nd like is a preposition. How would majority vote and common usage outweigh logical talk? --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't have much more to say beyond what I said above. This wasn't just a majority vote, and as long as we treat policy the way we do and it includes WP:UCRN, I don't see much of a way around it. Dekimasuよ! 18:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

IP editors

No consensus to move? Why? I provided so many reasons that the title of this article should change. But you just said the opinions of IP editors acting in good faith are welcome. If it is really like this please show me one of the valuable opinions that these IPs have provided in that discussion. Keivan.f^Talk 09:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

As I noted, a primary topic for the proposed title was not established over the course of the discussion. You showed that the proposed title is used more than the current title, but not which of the people on the disambiguation page those references intended. This was also noted by the non-IP editor who participated in the discussion, and it is likely what the IP editor meant when he wrote "If you use the name Mihrişah Sultan for one of them, who will be the Mihrişah Sultan? Why?" This question was not addressed to the satisfaction of most of the participants in the discussion. At any rate, whether or not they contributed meaningfully to the discussion, IP editors are always welcome to participate, and it was the implication that they are not welcome to "!vote" that I was addressing in my closing comment. In the end, it was my responsibility to determine whether a consensus had been reached to move the article, and it clearly had not. Dekimasuよ! 19:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

"If you use the name Mihrişah Sultan for one of them, who will be the Mihrişah Sultan? Why?" If you see I answered this question over a hundred times in the talk page and also gave examples about other sultanas who shared the same name like Gülbahar Hatun and Emine Gülbahar Hatun. Mihrişah Sultan should be used instead of Mihrişah Valide Sultan because the references that I provided were all intended to Mihrişah Sultan (or Mihrişah Valide Sultan) as she was more famous and influential than Emine Mihrişah Sultan almost all sources link to her. Also it is clear that Emine Mihrişah Sultan's name is always "Emine Mihrişah" in books and sources. Actually "Emine Mihrişah" is a single name. Most of the times Ottomans used one name. It means there was no middle name in that era. It is written in Ottoman Turkish like this: "امینه مهرشاه". Another example is "Mahidevran" or "Mahi Devran" (ماه دوران). And as you said IP editors are always welcome to participate but I think until they discuss the matter with other users and provide precious opinions. Keivan.f^Talk 09:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not mean to say that a subsequent move request would be unsuccessful, but consensus was not reached in the current case. In order to make a successful proposal, evidence should normally rely upon the pages actually under consideration. It is also better not simply to cite sources that use the term the way you like, but to show evidence that other sources use it that way as well; this is likely to draw the support of other uninvolved editors who monitor move requests. Going back to 1bandsaw's comment, "What do the sources use more commonly? How do the sources distinguish between these women? I don't see enough here in the article or the proposed change to indicate that one should be favored over the other." Your final reply was best, when you noted more Google results for "Mihrişah Sultan" than for "Mihrişah Valide Sultan," but it was also flawed. When you put those search terms in quotation marks, there are 5200 results for the second term and only 1850 for the first, and in any case, you did not subsequently show that the results for "Mihrişah Sultan" referred to the particular figure whose page you were requesting to have moved. Dekimasuよ! 19:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

SPA template

At Talk:Jiwa Financials the {{spa}} was causing problems at RM? Widefox; talk 22:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes--probably because User:RMCD bot looks for a timestamp at the end of the move rationale in order to determine what date to file the request under. Dekimasuよ! 22:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Can't the bot be fixed? spa says to put it after the sig, so the bug would be with the bot. Widefox; talk 22:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't know about that, but it's not an issue that comes up very often. Dekimasuよ! 22:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Somme

Dekimasu, when you moved Somme (disambiguation) to Somme, why did you not take responsibility for (a) fixing the first link on the disambiguation page, which is now a circular link and prevents readers from finding one of the most prominent articles on a topic associated with this title; (b) fixing the redirect from Somme (département); and (c) fixing incoming links to the disambiguation page? You have been doing this a long time, and you should not need to be reminded of these things. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Russ. (a) and (b), yes. I'm not sure whether you looked over my talk page from this month, but there were also a couple of other occasions in which I neglected to do this. I can only point to a low rate of failure given the number of moves with and without deletions I've performed this month and say that I should have done them. I should go at a speed that allows me to be thorough, and it was my responsibility to fix the dab and the redirects. Although I've been doing this for a long time, it's probably also true that I'm a bit out of practice.

If I had moved the page of my own accord, I would also agree with (c). That said, I respectfully disagree with you on (c) in this case. I have been unable to get rid of the backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves even working solely on that for two weeks, and my role at Talk:Somme (disambiguation) was to determine the consensus for a preexisting move discussion. As it is I only know of a few other people who have closed any of the requests at WP:RM this month, and if we require the person closing a requested move to fix all of the incoming links, WP:RM will fail as a Wikipedia process. The onus should really be more on the people who were involved in the move discussion, and while I know the upshot is that WP:DPL will end up with more work because many editors won't finish what they've started, WP:RM would literally be twice as long as it is now if I had, for example, done all the dab fixes for Durham myself after moving the dab page to the plain title as the result of a preexisting move discussion.

At any rate, good to hear from you again, and hopefully next time we talk it won't be because you're unhappy with me. Dekimasuよ! 15:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Love Is All Around

DO you want to reconsider your "supervote" in this instance, please? --Richhoncho (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

PS. And your misreading of WP:SONGDAB, too? --Richhoncho (talk) 08:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

When the reasons for a close aren't explained in detail I am sometimes told that's the wrong way to go about things. I see that other times when I explain the reasons for a close thoroughly this results in a claim of a "supervote." Because the number of !votes on either side was similar in this case, I felt it was important to explain the reasoning for the close. However, I did not misread WP:SONGDAB, and I do not consider this a supervote. If you feel further actions are necessary, please feel free to take them, but I do not see any reason to reconsider any of what I have done in this close. Dekimasuよ! 08:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I now have time to set out my stall.

Firstly, I assume neither of us dispute that WP:SONGDAB (quoted below) is a quideline. If it is a guideline then the compulsion intended by "When necessary" must mean something outside the scope of songs - and it does. It means if there is another article, then disambiguation should occur by using only "(band)", "(album)", or "(song)" This is fully in agreement with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. For you to read "when necessary" in the terms you did is quite incorrect.

When necessary, disambiguation should be done using "(band)", "(album)", or "(song)" (such as Queen (band) or H.M.S. Donovan (album)). As per WP:Disambiguation disambiguate by article content, not just by titles; for example, even though there is no article Hurricane, the redirect Hurricane should not be replaced with Hurricane (song) or Hurricane (album).

Then there is the second para of the guideline, that suggests, quite unequivocably, that suggests that music titles are rarely "primary topic" and notability is changes from year to year and decade to decade.

Use further disambiguation only when needed (for example X (American band), X (Australian band)). Unless multiple albums (or songs) of the same name exist, they do not need to be disambiguated any further. For example, Down to Earth (Ozzy Osbourne album) is fine, because there are many other albums named Down to Earth, but H.M.S. Donovan (Donovan album) is unnecessary. Disambiguate albums and songs by artist and not by year unless the artist has released multiple albums (or songs) with the same name. When a track is not strictly a song (in other words a composition without lyrics, or an instrumental that is not a cover of a song), disambiguation should be done using "(composition)" or "(instrumental)".

Next we need to analyse the voting and close. Firstly there are 3 !votes for and 3 !votes against (as confirmied by somebody supporting). That is a clear case of "no consensus." I don't see any argument in those votes that should have swayed the close either way.

Then we come to the close, not only have you ignored the !voting pattern, but have added a new comment to close in favour of a move. Your close reads:

The result of the move request was: move the pages, per the discussion below. I'd note that WP:SONGDAB does not state that songs need to be disambiguated every time songs with identical titles exist, or that we are unable to determine a primary topic for a search request involving song titles; song titles need only be disambiguated when necessary--that is, when there is no primary topic. Our determinations of notability for inclusion are general, but we need not treat all articles as equally vital targets of a given encyclopedic search term. The discussion of evidence here indicates that this article can be taken as the primary topic for the title.

So what is wrong with your close? :-

1. There was no consensus (either way, so moving was not the option).
2. That Songdab does not say what you say it does (as shown above)
3. You have misread "when necessary."
4. You added new arguments to force a close as you wanted.
5. You were fully entitled to add them to the !voting, but chose not to, but to use a "supervote".

Now will you reconsider?

--Richhoncho (talk) 08:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• As far as your insistence that I am misreading the guideline, I continue to find your argument confusing. Title disambiguation is not necessary when the title in question is also the primary topic. This is made clear by both WP:AT/WP:NATURAL (policy) and WP:DAB (guideline), and is not in any way undermined in the case of songs by WP:SONGDAB (guideline). The stipulation "do when necessary" in WP:SONGDAB is also meant to imply its contrapositive, "don't do when not necessary." While you write, "Then there is the second para of the guideline, that suggests, quite unequivocably, that suggests that music titles are rarely 'primary topic' and notability is changes from year to year and decade to decade," it is simply not the case that it states that music titles are rarely the primary topic, either unequivocally or otherwise (nor does it state anything about changing notability, which is neither here nor there). The second paragraph is made explicitly subordinate to the first paragraph by the use of "further," and it also does not state that we cannot determine a primary topic that is a music title, but rather that there is little need to determine a primary topic for "Foo (song)" when a disambiguating parenthetical is already needed. When a song is already the primary topic of its plain title, consideration of what other disambiguation considerations might be relevant were it not the primary topic of its title is not necessary. Thus, neither the request nor the close was not in conflict with WP:SONGDAB or any other guideline or policy you have cited.

I did not add new arguments in the close; I weighed the relevance and strength of already established arguments as is expected when closing a discussion, and found that the objections that were not based in guidelines or policies (this is where I reiterate that I believe you are misreading the guideline) were tangential to the discussion or lacked weight, just as we would normally expect in the case of !votes that reject the jurisdiction of policy. As an aside, while !voting tallies are not relevant, the comment that found three in support and three opposed was also incorrect. Finally, "supervote" is basically a pejorative term, the implication being that I have somehow acted in bad faith. I hope you do not think this is the case, but at any rate, I did not intend for the close to be a "supervote," I do not believe it was a "supervote," and I had no interest in moving or desire to move the page as I did beyond my aim to review and close the advertised discussion. Dekimasuよ! 19:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want the !voting numbers, there were four editors who supported the move (including the one who proposed it), one who explicitly offered no objection, and three who opposed: two using a variation on your argument, and one who made a tangential comment about the relative importance of a cover version of the song despite the fact that the article's current scope includes both the original and the cover. Dekimasuよ! 19:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's strange - you don't understand what the guideline says, then you bring in other guidelines which are not mentioned to support your closure. Admission of failure? --Richhoncho (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I still don't see any other way to read the guideline, either from what it says explicitly or from its general application, and frankly doubt that I don't understand it. As for "bringing in other guidelines," I cited the same two guidelines you already mentioned, i.e. WP:DAB and WP:SONGDAB, along with one policy called, appropriately enough, Wikipedia:Article titles. Dekimasuよ! 00:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Now I have a little time to respond. So you want to mention WP:AT, so let's look at part of that policy:-

This page explains in detail the considerations, or naming conventions, on which choices of article title are based. It is supplemented by other more specific guidelines (see the box to the right), which should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view.

Included in those supplementary naming conventions is WP:NCM, of which WP:SONGDAB is a part of. Are you following me? Do you accept that WP:NCM is supported by a policy?

Next you are relying on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which reads (and the bold is entirely mine for emphasis):-

Although a word, name or phrase may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is the primary topic. This is the topic to which the term should lead, serving as the title of (or a redirect to) the relevant article. If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or should redirect to a disambiguation page on which more than one term is disambiguated). The primary topic might be a broad-concept article, as mentioned above.

There is no single criterion for defining a primary topic. However, there are two major aspects that are commonly discussed in connection with primary topics:

A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.

A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.

It's lucky I don't have to type much - the policies and guidelines actually support me, because there is absolutely no compunction to have a "primary topic" and as I have oft repeated, Primarytopic is perfect for presidents and capitals of countries but not for commercial titles.

So finally we come back to your close, I have never seen anybody else close on 3/3 using the nomination as casting vote, bearing in mind you added new arguments to the close, the close was improper and unrequited. Of course if you had been honest and actually !voted the result would possibly have been the same as has happened, but you circumvented that to enforce you point of view. I cannot any integrity.

Next time I see you misquote songdab I shall point out the error of your ways - again. Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• You don't seem to want to hear my reply; I have addressed these concerns already, and rather than respond to what I've written, you reiterate the same points that were reflected in my close. I recognize the importance of all the guidelines you cite, including WP:SONGDAB, and closed in accordance with them. Evidence was given in the discussion to show that the article was the primary topic for the search term. Indeed, the guidelines have "no compunction" about the establishment of a primary topic; what sorts of articles you think they should apply to is not part of the policy. A move discussion is not a vote, and at any rate, there is no reason to discount the opinion of the person who proposes the move; WP:RM specifically states that " Unlike certain other request processes on Wikipedia, nominations should not be neutral. Strive to make your point as best you can; use evidence... and make reference to applicable policies and guidelines, especially our article titling policy and the policy on disambiguation and primary topic.... Most nominators... simply allow the nomination itself to indicate what their opinion is. Nominators may also participate in the discussion along with everyone else, and often should." It is clear that my efforts to explain the close are "unrequited" insofar as you are unwilling to extend the courtesy of attempting to understand my position or refrain from casting aspersions on me over the close of a single move discussion about a song I've never heard. Dekimasuよ! 16:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

RM notification

Since you have participated in at least one Requested Move or Move Review discussion, either as participant or closer, regarding the title of the article currently at Sarah Jane Brown, you are being notified that there is another discussion about that going on now, at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested move #10. We hope we can finally achieve consensus among all participating about which title best meets policy and guidelines, and is not too objectionable. --В²C ☎ 17:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		You put a lot of effort into the fairly thankless job of dealing with move discussions, and I think that deserves some recognition. Yaksar (let's chat) 23:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Dekimasuよ! 23:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Shabdrung Ngawang Namgyal

Hey there,

I was curious why you decided on "relist" rather than close given that I almost put the page up under noncontroversial moves in the first place. Ogress _smash! 09:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There were a few reasons not to simply move the page: the combination of the fact that the page had been moved before and the lack of new input, the way the Zhabdrung page lists both spellings but no evidence had been given about common usage in this case in English (official romanization is not usually relevant), and the fact that honorifics are actually deprecated by WP:HONORIFIC. However, in the end, I intended the relisting to be very neutral. I was simply hoping that more evidence and participation would happen in the event of a relist. (I couldn't, of course, know that you thought of listing it as uncontroversial). Dekimasuよ! 16:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Your observation is acute: is it possible to amend the relisting? Zhabdrung is a title and I should know better after doing all that work on Islam-topic pages. I felt it was uncontroversial because it's an official romanisation of the title of the founder of Bhutan. Dzongkha has an official romanisation for that Tibetic languages. This is part of the reason why the spelling is "Namgyal" instead of Namgyel, actually. However, in the end I decided that in of itself might be controversial, so I listed it. So, uh, yeah, since we've got zero comments, is it possible to emend the page change to simply Ngawang Namgyal? Ogress _smash! 02:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Considering that no one has commented, if you add the new suggestion as a comment below the original suggestion, that should probably be enough even without amending the original proposal. I'm not familiar with any Wikipedia style guide for Tibet-related articles, but if it's there to back up the preferred spelling, that would also be helpful. Dekimasuよ! 04:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Lanark and Hamilton East

Hey Dekimasu. Thanks for the move to the above article, appreciate it :) doktorb _words^deeds 16:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome! Dekimasuよ! 01:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Mike Dalton (wrestler)

"Mike Dalton" is one of Mattias Clement's ring names; so is "Tyler Breeze". Why no consensus to either birth name or another ring name? I'm sure that "Mike Dalton" is not a commonly-used name. --George Ho (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, no evidence of a common name (or even relative use) ever came up in the discussion; it was also never shown that the current name is uncommon. Claims like "gained more exposure" or "higher profile" that were made aren't very strong without evidence, so it's not too surprising that no consensus came out of the discussion. Clearly some were in favor of using birth name and some weren't, but no guidelines or policy were cited except for a passing reference to common name that wasn't backed up. Given that the arguments weren't strong on either side, how would you have closed it? Dekimasuよ! 01:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Star Wars original films title polls

Hi Dekimasu, I'm not sure if you saw, but my request was to postpone the closing of the polls by ten days so that all contributors to the Star Wars pages could see them. An editor who was not aware of the polls just replied to my message after they were closed. While i do not engage in canvassing, I did however inform the editors who brought up the issues of the film titles of the polls (see Talk:The Empire Strikes Back and Talk:Return of the Jedi), because it is very clear what their viewpoint is on the issue. But because they were not aware of the polls, I do think it did not include all viewpoints.

And again if you look at the two talk pages already linked, they are dominated by multiple users bringing up the same issue. Had they been aware of the polls, the consensus would have been very different. What I propose is the polls be opened for a few more days. If not then I am proposing a poll at least one month long as a lot of editors are not active on wiki on a daily basis. I myself do not have the time to contribute more than a few times a month.

Lastly I wish to inform you that these films were never re-released as their episode titles as the articles state. These are misleading claims and have not a single supporting source. Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes back was released as such first in theaters in 1980 and the same for Episode VI: Return of the Jedi in 1983.

Not a single source has been provided to support these baseless fan-made claims, which is not compliant with wiki-policies. Regards--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nadirali: If you would like to open a new move discussion, I'd still suggest that it be set up as a multimove request, with one move discussion for all three pages. There's no reason why a new discussion can't be opened, but it was clear that leaving the previous discussions open for a bit longer was not going to result in a consensus to move the pages. If you have new arguments to bring up, you are probably better off starting from scratch. Personally, I don't have any opinion about the release names of the films, and did not really consider that in my close, because policy is to prefer common usage to either original or official names when titling pages. It is clearly the case that this is an area of perennial dispute, but that is not in and of itself a reason to move the articles yet again. As for notifying the other editors, I am not sure I completely agree that the notifications did not constitute canvassing, but I do believe you were acting in good faith. Dekimasuよ! 22:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Swedish Landrace

Hallo Dekimasu,

you moved the goat breed Swedish Landrace to Swedish Landrace goat. That is is a very uncommons name. It is not used in reliable sources[80]. If we use it, we do establish it. May I suggest to use parenthetical disambiguation instead and move it to Swedish Landrace (goat)? --PigeonIP (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi PigeonIP: I would not revert you if you moved the page, but I would not be surprised if the move were then challenged. I moved to this form because it was parallel to the existing Swedish Landrace pig. If you would like to propose via WP:RM that both pages be moved, please feel free to do so. Dekimasuよ! 23:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a false claim anyway; "Swedish Landrace goat" is overwhelmingly common [81]. The only places it doesn't occur are goat-specific contexts, in which adding "goat" is redundant, and a few sites that use parenthetic disambiguation, mostly WP mirrors and derivatives. All of the recent animal breed article name RMs have concluded in favor of natural not parenthetic disambiguation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Horrid move

Can you please explain why you moved this article from Libyan Civil War to 2011 Libyan Civil War? This is an extremely objectionable format, and was not the one proposed. Libyan Civil War of 2011 is the correct format, mimicking Egyptian Revolution of 2011. The "year first" format is only used for WP:NDESC titles, not for proper nouns. It was agreed previously at the various move discussions on that page that "Libyan Civil War" was a proper noun. Given that this is true, the "year first" format is entirely unacceptable. I had the page unwatched, but having now caught this, I can't believe how absurd it is. The proposer was right in requesting the "of" title. Now we have a mess, that fails our title criteria and standard English language usage. As far as 2014 Libyan Civil War is concerned, that article's title should not be capitalised, as it is not a proper noun. It should be at "2014 Libyan civil war", because the name "2014 Libyan Civil War" is not a proper noun used by the media. RGloucester — ☎ 04:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I moved it this way because it reflected the consensus of the discussion. The titles 2011 Libyan Civil War and 2014 Libyan Civil War were actually those suggested by the editor who proposed the move, although for some reason not what it was listed under: "If a move is decided upon, I believe the proper titles would be 2011 Libyan Civil War and 2014 Libyan Civil War. ansh666 01:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)." Subsequent editors agreed: "Support either: 2014 Libyan Civil War and 2014 Libyan Civil War OR Libyan Civil War (2014) and Libyan Civil War (2011). To me it doesn't really matter whether the date comes first or not, though I believe that in the future our readers will remember the location of the conflict rather than the year. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 06:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)" "In lieu of closing, I will vote support, to moving the two articles, using the 'year first' format, with the generic title becoming a disambiguation page, and concur with Fitzcarmalan that related pages may need to be moved as well to avoid ambiguity. Gigs (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)" In contrast, no editors specifically advocated the "of" title (including, contrary to your assertion, the proposer), and no one suggested a lowercase form. You may be able to fault the discussion on grounds that were not raised over the two weeks of discussion, and you may wish to restart the discussion, but I do not think I have erred in my reading of it. Dekimasuよ! 04:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not think you erred in your reading of the discussion, I think you erred in accepting violations of the title policy at the discussion paricipants' behest, which is especially true given the limited participation in what is a somewhat large series of changes. Local consensus cannot override policy or guidelines. Fitzcarmalan's initial proposal, as seen at the top, was "Libyan Civil War of 2011". Regardless, that's not the important thing. The important thing is that we now have two seriously screwed up articles. This was an old RM, that didn't catch attention for some reason. I'm sure you won't want to relist it. However, something must be done. RGloucester — ☎ 04:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I stand corrected on the proposal. I am not sure I agree that WP:CONLIMITED applies to the extent you imply in this sort of discussion held through WP:RM, since RM discussions are not intended to create any sort of precedent and are understood to generally involve a broad cross-section of editors. I am also not convinced that the current setup is less helpful than the previous one. Proposing a new set of moves from the new titles and showing consensus for them seems like a workable solution to me, although my reaction to the close was not that it was horrid to start out with. Dekimasuよ! 05:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think that incorrect English usage is the most horrid thing on this Earth. That's another story for another day, though. I'll see about a new move request. RGloucester — ☎ 05:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the preposition at the end of my last sentence, then. I've been unable to locate the guidance that the year first format is only used for WP:NDESC titles in WP:NCE or WP:NCNUM#Other events ("If a time indicator is used in the title of an article on an event that doesn't recur at regular intervals [or didn't recur at all] there's no 'standard format' for the representation of the time indicator"). Where is the naming convention to which you are referring? Dekimasuよ! 05:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I read through WP:MOSTITLE and it doesn't seem to have a suggestion either way, and "of 201x" didn't seem to be the preferred format for wars. I actually like the "Libyan Civil War (201x)" format best, personally. ansh666 05:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

A quick search found 1982 Lebanon War, 1948 Arab–Israeli War, 1991–92 South Ossetia War. Dekimasuよ! 05:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe you are well aware of the principle of "other stuff". RGloucester — ☎ 13:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, of course, that "X is in violation of Foo" is no justification for Y being in violation of Foo. I failed to find Foo. In the absence of Foo, the presence of other articles following the same name format is evidence of the lack of a de facto naming convention. At any rate, if you can show me where Foo is as I previously requested, I'll be happy to support subsequent moves that bring the pages in line with it. Dekimasuよ! 17:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

By that same logic, it shouldn't be "Libyan Civil War of 2011" just because Egyptian Revolution of 2011 is named that way. ansh666 01:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That isn't the same logic, of course, because "Egyptian Revolution of 2011" complies with our title policy, whilst "2011 Libyan Civil War" does not. RGloucester — ☎ 01:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind you two discussing this on my talk page, but I keep thinking someone has answered my question: Where is the naming convention/policy guidance to which you are referring? Dekimasuよ! 01:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I plan on doing a write-up later, when I have time. RGloucester — ☎ 01:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any guideline or policy applying here. RGloucester you've thrown around a lot of irrelevant policy links to support your argument that seems to boil down to "I don't like it". It's a stronger argument to say that other articles in this topic area are using the "name first" format, but that's not really an error in his closure, just something that should have been brought up at the RM. I don't think this issue is important enough to spend another RM on. It's purely cosmetic. Gigs (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Charles Essie opened another RM at Talk:2014 Libyan Civil War#Requested moves 2 three days ago, and no one has left any input so far. Dekimasuよ! 20:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Great Britain and Ireland move proposal

Why are you closing an active thread in which four editors support moving the page, and two oppose the move, citing 'no consensus'? Rob984 (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Most likely because Wikipedia discussion are not votes. RGloucester — ☎ 17:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

So no consensus after one week and boom, discussion over? The last post was three days ago. I would regard that as an active discussion. Rob984 (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

"Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions."

I would also appreciate if you would evaluate the strength of the arguments. Waggers opposed because they 'don't see the point of a move'. They didn't address any of the concerns raised, or give any argument as to why the current title is better. SnowFire didn't address the concerns raised either, and claimed 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' was the primary topic of 'Great Britain and Ireland', which meant that the page shouldn't be moved. I don't understand why that caused them to oppose the move. Did you even read the comments?

Rob984 (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Have you read WP:TITLECHANGES? If you want to file a move review, file a move review. Don't carry this on here. RGloucester — ☎ 17:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not carrying anything on. I'm discussing the closure. "Prior to requesting a review, you should attempt to resolve any issues with the closer on their talk page". Rob984 (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

One week is the standard length of move discussions; thus, usually three days without messages does indicate that the request is ready for closure.

One of the things that became clear over the course of discussion was the explicit lack of agreement as to the primary topic of the phrase Great Britain and Ireland. I do not see general agreement in the current discussion that "'Great Britain and Ireland' should possibly be redirected to British Isles and 'United Kingdom and Ireland' to Ireland–United Kingdom relations per WP:PRIMARY TOPIC," or agreement on any of the other assertions about a primary topic. At that point, the validity of the individual arguments on the "accurate" reading of the phrase become mostly moot; when there is no primary topic for a phrase, we use a disambiguation page at that location. It would exacerbate the problem to move the disambiguation page and point "Great Britain and Ireland" at one of the articles posited as a primary topic. In contrast with articles, where we have to take many factors under consideration to determine the title most in accord with policy on article titles (there was at any rate little outside sourcing here to tell us about real-world use), disambiguation pages are navigational devices, so the proper content of the page is "things that are often referred to as 'Great Britain and Ireland'. The current page fulfills that task.

I am also concerned that this request may run afoul of the one specific area of Wikipedia not open for this kind of move discussion, due to an arbcom ruling. You can see a note to this effect at the top of WP:RMCI: "discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles (Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Ireland (disambiguation)) must occur at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, unless it is agreed there to hold the discussion elsewhere. Any requested move affecting these articles that is opened on the article talk pages or any other venue should be speedily closed, with a link to the ArbCom ruling." Since I did not read the current discussion at Talk:Great Britain and Ireland as having reached a consensus in favor of a move, and the discussion had already run for the full seven days, I did not find it necessary to determine whether the requested move falls under the arbcom remedies, but if this issue is reopened, at WP:MR or elsewhere, it may be necessary to clarify this. Dekimasuよ! 19:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Where "Great Britain and Ireland" directs wasn't part of the proposal. Currently "Great Britain and Ireland" directs to Great Britain and Ireland. I assumed if that page was to move, then "Great Britain and Ireland" would remain directing to the article, at the new title. I didn't think consensus on that issue was necessary just yet. Nonetheless, I understand your reasoning. Thank you for clarifying. Regards, Rob984 (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Biserica Mănăstirii Dominicane

If you are to lazy to read a discussion properly then do not move pages. The consensus was obviously to move the page to Church of the Dominican Monastery (Sighişoara) which I will be doing now. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

First, you have moved the talk page against the close, but neglected to move the article along with it.

I specifically noted my reasons for the close and that it might be an intermediate solution, but I did not misread the discussion. You were the only editor who opposed the move. One supporting editor suggested changing the lede in addition to moving the article, and I instituted that change. Another supporting editor asked for confirmation that this was the only notable "Monastery Church" in Sighișoara, and received confirmation of this. If you would like to initiate a new move request as I suggested, please do that. If you would like to request a move review, please do that. However, I believe your tone here and on the talk page of the article, where you wrote "sure as hell ain't happening, that is a terrible name," is counterproductive and not civil. Dekimasuよ! 20:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Roses etc

Hallo, if you move a page like Roses, please remember to add a {{redirect}} hatnote so that readers wanting senses other than the primary topic can get to the appropriate dab page in one click. Thanks. PamD 23:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and thank you for the fix. I do try to remember. Dekimasuよ! 00:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot

for spending a whole four minutes considering this. Sammy D III (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, clearly not, since I was the one who relisted it a week before the close. When no one else contributed to the discussion after another week, I closed the request based on the existing discussion. I'm not sure what biased "point of view" you think the close exhibits, but it would not have been appropriate to base the close on a discussion from seven years ago. Dekimasuよ! 18:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, of course you are right. Sammy D III (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Three editors expressed support for the move, two raised questions--this was my reading of the discussion. You can take it to WP:MR if you want. Also, you may have an opinion one way or another on this, but even if you don't it shows that I was considering the status of the discussion. Dekimasuよ! 18:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

First, I apologize for my first post, it was rude. I still do not understand the consensus.

A request was made.

One suggestion was made to the requester that “because my suggestion sounds sensible“ may not be enough reason, and “What we need to decide is what is the common name associated with the airport”, which was not done.

One oppose with reasons.

One support, who would also support a different option which includes the city name.

One clear support with no reason.

I don’t care what the name is, or what is moved where. I do care that the two posters who have presented any kind of argument are overruled by two one-liners (WP:CONCISE is POV itself?) and a questionable request to start with. This is enough reason to change something in place which has been discussed in detail before? Shouldn’t you show a clear reason for changing it, instead of having to defend what currently exists? Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I have completed a Move review application, without reconsideration I will post it on 14 November 2014. Sammy D III (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't really mind if you send this to move review. Alternatively, I'm willing to move the page back and relist the discussion for someone else to close (but not to close it as "no consensus" myself). That might take a while to get resolved, though; I did that for one move request on October 16 and the discussion is still open. Separately, I have a suggestion and a comment. I think it would be helpful if you would make it more clear that you actually oppose the move, rather than that you are asking for clarification. While the close is certainly based on a reading of the discussion and not just numbers of supports and opposes, and it was clear that you weren't supporting the move, in this case it wasn't clear to me that you actually opposed it. The second is that you have expressed concern with WP:CONCISE a few times, including in your previous comment here, but WP:CONCISE is part of the policy on article titles. I'm not sure why you are calling it NNPOV. In the absence of a policy- or guideline-based argument against the title change (here it seems that you might want to make an argument based on WP:COMMONNAME, but figures would be helpful), WP:CONCISE does seem to be one reason to move the page. Dekimasuよ! 04:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Good morning. I started rude, sorry, I have tried to get on track. The post was meant to follow instructions and inform, but it does look like a threat, right? You had mentioned WP:MR, which I did. I was uncomfortable, looking back at it.

If NNPOV means not neutral POV, I don’t think you have any bias relative the renaming, only the closing.

I get it that my opposition was not clear. I thought it was a run of the mill section, it was not until it turned green that I had any clue something was happening.

I believe that WP:COINCE is entirely subjective. I myself believe that the city name is required for “sufficient information to identify the topic”. POV. Nothing was elaborated on, just a reference to a section requiring a discussion in itself. And WP:CONCISE was referred to by the poster who also suggested an alternative name with the city name.

The requester never came back to answer questions asked them. There is one approve with qualifications(?), one approve based solely on a personal opinion, with no explanation. This is no kind of discussion at all, I am very surprised that this can be considered as enough of a consensus to change a name which has been set by two major discussions.

I don’t understand why this has to be anything more than a run of the mill, and soon forgotten, section. If it has to be closed somehow, how can it possibly be considered as a consensus of enough people to change anything? Shouldn’t it be closed with a yawn?

I intend to pursue this. Sammy D III (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I was a bit unhappy with your tone at first, but that's not true anymore. I don't consider move review to be a threat, particularly since you don't seem to think I acted with ill intent. I think that either process can be a check on whether I determined the consensus of the discussion correctly, and in this case I'm unsure of what the final outcome should be. You prefer move review to relisting, then? (Move review might also end in relisting the discussion.) I still think your concerns with WP:CONCISE are unfounded. The part of WP:AT that balances WP:CONCISE is WP:PRECISE, and I think Midway International Airport is precise enough to indicate the topic. But perhaps others will disagree. Dekimasuよ! 17:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm over here because I cannot count all those colons. Thank you for forgiving my first rudeness.

I do disagree with the name change, but that's not my point. My problem is I don't think that there was enough discussion to change anything. I don't know the rules, I think peer review looks like the hot setup. Friday is seven days, I think I can post then and then just sit back and watch. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

RM at Irish Republic

Hi, Dekimasu. On reflection I'm not sure that your speedy close of the requested move discussion at Talk:Irish Republic was correct. Irish Republic is a history article, concerning a revolutionary state between 1919 and 1922. The Arbcom case was concerned only with the naming of the current state known as "Ireland" or "The Republic of Ireland", or of the island of Ireland. Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy if this latest silly RM stayed closed, but if the initiator wants to pursue it, I'd prefer he did it on the article talk page than on WT:IECOLL, because it would be setting a precedent to bring discussions to IECOLL that it was never meant for. Scolaire (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Scolaire. I understand your concern. I'm still under the impression that this falls under the Arbcom case, which concerned "the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles" (per remedy 1), considering that the argument being used here is that the term is also used to refer to "the Republic of Ireland" and that the original dispute that led to the request to amend mentioned at WP:RMCI was specifically the conversion of Republic of Ireland into a disambiguation page. Since the Arbcom confirmed there that discussions should be at WT:IECOLL in the case of "changing an article whose history clearly indicates that it is about the Irish State so that it is instead about the term 'Republic of Ireland' as it refers to that state," I would think that the converse would also be true. Like you, I'm under the impression that the move wouldn't gain consensus anyway, but if it's necessary to ask for clarification somewhere, please feel free to do so (I'm happy to participate in the discussion wherever that is, or reopen if necessary, but I'm not sure it is necessary). Dekimasuよ! 23:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I accept your reasoning, and I can see how, if the discussion took a certain turn, it could have ramifications for the three articles covered by the ArbCom ruling. Thankfully, 24 hours have passed and the editor has not tried to re-open the discussion, so hopefully this is moot anyway. Cheers, Scolaire (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of testing the waters continuing, but I haven't closed the new one. Dekimasuよ! 20:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Somatic DAB

Hi. You marked this page as not meeting the DAB style. I'm looking at it and the main issue I see is that refs shouldn't be cited on a DAB. Could you reply here, or even better post on the talk page for that article, any other issues that you see? Several of us are working on cleaning up this page and we can try to address it. Thanks.--Karinpower (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I have replied on the talk page there, as you suggested. Dekimasuよ! 19:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

List of Ukrainian Rulers

Hi Dekimasu, Your recent behavior in concluding the result of the List of Ukrainian rulers article has been a blatant disrespect of wikipedia conventions. The result of the move discussion on the talk page was an overwhelming "Oppose" based on the votes and AT MOST "No Consensus". You had no right to move the page based on the results of the discussion or to close the discussion as a "Move". You are disregarding wikipedia policy with your decision and it appears that you have arbitrated this discussion based on your own personal opinion, because you believed that the page should be moved. This is a conflict of interest, as you should have voiced your concerns in the voting, rather than engaging in WP:ACTIVISM and WP:ADMINABUSE. Please undo this dubious edit. --BoguSlav 18:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Boguslavmandzyuk, I have already explained this in more detail under the closed move request. The result of the move discussion was to move to a title proposed over the course of the discussion; it was the title suggested by the editor who opened the discussion that was opposed. I have no personal opinion about anything related to Ukraine and no conflict of interest, nor did I express any personal opinion; I only read and interpreted the existing discussion. Please remember to assume good faith. There is a process for reviewing closes you think are inappropriate. As I noted before, you are free to have this close reviewed at Wikipedia:Move review. I doubt that it will find the close to have been unwarranted, however. Dekimasuよ! 18:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dekimasu, let's take a look at the result of the vote from a logical perspective, without any biases. The proposal was to move the page, and three people voted regarding the proposal. All three individuals who voted, said that they ALL OPPOSE the move. However, one user had a conditional oppose, which the nominator compromised with him on. In that case, the result of the vote count is 2 OPPOSE as before, and 2 SUPPORTS (the nominator and the anon who met the nominator half-way). Please explain to me how a vote of 2 against 2 compelled you to close the discussion as a "MOVE". There are two options, 1) you know the rules but chose to blatantly go against them and therefore engage in WP:ADMINABUSE OR 2) you personally want the page to be moved and you used your position as an admin to do so, therefore engaging in WP:ACTIVISM AND WP:ADMINABUSE. --BoguSlav 18:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I mistakenly read one of the responses such that I thought all three of the editors in the discussion, except for you, explicitly agreed to the title to which I moved the article, which was not the title originally proposed: "Suggest List of rulers of the region of Ukraine -- 67.70.35.44" " I can accept your proposal. 'List of rulers of the region of Ukraine'. Fakirbakir." I read Ajaxsmack's "as proposed and oppose List of rulers of the region of Ukraine" as "as proposed and propose List of rulers of the region of Ukraine," which would have indicated that all of the editors except for you agreed on the topic. Now that I have read the discussion again, I will revert, reopen, and relist. At any rate, your accusations were unwarranted. Dekimasuよ! 18:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I further reiterate that I have no connection to this topic and no conflict of interest. Instead of reverting closing comments, which does not really have any effect, I'd suggest that you first contact the closer directly in the future or go to Wikipedia:Move review as per procedure; your reversion of the close without comment did not immediately suggest to me that there was an actual problem with the close. Dekimasuよ! 19:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Alternative music

Hey, why do you think this should redirect to just one genre when there are 4 other significant ones that share the title? Is there evidence of this term being commonly associated with alternative rock? I myself typed it in looking for a general article on alternative styles. Links to everything related (rather than a single genre) are the next best thing.----MASHAUNIX 19:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I have added the hatnote I suggested to the top of Alternative rock, which should solve the problem. What do you think? The primary topic of the term is still Alternative rock, as indicated by the redirect that was stable for over a year, and redirecting to the dab page broke about 800 links. Dekimasuよ! 19:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I also note that Alternative rock states that it is often known as "alternative music," whereas none of the other genres listed under Alternative#Genres of music make such a claim. Dekimasuよ! 19:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You are right about what the page states and the links (I missed this before), and this is indeed the best solution. Thanks.----MASHAUNIX 19:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Move review for Midway Airport

An editor has asked for a Move review of Midway International Airport. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Sammy D III (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. Dekimasuよ! 19:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, maybe explanations

I am posting this here to keep it away from the peer review, please do whatever you want with it. I think I have insulted you far more than I meant to. I don’t want to get you, and will of course apologize if your move is supported.

I have never felt that you have had any bias toward the airport, or any grudge against me. If anyone thinks that, they are wrong. Quality vs. quantity and defensive, that’s it.

If the form I used is insulting, I apologize. I have no idea what “WP:RMCI” is, the other one did not seem right. I have no idea where the list is, or why I want to be on it.

“Questionable closings appear…actions” is insulting, isn’t it? It was meant seriously, and not that you were not familiar with a procedure, rather as a shortcut to more peer review. It was also not intended to affect the review itself. You are correct that it was your talk page. I do seriously apologize for embarrassing you in front of your friends, I was an ass.

I’m not looking for any reply other than possibly an acknowledgement. I don’t think I have posted anything here that affects the peer review, this is personal. I am sorry if I have made this too ugly. I do still think your closing stunk, though. Sammy D III (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk page for chronological list

Hello. What exactly is the meaning of this edit of yours?: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_French_classical_composers_(chronological)&curid=38022135&diff=633574069&oldid=633010150 Classicalfan626 (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The edit moves the discussion back to the top of the list at Wikipedia:Requested moves (see WP:RM#Relisting and WP:RMCI#Relisting). It is an alternative to closing a discussion as "no consensus" when there has not been enough discussion over the course of the move request to establish a consensus for the requested move, but it seems like such a consensus could be established with more discussion. It looks like refactoring, but this is the standard way of going about things so that the bot will pick up the new timestamp. Dekimasuよ! 21:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks. Classicalfan626 (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Move proposal closed

Hello Dekimasu. I have closed the proposed Cheryl Cole ---> Cheryl (musician) move at Talk:Cheryl Cole which had been open for a week. The problem was that the supporters were actually preferring something else -- Cheryl (singer) -- which was not proposed. So the consensus was for oppose the proposal. Moriori (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC).

I had only relisted the move for further discussion, and don't have an opinion myself, but thanks for letting me know. If you thought that there was sufficient support to show consensus for Cheryl (singer), even though that wasn't proposed, it would of course have been all right to move the page to that title. Dekimasuよ! 22:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't assess there was consensus for Cheryl (singer) because most respondents commented on the proposal, not a Cheryl (singer) alternative. Cheers. Moriori (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Set It Off

Why not vote instead? Well, you relisted the discussion, but everyone picked "support" except just one. --George Ho (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't oppose or support the move. I was just unwilling to close the move request on the merits of the existing arguments of the supporters, as I stated. I think there is a possibility that either side will be able to show strong arguments, but that strong arguments were not yet made. The number of supporters, by itself, isn't sufficient reason to go through with a move. Dekimasuよ! 00:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Moves like Jagger copy-paste move

Sorry to burden you with another like/Like issue, but I just noticed that you're the last one that processed a technical request, and I have one for you that's basically a technical request, but is a bit more complicated. Someone did an ugly copy/paste move of Moves like Jagger to Moves Like Jagger on 18 October. This is contrary to the last RM discussion for that page, and should be reverted on that basis as well as due to being an improper method of moving the page. I tried to contact the admin that closed that prior discussion (Jenks24), but they seem to be on a Wikibreak, so I'm coming to you. The article and the Talk page are now at different places, and some edit history has accumulated since the move. Please see:

• Talk:Moves like Jagger#Requested move
• User talk:Onlylove18#Your copy/paste move of Moves like Jagger
• User talk:Jenks24#Moves like Jagger copy-paste move

Can you please take a look?

—BarrelProof (talk) 05:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It takes a while for the system to load 2,200 deleted revisions, but the page should be back up in a second. Dekimasuよ! 05:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Having some technical trouble trying to get the page back up, although the merge itself should be no problem. I'll try to figure out what's wrong. Dekimasuよ! 05:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems OK now. Thanks. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was unable to selectively restore--it's kicking out of the system, probably timing out because of the number of revisions, but who knows. So actually, there are a few revs from the previous redirect stuck in the history. But this is better than leaving the page down, and there weren't really substantive edits at the redirect, so it's better than before. Dekimasuよ! 06:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I hope the fact that I edited the result doesn't complicate the problem. I thought the process had completed. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm planning to leave it as it is at this point, so don't worry about it. It might confuse someone glancing at the edit history, but we should be fine as far as copyright is concerned and there are some known bugs with undeletion. Dekimasuよ! 06:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Feral pig page

The Feral pig page is largely nonsensical, as it's contents relate to a terminology used in North America. Will you be editing this page so that it properly reflects its new title? Obscurasky (talk) 10:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

No, but hopefully those who created a consensus in favor of the move will be doing so. Dekimasuよ! 18:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It's unreasonable that you've created a nonsensical page and aren't prepared to correct that.Obscurasky (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for butting in, and feel free to tell me if you don't want a talk page stalker here, but if you're going to want changes made as a result of a closed move discussion you'd have a better time talking to editors in the discussion itself, and not the closer, whose job is simply to assess if there is a consensus and carry out the actual task, but is often not at all involved (and in fact is encouraged not to be) with the concerned editorial decisions.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you for that. I was not aware of such protocol. Obscurasky (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Lachancea kluyveri

I see you created the redirect at Lachancea kluyveri (which may be gone by the time you read this, overwritten by a move). Any comment on Talk:Saccharomyces kluyveri#Requested move? Andrewa (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not qualified to comment, but when IPs request that kind of move, it's usually because they hit a redlink. Since they can't create the redirect, when they seem reasonable I try to make them myself. Dekimasuよ! 18:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Understood! Good practice. Andrewa (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Azerbaijan moves reverts

Thanks, interestingly one of the moves you reverted was of a town which was used as User:Gobustan name by a previous NovaSkola sock. I have put in an SPI for a Checkuser. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

SPI requests take some time recently, but I will keep WP:DUCK in mind here. Dekimasuよ! 20:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Raining Men (song)

Hi- if you're going to create a dab page, could you go ahead and do it (and correct any incoming links)? Right now, we we have "Raining Men (song)" redirecting to "Raining Men (Rihanna song)", which is a little silly. J Milburn (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I'm not planning to do anything further there, but encourage anyone else to do or discuss what they think is necessary. The fact that a page move was deemed necessary does seem to imply that a redirect to It's Raining Men (disambiguation) (and expanding that dab to officially include "Raining Men") might be helpful. Dekimasuよ! 20:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I definitely won't be fixing all of the links, though. While I try to do cleanup where I can, the onus for that should be on the editors who supported the move. Dekimasuよ! 20:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but if the onus is on someone else, it seems quite reasonable that the onus is on you to tell them that. As you've no intention of fixing it, I'm moving it back until someone who does appears. J Milburn (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Moving articles under AfD is not great, nor do I really see an urgent reason to overturn a consensus close of the final of three consecutive move requests that finally brought stability to the article. Links would have to be cleaned up if and when the redirect was altered, but editors make such fixes all the time. I understand the point you are trying to make, but nothing was so broken that it required reversing an administrative action without discussion. Dekimasuよ! 23:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you can see my exasperation, though- from my end, it looks like you've done half a job and then refuse to do the rest. I admit, given that the article is at AfD, it may well have been felicitous to wait out the result, but concerning "urgency": the alternative to moving it back seems to be just waiting until someone can be bothered to finish the job, and that might literally never happen. I don't think either of us are in any way attached to the article, so I'll keep an eye on it and see what happens if it's kept at AfD. J Milburn (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I have left a further note at User talk:Anthony Appleyard, but my intent is not to be combative and I can see from your message here that it's not your intent, either. I would prefer that you had not reversed the move and/or had contacted the editors who supported the final move request at Talk:Raining Men (song) rather than asking me to perform the action, however. While it appears to be unnecessary disambiguation from your end, the article only ended up there as the result of a belabored discussion. What happens to the redirects after WP:RM discussions is not really within the purview of WP:RM, and I would only have become more involved by making an executive decision whether to point the redirect to It's Raining Men or to the dab page. Perhaps a discussion at WP:RFD would have been helpful, but I'm not intending to make you do extra work either. Dekimasuよ! 23:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Armenian sentiment

Hey, could you please move Anti-Armenianism in Azerbaijan to Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan as proposed in the talk page? --Երևանցի ^talk 01:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It looks like the multimove request at Talk:Anti-Armenianism was malformed, so I don't think there was a move notification shown on the other talk page, but for the time being I have moved the other page as well. Dekimasuよ! 02:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! --Երևանցի ^talk 02:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

From Huskerdad4404

It is interesting that you use the term constructive. I'm not sure noting that he moved 8 times in his early career is constructive , especially since it isn't accurate. I would think his early career up to and including high school would be relevant and infinitely more constructive. If you remove my contribution, then I suggest you remove what is currently there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huskerdad4404 (talk • contribs)

This edit was not constructive; it removed the introductory paragraph, photo, and infobox in the article. Dekimasuよ! 01:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Move of tai chi chuan

Hi, I think that this move debate needs a bit longer before closing. Please see the talk page. Btljs (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I have replied at Talk:Tai chi. Dekimasuよ! 21:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

pre judgement

Why did you say, when closing the RM, "Also note that 2014 coalition intervention in Syria is likely to be too imprecise to garner support." The first two responses given by the first two editors to the thread were in agreement. Please retract your comment at Talk:American-led_intervention_in_Syria. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I would not have made a comment on 2014 coalition intervention in Syria had the request not been modified to show that possibility as a proposed title. I did not feel it appropriate to ignore the proposed title in those circumstances. Problems with simple use of the term "coalition" were already evident in several of the opposing comments on the proposed "2014 military intervention in Syria": that it does not make sufficiently clear which parties are within the scope of the article, performing or carrying out the "military intervention." This point was made, for example, in Legacypac's comment: "There have been multiple nations involving themselves in Syria Civil War. A less specific title immediately will be followed by insertions of Iran and Hezbollah involvement and a massive war over which countries get more coverage." I see that you have already opened a new move request while I was away, but sorry for taking so long to respond. Dekimasuよ! 06:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dekimasu

Regarding your closure of the RM on Talk:Kick Six. The user who started the RM actually moved the page 1 minute after they started the move request. —  dainomite   08:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you think the action needs to be reverted in order to have further discussion, and/or would you wish to oppose the move that was made? It looks like it was moved by the editor who supported the change, not the person who opened the move request. Dekimasuよ! 08:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Bah, that's what I meant, doh! >.< I don't really care what the page is called personally, but if you do feel like re-opening it I can leave a note on WT:CFB about the discussion and I'm sure that will draw some folks to come to a consensus on the matter. But, I don't really care either way. —  dainomite   09:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It seemed unlikely that anyone would object. If someone does object, we can always revisit the issue. Either way, thanks for asking about it. Dekimasuよ! 21:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank You!

I have noticed that you responded to my requested move of Sledgehammer (song) to Sledgehammer (Peter Gabriel song). Thank you very much!! You're a big help!! Paul Badillo (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome! Dekimasuよ! 21:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move of Dan Fox

Although I opposed the move I was surprised it was closed after only two comments over the week. Do you not think it should have been relisted to allow other editors to contribute? Zarcadia (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I can reopen and relist it if you want, but I closed it because I thought it was unlikely that the request would succeed as presented even given more time. As you noted, there was no evidence made for the claim that he is the primary topic of the plain title, and after you presented some evidence to the contrary no one contributed further to the discussion in the next several days. Dekimasuよ! 21:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Unless the original requester wants to contest it I wouldn't think it would be worth reopening, I agree there was no consensus to move but don't know why more editors didn't contribute. Thanks for your time. Zarcadia (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: Multimove template

Requested. Thank you!--SISCON (talk) 07:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Glad it worked out! Dekimasuよ! 05:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Airport line article moved again

Hi. After going through the whole process of the Requested Move for the Coliseum–Oakland International Airport line article, Salv007, the same user who moved the page originally with no discussion, just moved it again without discussion. As this was done immediately after a Requested Move process, can anything be done about this? I'd prefer that an Administrator handle this (and have any discussions with Salv007 that might be appropriate. Thanks in advance. --IJBall (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted for now and I left a comment on Salv007 user's talk page. Hopefully protecting the page won't be necessary. Dekimasuよ! 05:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, much! (And I'll let you know if there are any further unwelcome developments on this front, but hopefully there won't be...) --IJBall (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Badaun gang rape

It is obvious now that there was no rape. Thus it should be "2014 Alleged Badaun gang rape". I don't think there is anyone questioning the move.

Since there was no rape, there is very little interest in in the discussion regarding the earlier proposed move. But feel free to take you time.Malaiya (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

In that case, "alleged" should not be capitalized. Anyway, the closer of the discussion will read the move request for consensus for a particular title, and since the page is still listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves, this should happen sometime soon. It is not clear to me from the ongoing discussion that the move is uncontroversial, but I am not involved in the discussion. I was only trying to make sure that a move was not being decided upon unilaterally when there was an open discussion. Dekimasuよ! 23:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I have decided to go ahead and act as the closer for this discussion, since it has ended up in the WP:RMB. The page is now at 2014 Badaun gang rape allegations; please create any new redirects you think are necessary. Dekimasuよ! 19:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Mudslide in Japan

Your change to Mudslide in Japan as a redirect, in effect deletes the article I have improved. You may be correct in saying that Mudslide in Japan should not be a topic, or it should be a subtopic in another article. However, I think that decision needs to be made by a community discussion, perhaps by a Merge discussion or an AfD, and not by the update you made. My concern is with process, not the final decision at this time. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not mind being reverted where it is appropriate. A mergeto tag would be fine with me. Either way, let's fix the title: do you think it should be List of mudslides in Japan or Mudslides in Japan? Dekimasuよ! 18:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It would probably also be useful to determine how mudslides are treated elsewhere on Wikipedia. Is an individual mudslide a notable event, like a hurricane or tornado, or will the list of examples end up looking like an indiscriminate collection? Per your process comment, I'm not trying to burden you with the duty of collecting evidence, but that information would be useful. Dekimasuよ! 18:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I think there is no coherent reason for an article Mudslides in Japan. There is no evidence (offered) that the mechanism, frequency, or any other feature of mudslides is significantly different in Japan than anywhere else. I think it should be deleted, or if there is any specific detail of specific mudslides, combined into the generic mudslide article (I suppose such exists). But I'm not sure about how to start this process... Imaginatorium (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:PROD wouldn't be appropriate, since there has already been an objection here, and I don't think speedy deletion is right either. The correct venue would have to be WP:AFD. For the time being, I have also added a tag to merge to Natural disasters in Japan. I suppose a merge from tag would speed things up as well. Dekimasuよ! 20:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Gary Fan Kwok-wai

Were you supposed to move-protect or fully protect the article? --George Ho (talk) 05:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I have fixed the settings, so it should only be move protected now. Dekimasuよ! 06:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2014 December

You must comment about one of your recent closes. --George Ho (talk) 06:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I have made a few comments there. Dekimasuよ! 06:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I Am the Greatest and Sockpuppet investigations

You forgot to rename the former. In regards to the latter, must I prove myself as not a sockpuppet, or are my comments enough already? --George Ho (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't forget to rename the first one, as you can probably see from my edit summary; since the lowercase title points elsewhere, I didn't feel comfortable moving the disambiguation page to the plain title myself (it could also conceivably point at Ali, and there might be arguments over WP:DIFFCAPS). When it goes on the WP:MALPLACED list another administrator will look at it and offer a second opinion, or we can have another discussion. As for the sockpuppet thing, I don't have time to comment now, but I believe the request to be specious and think it should be declined. You can cite me if you want. Dekimasuよ! 01:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

On the sameish subject area please note Confabulationist on several RMs you have commented on is probably Kauffner. Have placed an SPI. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)

I invite you to the ongoing discussion regarding the matter that you and I were involved in. To access, you can hyperlink and preview on the edit page. --George Ho (talk) 09:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Humperdinck

• How is this burden of wrong links going to be handled? - A decent way would have been to change them first, another to create Engelbert Humperdinck (disambuigation) and leave the other as a redirect. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Gerda Arendt. This is not at all uncommon in move discussions, many of which create over 1000 disambiguation links after moves. Here, there are about 200. However, it is assumed that the burden is on the supporters of the move to make the changes; failing that, the page is listed at WP:DPL and the links listed there are usually fixed promptly. Dekimasuよ! 13:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
• Apparently, we are now down to 5 links. Dekimasuよ! 13:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Only now did I read your closing statement. It doesn't reflect this comment at all: "Even in historic cases, we shouldn't reward pretentious or commercially motivated use of existing names." - Forgive me, but I think the best way would be to revert the move. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• I do not believe that disambiguating or not disambiguating a base title represents a reward to any encyclopedia topic; both topics are notable under our policies, and the opinion that the use of the name is pretentious or commercially motivated is just that–an opinion. Whether the singer's choice is either of these things is not a factor in naming guidelines, and arguably to take them into account would violate WP:NPOV. Dekimasuよ! 13:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, really sorry, but as per User:Gerda Arendt this is evidently (I think you have acknowledged) a move carried out with no consensus. I would urge a relist. I have commented further on the page and would support a Move Review and overturn if someone else starts one. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• In ictu oculi, there is no need to be sorry. We both do the best we can, and I hope you believe this to be the case. I have noted on the talk page there that some of the comments you seem to have attributed to me were actually not in my close. It is not apparent to me that relisting the move would be helpful here; at Talk:Worcester, the relisting was one of the problems that caused the blowup, because the subsequent week of discussion only ended up generating more heat and not in uncovering new arguments. If this is taken to move review, I will explain my rationale there and accept the results of the discussion. Dekimasuよ! 13:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• I would like to know why you didn't mention the argument "we shouldn't reward pretentious or commercially motivated use of existing names", which would have caused me to refrain from a move? (I meant the same thing but couldn't say it that well.) You don't have to answer, of course, - I am just curious. (My other question will probably stay unanswered: who will be helped by this move?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• On the first question, please see above. As for the second, it is apparent that there was a considerable number of links to the base title that intended the singer and not the composer; these have now been fixed, it seems, but new wikilinks are generated all the time, and it is a disservice to readers to be wikilinked to the wrong article. As a disambiguation page, new links will be monitored and corrected promptly. This disambiguation page helps people who use the encyclopedia to the same extent as other disambiguation pages, not the least by telling them that the title is ambiguous; hatnotes perform the same function, it is true, but there is clear community consensus for the use of disambiguation pages. Rather than simply choosing one "Foo Smith" article to go at the plain title in every case in an attempt to service X% of all readers, it is often better for navigational and organizational purposes to institute dab pages. Dekimasuよ! 13:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Just for curiosity: last night I listened to this concert on TV (with the prime minister of Northrhine Westphalia), and wondered if your close would have been the same if some singer had taken the name of one of the other composers on the program: Johann Sebastian Bach, Georg Friedrich Handel, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Felix Mendelssohn, Peter Tchaikovsky? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• If editors who participated in such a discussion indicated that the singer who had taken the name was of similar stature under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and the data on page views and coverage in reliable sources indicated this to be so, then yes. Because of the higher profiles of the composers you mention, it would require a commensurable increase in outside coverage of the singer for the singer to be of similar stature in these cases. In case you are wondering, I have never intentionally listened to the music of either of the Engelbert Humperdincks, but if I had to choose to listen to the music of one I would choose the composer's. Dekimasuよ! 03:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The bot's not working

I see that you seem to be online. Please see the note I just left at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#The bot's not working. —BarrelProof (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I noticed as well, but unless User:Wbm1058 is around, there's really nothing that can be done about it at the moment. Dekimasuよ! 07:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. —BarrelProof (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

For the time being, I've also added a message at the top of WP:RMCD, since the bot presumably won't be overwriting it until it's working again. Dekimasuよ! 07:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yikes, sorry about that. I'm working on it now. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I shouldn't have implemented my last fix so late in the day. I just backed it off. Something about Talk:Scenic#Requested move 13 December 2014 wasn't working as expected. I'll look more closely at how that one is being processed. I think the bot was wanting to leave a notice at Talk:Scenic (album), which is a red-link. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Cabinet of France

As a closer of many move discussions, perhaps you'd care to look into Talk:Cabinet of France, which is a mire. RGloucester — ☎ 22:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, the one at Talk:Austrian Federal Government, too. RGloucester — ☎ 16:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to look at this at some point; a lot to catch up on after a few days mostly away. Dekimasuよ! 02:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me jumping in, as a total nonexpert in political matters, but one utterly baffled by these bizarre discussions. I mean, the government of Austria, France, wherever, is surely called the government. I'm somewhat hazy on what the cabinet is, but "cabinet meeting" sounds awfully familiar, as the senior ministers and suchlike getting together in No. 10. So when someone from Belgium says "In British English 'government' means 'cabinet'", I can't even parse it. What language is this 'cabinet' word in that we use 'government' to refer to it? American English must be somewhere at the root of the confusion, but how, exactly? Even if you think all of these people are wrong, can you explain how they are confused? (WP can be depressing, occasionally) Imaginatorium (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll admit that it is quite depressing and concerning, to me. The problem is not "confusion", so much as people being WP:POINTy and not familiar with the political systems being described. As you may or may not be aware, in Britain we have both a government and a cabinet. The government includes all ministers, junior and senior. The cabinet only includes senior ministers, i.e. those in charge of a ministry, e.g. Home Secretary &c. It meets on a regular basis in cabinet meetings, and sets the policy direction of the government. This arrangement is standard in parliamentary systems.

Oreo Priest is very wrong in saying that "in British English government means cabinet", as I explained in the discussion. "Government" never means "cabinet" in English. The "government" is a wider body including all government ministers, whereas the "cabinet" has a small membership, hence why it is called a "cabinet".

Oreo Priest is confused because he is applying the principles of the American presidential system to parliamentary systems. In the American system, the president is both the head of government and the head of state (this is the equivalent of fusing the monarch and the prime minister into one post). There is no parliamentary government, no prime minister. There is no "government" in the parliamentary sense. There is only the president, and his cabinet. His cabinet is a small body, composed of department heads that he appoints. Department heads are not politicians, and do not sit in the legislature. There is no equivalent of a "junior minister" in the American system, because no members of the executive branch are part of the legislature. The executive, i.e. the president and his cabinet, are entirely separate from the legislature.

Therefore, in American English, the word "government" is not used to refer to the sitting administration of the day, but only to the whole system (i.e. all branches, executive, legislative, and judicial). Because the chief executive in the American system is both the "leader of the executive" (i.e. similar to PM) and the "symbol of the state" (i.e. similar to the monarch), the whole state is referred to as the "government", and no distinction is made between the two. That is to say, an American will never say "Obama Government" in the way that we may say "Cameron Government". In the American system, the "people who govern" are the same as the "state", whereas in the British system, the "people who govern" are only temporary administrators, governing on behalf of the state, i.e the Crown.

However, that line of thinking cannot be applied to parliamentary systems, which is what I've been trying to explain. "Government" and "cabinet" are not the same thing in a parliamentary system. "Government" refers to the whole political administration that directs a state, whereas "cabinet" refers only to the people in charge of leading that government. Because he is applying the American terminology to parliamentary systems, he cannot distinguish between "government" and "state". RGloucester — ☎ 19:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Have you taken a look at Talk:Cabinet of France and Talk:Austrian Federal Government? It would be most appreciated. I don't like stale conflicts. I have enough problems. RGloucester — ☎ 05:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I read both discussions several days ago and almost moved the Austrian one to Government of Austria, but didn't feel confident that enough editors had commented on the third option. While I was waiting for more input, it seems like none is coming. It seems to me that consistency in naming is not the primary consideration here, since the structure of the states in question naturally varies. However, this is not one of my strong subjects. As far as "I have enough problems," I agree with that too–I've been stuck at move review and WT:AT over things I didn't think were that controversial. I'll try again. Dekimasuよ! 05:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It's no problem. I tend to shoot myself in the foot, even when I'm right. That's just my nature. I'm a bit fiery, so to speak. Whereas I had months of peaceful and productive content creation, now I have a large roster of raging disputes on my desk. The more files I close, the happier I'll be. RGloucester — ☎ 05:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm

Is it really, though? That sounds pretty subjective to me—the sound doesn't actually change, so such a wording could be misleading. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Japanese phonology says "To an English speaker's ears, its pronunciation varies between a flapped d ([ɾ], as in American English buddy) and a flapped l [ɺ], sounding most like d before /i/ and /j/, most like l before /o/, and most like a retracted flap [ɾ̠] before /a/." Maybe this doesn't count as "word position," but it seems like there is some information there worth noting, even if as Japanese speakers we don't draw those distinctions. Dekimasuよ! 09:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

But that's not saying the same thing as what the j-lang article says---it's saying it's an "in-between" sound, whereas the j-lang article says it appears to change sounds. Something should be said about it, sure, but not something misleading. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Help with disambiguation page

Hello. I was wondering if you can offer me some help. I was wondering if the page Tahitian and Hawaiian (they are both currently redirects) actually violated any policies. I see similar example for American, Scandinavian and Danish and I expanded Tahitian myself in the past base on those and the Hawaiian disambiguation pages. Thank you for any help you may be able to provide.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Not policies, disambiguation guidelines. The two terms are not as broad a concept as the examples and even those have their own individual issues. American is actually very much broad in scope as demonstrated by American (word) which was originally titled as Use of the word American, which was moved to American.

With the two pages, "Tahitian" and "Hawaiian", their use, definition and scope are pretty much what you see. They are unambiguous and no other articles exist with the exceptions of Hawaiian Language and Tahitian language which should have a hat note: "For the Hawaiian people see Native Hawaiian" and ''"For the Tahitian people see Tahitians" or something similar. Editorial judgement is used in deciding whether to combine terms, what pages to add etc, but guidelines are in place.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

As Mark Miller says, I don't think this is strictly a guideline or policy issue. However, the titles are ambiguous, particularly with the languages, and this is generally enough to make most plain titles disambiguation pages in this context: German, Spanish, Japanese, and the Danish page you mentioned are all set up like this. American and Scandinavian are less appropriate examples in this context. At the very least, the disambiguation pages should still exist. If Mark Miller would like to create a primary topic redirect to Native Hawaiians from Hawaiian, the best procedure would be to initiate a move discussion at Talk:Hawaiian, not eliminate the dab page (note that Hawaiian (disambiguation) is now a double redirect pointing to Native Hawaiians). The same is true of Tahitian. I am not sure whether you two are involved in broader editing disputes, but there were legitimate entries at each of the dab pages and move requests with more outside input would be the best way to go. 19:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

So...when the reverse happens and KAVE does something that could go either way like this...are you going to make a determination on a content dispute and revert them as well or is this something I should take to mean you felt it required intervention. I am confused as to why you took sides on this but OK.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

As I noted in my edit summary, my edits were as an editor here; nothing I did was administrative or determinative. When alerted to the discussion I did agree with Kavebear's interpretation in this case, but I do not think this was something that could go either way according to the normal way we do disambiguation. I also left a note at WT:DAB for outside input in case you did feel that I was, due to this contact at my talk, an involved editor. Dekimasuよ! 22:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

"my edits were as an editor here". Now that is cool. We do need additional editor eyes on this situation and discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick note then on my reasoning here. "Tahitian" and "Hawaiian" are unambiguous. They pertain only to the people, culture or language of the two civilizations. The words pertain only to the direct topic of the native cultures of these peoples. Based on WP:CONCEPTDAB bolding for emphasis:

If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it, and not a disambiguation page.

Here, Tahitian and Hawaiian are broad concepts, but yes...the other pages and subjects on Wikipedia really are limited to examples of that concept or type. Articles that have the word Hawaiian in the title are not appropriate and push the meaning and concept too broadly in scope, only to have a disambiguation page.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Hawaiian, at the least, does not only pertain to the people, culture, or language of one civilization. Articles that only have Hawaiian in the title are not appropriate, but any articles with subjects that are often called Hawaiian-full-stop are valid entries (including, for example, Hawaiian Airlines). That aside, "Hawaiian" is ambiguous even if it refers to a people, culture, or language of one civilization: there is no way to know, without context, which of the three to which "Hawaiian" refers. The page in question to act as a dabconcept for the　adjectival forms would seem to be Tahiti or Hawaii, not Tahitian or Hawaiian; redirection there might be possible were these not adjectival forms. Titles used on disambiguation pages (and as article titles) are nouns, and the people and language are separate encyclopedia topics. Evidence would be required to call one or the other the primary topic of the noun form. Further, Tahitians and Native Hawaiians are not dabconcept articles for redirection purposes. I'm not sure what kind of article would explain "Hawaiian" in terms of the things that go on the dab page and yet not be similar in scope to Hawaii; and yet this would still be doing a disservice to someone trying to quickly search for the page on Native Hawaiians or Hawaiian language. Dekimasuよ! 00:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Move requests

I am sorry, Dekimasu, i still dont know enough about wikipedia, but i am learning every day more. I didnt know to add multiple request, and i still dont know how to move Category:Peja to Category:Peć. I tried to add RM, but that does not work. And just then renamed the category in articles, but some strange editor reverted several of those. Can you PLEASE just help me with that category, how that can be renamed? Can you add that also please into request? --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 22:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Move review for Greenbelt Station

An editor has asked for a Move review of Greenbelt Station. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.

Your last post before Christmas holiday alerted me to this RM with a procedural problem. I trust you're having a good break, and will respond when you're back. Dicklyon (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that I wasn't able to be more proactive in this case, as I've had to be mostly inactive for the past few weeks. It might have been ideal just to relist in order to resolve this once the problem was raised, but with so many pages involved, I'm not sure that's the best possible outcome. I've put a few comments on the MR. Thanks for contacting me, Dekimasuよ! 04:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Vandal

Dekimasu this editor is vandalising and ruin the article without discussion or reaching consensus the article is still dispute.here.Respect Lindi29 (talk) 14:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

IP editors

Sorry for starting this discussion again. I hadn't enough time to continue this discussion with you but my problem is not solved yet. Previously, you said that: "It is also better not simply to cite sources that use the term the way you like, but to show evidence that other sources use it that way as well". Actually I didn't show the sources that use the term the way I like, they show the way she was known in history. And if you look at those Google results for "Mihrişah Sultan" you see almost all of them are referring to mother of Sultan Selim III, who is the person that I was trying to move her page. And sources distinguish between these women by using their full name, "Mihrişah Sultan" and "Emine Mihrişah Sultan". The second one's name has its "Emine" with it most of the time. So can I give a move request again in the future and will it be successful? Keivan.f^Talk 14:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't by myself determine whether a future move request will result in moving the page, but I hope that the points I raised previously will help you in presenting any new change you propose. Dekimasuよ! 04:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Welcome back! Steel1943 (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Dekimasuよ! 19:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Kirin Company

Given your prior assistance with Talk:Japanese destroyer Harusame (1935), I wonder whether you might be able to help with Talk:Kirin Company, Limited. I think that article needs to be both renamed and forked. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I've replied there. Everything you said makes sense, but I've suggested moving to Kirin Holdings since the article contents can then stay the same. Dekimasuよ! 19:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Arigatō gozaimasu. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Catflap08, Kenji and the Kokuchukai

Hi, thanks for the edit today. I also noticed you made some pretty good points back in December that the user in question then went ahead and flagrantly ignored. There's a discussion about this and other abuses on ANI at the moment, in case you want to have your say. I pinged you and the others whose consensus he has been walking roughshod over a few times already, but most of those are not particularly active (one somewhat troublingly so...), and your contribution seems to have been treated with particular dismissiveness, so I don't think I'm violating WP:CANVAS by sending you a specific message about this discussion.

Or maybe you decided not to revert back because you came around to his side and you really believe he was not "a devout Buddhist" but rather "a member of the Kokuchukai"?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The weight given to it remains troubling to me. Dekimasuよ! 16:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox cabinet move

Hi, Dekimasu. I've made all transclusions of Template:Infobox cabinet point to Template:Infobox cabinet members, so this move can now be performed. Alakzi (talk) 23:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the work you did for this, and I did say I would put it through when the work was done, but in light of the resulting discussion, it might be best to gauge consensus through a new move request. Thank you for letting me know. Dekimasuよ! 16:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that didn't go down terribly well, did it? I posted here before noticing your banner at the top, and before my request at WP:RM/TR and the subsequent backlash; I don't expect you to perform the move now. Maybe PanchoS would like to start a new RM. Thanks for getting back to me. Alakzi (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, thank you so much, Alakzi. I lost track of this move request, and where I should have been the one who takes up the work, you did it... Now that someone else got Template:Infobox government cabinet moved to Template:Infobox cabinet per WP:RM, I'm going to renominate it for technical reasons, and finally, the second part of my nomination remains to be discussed. THX again and regards, --PanchoS (talk) 07:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The Greenbelt mess still

D, if you recall, just before your December time off you closed an RM that caused a lot of grief, which I'm still trying to resolve, to the consternation of many. I've got myself being accused of bad judgement, bad processes, and worse, which may be fair, at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Page_moves_of_DC_Metro_stations.. However this comes out, it leaves us with how to fix the mess that was caused by an RM nom changing the proposal from lowercase station to uppercase Station before you came along and closed it. Only 1 responder suggested uppercase; the rest supported the original proposal, as far as I can tell. Yes they moved to uppercase, and for various reasons getting this fixed has been impossible. So, I ask you to just agree that this is what happened, that you were unaware of it, and that it probably ought to be fixed since people were intending to support WP:USSTATION, which says to use lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Now at move review: Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 April#2015 April. Your comments could help resolve this mess. Dicklyon (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: As I'm sure you have noticed (or perhaps you've forgotten about me by now), I've been generally inactive for quite a while. I do regret having been one cause of this issue that appears to have then bloomed into something much more contentious. I'm glad to see that you're still active, and I'm sorry I couldn't have been of more assistance at the time. Dekimasuよ! 16:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

No prob. It finally got sorted (backed to what I had done that got me into some trouble) during my period of inactivity, and I'm not about to go back there. Dicklyon (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

And welcome back. Dicklyon (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Policy discussion in progress

There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of "Just Like Heaven", a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII 11:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Discuss with me?

Hi there,

I wanted to see if you were still an active Wikipedia editor and to invite you to discuss the renaming of the article Evidence of common descent. See: Talk:Evidence_of_common_descent#Article_Title and Talk:Evidence_of_common_descent#Requested_move_5_March_2016.

Cheers! A. Z. Colvin • Talk 01:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

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

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

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

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

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Checked Dekimasuよ! 14:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Dekimasu.

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

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

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dekimasu. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

North Korean listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect North Korean. Since you had some involvement with the North Korean redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

South Korean listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect South Korean. Since you had some involvement with the South Korean redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Information Radio for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Information Radio is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information Radio until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity

Articles that you have been involved in editing—Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity—have been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Nessie (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dersim Massacre

Hello Dekimasu,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Dersim Massacre for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Sulfurboy (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

This was a stable redirect (created by a page move) that was blanked by a vandal. In the future, please be sure to check for vandalism before nominating pages for speedy deletion. Dekimasuよ! 12:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Dekimasu. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Libyan Civil War (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Libyan Civil War (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libyan Civil War (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Move review for Natchez

An editor has asked for a Move review of Natchez. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I have replied at the move review. Dekimasuよ! 07:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

United States presidential election in Connecticut

Regarding the RM you recently closed at Talk:United States presidential election in Connecticut, 1788–89 § Requested move 29 January 2018, shouldn't the pages have been moved to "... 1788–1789" rather than "...1788–89"? I believe there was unanimous consensus on that (apart from the nominator who didn't comment either way, as their first and to-date only edit was to make the nomination in the first place). 142.161.81.20 (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing this. I'll move them to where they're supposed to be as soon as possible. It was an oversight on my part (I was too worried about making sure I made redirects from the hyphenated versions). Dekimasuよ! 22:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Cheers, 142.161.81.20 (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Move Review

If you guarantee that you will unblock me and will block the administrator who blocks me, then I will withdraw the Move Review and open a new Requested Move. I do not want to be blocked. New2018Year (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't have strong feeling for Trump or politics but I have strong feelings when there is a denial of due process. The Snow Close was manipulation and denial of due process to all of Wikipedia. New2018Year (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I am certainly not going to block someone who blocks you. But if for some reason you are blocked as a direct result of putting a move request in, I will contribute to the discussion on an unblock request. It should not happen, because there is no reason to think any moratorium is in effect on that page, as we have said. I'd suggest that you try to remain calm, though, to avoid being blocked for a different reason entirely. Note that someone has already mentioned WP:DE. Alternatively, you can wait. The issue sat untouched for four months, so I'm not sure why the change has become urgent now. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress. Dekimasuよ! 22:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

New2018Year - What precisely do you mean "unblock me"? Do you have another account that is blocked? SQL^{Query me!} 23:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@SQL: I think they are just alluding to the fact that there may be a moratorium in place on starting a move request at Trump and that if they did start one, they fear they would be immediately be blocked for flouting the moratorium. I see no evidence for there being any moratorium in place at this moment anyway, and even if there were, a good faith opening of a new move request would never result in a block, so these fears appear to be unfounded.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

New2018Year was blocked as a sock. Dekimasuよ! 01:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Selves (disambiguation)

Hi, if you have a minute, would you please be able to explain why the move discussion was closed, even though none of the people who opposed it addressed any of my 2 points? I'm still just trying to understand how things work in Wikipedia. From you closing it, it seems to me that people can oppose something but then fail to address the reasons, and then it doesn't get done. My understanding of how Wikipedia works is that it's not a democracy, but a system when the merit of rationales is weighed. But this seems to disprove it. You can reply here, I've put this on my watchlist. Thanks very much! Dr. Vogel (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, DrVogel. First, please don't be frustrated that the request was closed without resulting in the change you requested. That's a fairly common outcome. The discussion was closed because a week (the normal period) had elapsed and there was neither evidence that consensus in favor of the move had been reached nor significant ongoing discussion indicating that we might arrive at consensus in favor of the move if the time period were extended. Again, this doesn't mean the page will never be moved as you suggested. Rather, it is more likely to occur by starting the discussion again in the future with more evidence on hand than by continuing to leave the request open. Second, my role was just to determine whether consensus (as to the merits) had been reached. Since you hadn't received any replies to your questions, I left a message for you trying to explain the reasons; actually, that's more than I usually do when I'm going through the requests. You are correct that the merits of the arguments should be weighed when determining whether or not consensus has been reached. And you are correct that citing dictionary definitions is not a strong argument one way or the other. However, the request didn't cite evidence to back your assertion that there is no primary topic, either, so the opposers may not have felt they had much to address. I noted this in my closing comments: the burden is not on those opposing the change to "justify beyond reasonable doubt that a person who types 'selves' is probably looking for 'self.'" The default is for no change to take place unless a new consensus is achieved, and in this case the discussion did not exhibit consensus in favor of a change. If you look through other recent discussions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Article alerts, you may get the hang of what editors tend to be looking for in these cases. Best, Dekimasuよ! 03:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for taking the time to explain. It makes a lot more sense now, I can see the logic behind what you're saying. Thanks! Dr. Vogel (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Question

Hi, could you point me to the "discussion" you mentioned in this edit summary? Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 18:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I believe the most recent discussion is at Talk:AR-15 (disambiguation)#Update Redirect. Best, Dekimasuよ! 20:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. - ^theWOLFchild 02:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

follow-up

I see it's been changed again. You going to get on that? - ^theWOLFchild 18:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I think this is a better result than the change to point to the disambiguation page, since the new target is a daughter article of the previous target. The editor who changed the other redirect did leave a message at Talk:AR-15 (disambiguation)#Redirect of AR-15 to AR-15 style rifle, and didn't get a response. Still, it's probably worth discussing (maybe at WP:RFD) if you or I have the energy to create a listing, particularly in light of the opposition at Talk:AR-15 style rifle#Redirects. Dekimasuよ! 21:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I created an RFD at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 24#AR-15. Dekimasuよ! 21:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree, but thanks for posting the RFD, I've commented there. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 23:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

school shootings

You will notice that User:23h112e has again trashed the list of school shootings article that you recently commented on Hmains (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted the move and move protected the page, per the previous reversion. (I don't intend to get involved with the content changes.) Best, Dekimasuよ! 02:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Good work on uncovering a sock, I had no idea. Good work, regards - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hiroshi Kobayashi (shōgi, born 1962)

Hi Dekimasu. Would you mind moving Hiroshi Kobayashi (shōgi, born 1962) back as well until the whole shogi naming thing is resolved? I don't think page protection is needed, but this was one of the pages referred to at Talk:Shogi#Shōgi that was moved as a result of the name change. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. Please note that this can be requested through WP:RMTR (requests to revert undiscussed moves). Dekimasuよ! 09:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this. Also, thanks for the RMTR link. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Deadline

It appears you closed the RfC at Deadline Hollywood after only a week and just three comments, one of them neutral. RfCs generally last 30 days in order to generate a large number of comments and consensus. I believe this was closed remarkably early with nearly no one given an opportunity to comment. I would ask that the RfC be reopened and re-listed, since this appears to have been rushed through improperly.--Tenebrae (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Tenebrae. The discussion you are referring to was a Wikipedia:Requested move, not a Wikipedia:Request for comment. Per WP:RM, requested moves "are generally processed after seven days," so it was not rushed through. As you can see at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Determining consensus, the standard interpretation is that "no minimum participation is required for requested moves because for most moves there is no need to make a request at all; the need arises only because of a technical limitation resulting from the target article name existing as a redirect with more than one edit. Thus, if no one has objected, go ahead and perform the move as requested unless it is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guidelines or policy." Do you have a particular objection to the decision reached as a result of the move request? If your only question is whether my handling of the request was proper, please feel free to ask for more input at Wikipedia:Move review. Best, Dekimasuよ! 05:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

My mistake: I incorrectly thought it was an RfC. I do think this move request regarding a website with hundreds if not thousands of citations throughout Wikipedia was not publicized adequately, but that is not your fault. Thank you for taking the time to respond. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Closing of Playboy (lifestyle) requested move

I think it would have been better to relist this for a further period rather than close it as no consensus in a situation where there were two clear supports, one tentative oppose and one sitting on the fence. Shadow007 (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

As discussion wasn't ongoing (no comments for four days) and the later comments pointed out that the proposed change to the title would also involve changing the article's scope, I thought this was the correct decision. But in this case, I am happy to reopen and relist the discussion. Dekimasuよ! 17:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Another move

Hi Dekimasu. Thanks for moving AAA Championships to its correct title. Any chance you can also move British Championships in Athletics to the now vacated British Athletics Championships? That is the official name of this competition [82] and was only placed at its current title for technical reasons. Thanks. SFB 22:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you show that third-party sources (newspapers, etc.) use the title you want to move this to? By the way, I'll take a look when I can, but I am a bit busy at the moment and you might get faster "service" at WP:RMTR. Dekimasuよ! 22:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

United Kingdom general election, January 1910

With respect to your recent close of the United Kingdom general election, January 1910 requested move, can you please considering relisting the RM for wider input from the community? I should have given a more detailed rationale in the RM; not only does the article title fail WP:PRECISE, it gives the impression that the election only occurred in January. The proposed title perfectly qualified WP:CRITERIA. Moreover, it is worth pointing out that there are over 2,460 results for "January to February 1910" etc. and "election" in Google Books. Besides, it's not as if the proposal was to rename the article to United Kingdom general election, February 1910. Yet by the nature of the oppose arguments, it almost seems as if they misinterpreted the RM. Thanks.--Neve~selbert 19:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not under the impression that those opposing the move misunderstood the request, and I think the outcome is unlikely to change, but I will reopen the request temporarily to be sure. Dekimasuよ! 19:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

ANI

For what it's worth, I made the edit notice for a specific purpose, and by all measures, it's been quite useful in that purpose. I have, for several weeks now, actually, been asking anyone who mentioned my edit notice for specific feedback on it. I even publicly asked for commentary in that ANI thread. I was -before this all started- and remain always willing to work with other editors. What I've always been stridently (and even rudely, I'll be the first to admit) opposed to is pointless accusations, endless litigation, and self-righteous recriminations about behavioral issues. In fact, the main purpose (and effect) of my edit notice was to cut down on the amount of that going on at my talk. I edit in highly controversial areas, and as a result (and as anyone else who focuses on pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, religion and culture wars will agree) it's extremely common for editors who are new to WP or new to the subject area to take the sorts of disagreements that go on there very personally. It's understandable, really, as beliefs regarding these things can be very dear to an editor's heart. I used to get 4-5 accusations a week of being a bully, a shill, a pseudoskeptic and more because I declined to implement an edit request or explained to some editor why their edit violated our policies. I would frequently be dragged to ANI after reverting these accusations, with much the same complaints the editor I reported made about me. Those ANI cases would, invariably, be quickly dismissed. But they got tiresome, real fast.

As a result, I made that edit notice. In the months it's been up, I've only been reported at ANI twice (again: complaint dismissed both times for being obviously baseless), and I've encountered a shockingly decreased number of such complaints at my talk. On top of that, only about 2% of all the editors who've commented at my talk page said anything negative about the edit notice. About the same percentage said something positive about it. The vast majority never mentioned it. When it was deleted today, the immediate result was a thread full of recriminations, pointless litigation and bad faith accusations immediately appearing on my talk page. If anything, the events of today have gone a long way to convincing me of the utility -if not the appropriateness- of that particular edit notice.

Yet for all of that: nobody really made even the slightest effort to discuss the edit notice. They merely put me on blast for making it. So far, your comment at that thread was quite literally the only productive comment I've gotten. So thank you for that. I've told Bbb23 that I would replace it with one lacking the middle finger, and possibly lacking the cursing, as well. I will bear your comment in mind as I create a replacement edit notice. And if you have any further productive commentary on it (even if it's criticism), then you are more than welcome to do so.

tldr; You were -quite literally- the only person to offer a productive critique of my edit notice and I both appreciate it greatly, and will take it to heart. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

MjolnirPants, thank you for your note. I appreciate that editing can often be stressful, and I hope you're successful in finding a happy medium. If you'd like my opinion on any replacement notice, just let me know. Best, Dekimasuよ! 17:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Neutral notice

A move request regarding Deadline.com / Deadline Hollywood, an article you have edited, is taking place at Talk:Deadline Hollywood#Requested move 11 March 2018. It is scheduled to end in seven days.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. As I mentioned, I do not consider myself an involved editor here, and I hope the discussion reaches a consensus. Dekimasuよ! 17:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Request

Hello, Dekimasu. I was wondering if you could lessen the protection on Yuki Hayashi (composer) so that his fans can add more info. If not, is there any way you can insert the info for me? Or if that's not a possibility, can you allow me to edit and if there's anything that doesn't look right, you can let me know? Thanks!--Ghostory (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Genetic studies on Japanese people

Thanks for splitting this out. Now it would be nice to make that into a article that is comprehensible to someone who isn't a specialist.... --Macrakis (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I added Template:Technical to the top of the article for the time being. It would be nice to know that the contents of the article are in good accord with what's left over at Japanese people, but it seems like it will be a lot of work to figure that out. Dekimasuよ! 18:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Utqiaġvik, Alaska

Hello Dekimasu. Would you please start a new move discussion to replace the one you closed while we were still discussing it? 28bytes (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello 28bytes, Any editor is free to do so. However, I don't have an opinion on Utqiaġvik versus Utqiagvik (or Barrow), so I don't believe I would be an appropriate person to formulate a rationale or choose a proposed target for a move. Best, Dekimasuよ! 20:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Startup (disambiguation)

Hi, just a heads-up that you forgot to add a hatnote to the Startup company page after you redirected Startup there. I am sure this is just an unintentional mistake, though do be careful in the future. Thanks! feminist (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, and for adding the hatnote. Best, Dekimasuよ! 18:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Move requests

Thanks for doing the move requests! I put both of them up for RM (and not RMTR) because I wasn't sure if there would be any discussion on them. Natg 19 (talk) 06:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. I saw your subsequent comment at Talk:Mount Macdonald, which is similar to what you said here. When there has been a recent move away from a title and the request is to return the page to the original title, there is an assumption that the request should go through. The burden to initiate a subsequent discussion is on the editor who wants to move the page away from its stable title. That's why I closed the discussions so quickly. Best, Dekimasuよ! 11:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Thanks for moving Chattagram to Chittagong P32929 (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure this counted as an idea, but thank you! Dekimasuよ! 11:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Move: alternative approach

Not sure on how this needs to be organised, but perhaps take a look nonetheless: see here KVDP (talk) 11:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello KVDP. This can be proposed as part of a new multimove request, as described at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting multiple page moves. If it becomes necessary during the discussion, I can clarify that my close at Talk:Genetic engineering in the United States did not preclude initiating this kind of new discussion. Best, Dekimasuよ! 11:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

ok, thanks. Did the request. KVDP (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Contested technical requests

Just as an FYI, you don't need to move technical requests to the contested area. If you think it will be controversial, you can just start the discussion unilaterally by hitting the discuss button. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. As you can probably tell, that's not the part of the page I normally have on my watch list, but I've had particular reasons to notice changes there today. I should pay more attention to how things come to be shifted to the current discussions section under the current tech setup. Dekimasuよ! 18:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem. Always good to see more admins working in moves. I've been pulled in a lot of different directions of late, but it honestly is one of the more enjoyable project space areas, IMO. Thanks for all your work. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Font size and accessbility

Hi, hope you don't mind a question about this edit [83], removing the 90% font size from horse racing results. What is the issue with accesibility with the reduced font size? I have edited a few horse race articles today and made the same change, taking out the 90% - am happy to carry on doing that as each article comes up for its 2018 update but I'm interested in what the actual problem is. All the best. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Bcp67, and thank you very much for this question. In this case I was having my own trouble with the legibility of the page, but I should have looked further into the circumstances before going ahead and altering the text. At Investec Derby Trial the amount of small text on the page as a whole, including in running text, had already stuck out to me. But I shouldn't necessarily have concentrated on the results section alone. You're probably aware of MOS:FONTSIZE, which deprecates changing the font sizes manually in things like the distance listed in the lede. That might also be applied to the information in the "Records" section and to the external links that are currently at the end of the "References" section, I think. However, what actually caused me to make the change was how the reduced size in the results box caused the frames surrounding the entries to show up in black rather than gray on my screen. This made it quite hard to read the titles of the entries that weren't blue links. I just re-checked this on another device and had the same issue with the old version. Looking back at the edit now, I believe it could have been fixed just as well by altering the cellpadding="0" to a different number to create a gap between the edge of the box and the beginning of the text. If no one else has complained about the 90% font size, starting with a higher cellpadding value might be a reasonable solution for this issue. Thanks again for raising the question. Best, Dekimasuよ! 00:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the quick reply. I actually wasn't aware of the FONTSIZE guideline and having looked at it, I'll stop doing that for the race distances. I'll be updating another race article at some point today, if I try the cellpadding idea would you mind taking a look afterwards and seeing if it makes any difference? I only use a laptop so I'm not aware of the impact when viewed on other devices. Thanks again. --Bcp67 (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bcp67, sorry to take so long to get back to you. If there is an example you'd like me to take a look at, just let me know. Best, Dekimasuよ! 02:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

No need to apologise! I took the cellpadding=0 out of Prix Ganay, would you be able to look at that and see how it appears? Thank you. --Bcp67 (talk) 04:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

This does look better to me than the older versions in the page history. I also tried previewing the page using cellpadding=2, and that looked even better, but I'm sure I wouldn't have edited the page for a lack of legibility if I'd first come across the current version. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Best, Dekimasuよ! 05:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Request to move "Etudes phenomenologiques"

1. Why did you reject the move since the new journal has a new title and needs to have the English part as a bi-lingual journal. The founding editor of the old journal (Jacques Taminiaux) is still the founding editor of the new one. The Secretary of the old journal (Danielle Lories) is a co-editor of the new one. 2. Do you suggest I create a new entry with the new name of the journal?Gerard Ghislain (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Gerard Ghislain, I did not reject this move request. At the time you requested the move to "Études phénoménologiques - Phenomenological Studies," the page was already at this title because it had been moved by an editor on May 3. You can see this at Talk:Études phénoménologiques#Requested move 4 May 2018, where I noted that the requested name was already the title of the article. In fact, your request reads "Études phénoménologiques - Phenomenological Studies → Études phénoménologiques - Phenomenological Studies." However, after I performed the procedural close of the move request, another editor moved the page back to the original title. Because that took place, it would make sense to initiate a new move request to "Études phénoménologiques - Phenomenological Studies" at this time if you still think one is warranted. I think that would be a good next step instead of making a new entry with the name of the new journal, because it will allow us to gauge the opinions of a variety of editors. Dekimasuよ! 02:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

talk page clutter

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For closing the particularly difficult case of Requested mass move of TV specials Ribbet32 (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I know some editors will be disappointed by the result, but thank you for the thought! Dekimasuよ! 03:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

MBTA moves

Hello! Thanks for moving the MBTA pages! However, I'm wondering why you moved Watertown Yard (MBTA station) to Watertown Yard (MBTA) instead of just Watertown Yard. Thanks! –Daybeers (talk) 06:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Daybeers. I moved all the pages as they were listed in the request at Talk:Lechmere station, including this one, which was listed as "Watertown Yard (MBTA station) → Watertown Yard (MBTA)." I don't think I could have made it all the way through if I thought much more about each individual move. If Watertown Yard is unambiguous, I doubt anyone will object if you move it again. Best, Dekimasuよ! 07:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. It was changed in the template after the move was proposed, but not changed below in the main section of the move, showing each page name. Thanks very much again for moving all the pages! –Daybeers (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion Tusita

Please can you review again for me how you concluded that this discussion had no majority consensus, so I can understand the process better.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I will get back to you on this as soon as possible. Dekimasuよ! 17:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Farang Rak Tham. As you know, in this case there was evidence presented both in favor of and against the proposed move to Tusita. As you noted in your first comment in the section, arguments like "in real life" based on anecdotal evidence have little weight in move discussions. However, the subsequent evidence presented both by you and JarrahTree indicated that sources differ on the proper spelling of the term. JarrahTree presented evidence from several sources (not all reliable, but including Britannica) of the use of "Tushita," while all examples of "Tusita" listed were foreign language documents that have no bearing upon the English usage that is the basis for article naming. Meanwhile, your evidence showed that Google Scholar and Google News differed as far as which spelling was more common; while you argued that scholarly usage would be more appropriate, our underlying goal is to put the article where people will search for it, which indicates that usage outside scholarly sources is also relevant. With usage split, the editor who first proposed the change, Wikiman5676, wrote "I agree as long as cultural tendencies are identified it doesn't matter how you spell it."

Therefore, when I first considered closing the move request on May 3, I chose to relist the discussion to see if new arguments would be presented. Relisting was an indication that I did not see a consensus for or against the move at the time. Since no new comments were added to the discussion through May 9, it appeared to me that the discussion was stale and I closed it in line with my previous evaluation of the situation. I believe that this is appropriate in the spirit of WP:TITLECHANGES, which states "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. Consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title." This is not to discount the arguments made in favor of the move. Rather, the discussion left it unclear that there would be a significant benefit to moving the page in terms of the new title's compliance with policy (WP:AT), and it was not clear that the editors involved reached an agreement to alter the title. I would be willing to reopen the discussion to see if other editors choose to participate, but I think that is unlikely given that it attracted no new comments in the last ten days it was open. If you are still interested in moving the article, I might advise instead opening a new request in a few months with further evidence and a discussion of why the new title would be more appropriate according to the naming criteria. Please let me know if this doesn't resolve your concerns. Best, Dekimasuよ! 02:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind and thorough response, Dekimasu!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Kelly Sadler unsalted

Please know that Kelly Sadler is NOT salted. Sandstein salted it but unsalted it today. Sandstein originally salted it because the draft on Kelly Sadler was crap. However, there is no need for a draft because Kelly Riddell is an established article with lots of citations and written better. Cowding Soup (talk) 05:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I see that you are an administrator who does RM. After looking at Kelly Riddell, why don't you close the RM and move it. It is not controversial. Kelly Riddell married Mr. Sadler several years ago and now goes by the name "Kelly Sadler". The only reason I listed it as a RM was to be sure that I wasn't doing anything wrong. Cowding Soup (talk) 05:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

As I noted in my comments on the move request, there was a history of salting. Part of the issue was that the version Sandstein approved of, the draft, was not the same as the article proposed to be moved. The fact that there was an established article wasn't itself an indication that it did not also have BLP issues. Since we both wanted to have input from Sandstein and Sandstein clarified, I don't see anything wrong with the move other than the fact that it was performed during the discussion period without waiting for other outside input. I've cleaned up the templates and anyone who objects can go through WP:RMTR to have the page moved again. Dekimasuよ! 17:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested Move Discussion

Hi I recently saw how you helped someone by moving Hina Khan page. I just want you to please conlude these articles VJ Andy (Talk:VJ Andy, Chandrakanta, Brahmarakshas and Shastri Sisters. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by VarunKhurana326 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

VarunKhurana326, I may close these when the week of discussion has completed, according to any consensus that has developed over the course of the discussion, but I can't guarantee that they will all be moved exactly as you requested. That will depend upon the strength of the evidence and the reactions of other editors. In particular, I would encourage you to review the criteria at Wikipedia:Article titles; being a full or complete title is not the only factor in what is chosen for the title on Wikipedia. Best, Dekimasuよ! 04:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Move Kristiani Herrawati to Ani Yudhoyono

Hello, a while back you rejected to move Kristiani Herrawati because I don't give much evidence, so this is the evidence:

1. "Ani Yudhoyono" more popular in Google Trends
2. Her verified Instagram is Ani Yudhoyono
3. The page in Indonesian Wikipedia is id:Ani Yudhoyono

--Hddty. (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hddty., I would suggest opening a new move request on the talk page based upon your new evidence. However, because titles on the English Wikipedia are based upon usage in the English language, the location of the page in the Indonesian Wikipedia is not likely to be seen as strong evidence, and you might want to use other forms of Google (vanilla Google, or Google Books) rather than Google Trends in order to argue your case. Best, Dekimasuよ! 17:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The page has now been moved as you requested. Best, Dekimasuよ! 18:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Targeting IP editors

I ask you to reconsider your behaviour towards IP editors. I have better things to do than to spend much time editing Wikipedia. But that shouldn't prevent me from jumping in and making the odd edit to something that stands out to me as a reader. That's the point of Wikipedia. The dismissive attitude some editors show towards IP editors is offensive and serves only to emphasise how unwelcome many parts of Wikipedia are. Please don't contribute further to that. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 10:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns. I tagged both IP editors and named accounts in an attempt to help the eventual closer of the discussion, and I tried to be conservative in tagging SPAs. I tagged them advisedly, and without regard to whether they supported or opposed a move in the discussion. There were a large number of contributors to the discussion with less than 20 overall edits, and it can be useful to tag (not flag) these accounts to be sure that no one is putting a thumb on the scales. I am somewhat surprised to find that I tagged you despite having about 100 edits; in retrospect, your IP was probably the most active one tagged, and I should probably not have done so. At the same time, being tagged as a SPA is not itself an indication that your opinion should be discounted: per WP:SPA#SPA tagging, "These tags are not an official Wikipedia policy, and may be heeded or not based upon your judgment and discretion. If you are tagged as an SPA, please do not take this as an attack on your editing. Some users just find it easier to discuss issues when it is clear what the new editors are doing." In either event, I will take your comments to heart. Best, Dekimasuよ! 16:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

By the way, this edit was very unfortunate. You moved a request to revert an undiscussed move to the "contested" section, eventually resulting in the whole move process that is under discussion. The fact that the move was contested is what is taken care of by a request to revert an undiscussed move. We do not contest contestations. There is an assumption that the page will be moved back to the stable title in order for further discussion to take place. Dekimasuよ! 18:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Parsons Green

Hello. I feel like you have closed the move discussion on Talk:Parsons Green bombing too soon. I was certainly expecting at least several more opinions before the request would close. Is there any way you could re-open it? --Gateshead001 (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Gateshead001, I do not particularly object to reopening the discussion, but the discussion was open for a bit longer than the standard period and most of the comments did not support the proposed move. I doubt that reopening the discussion would result in reaching a consensus to move the page at this time, and I am under the impression that the several more opinions you hope for would not be readily forthcoming. I'd ask you to consider restarting the request in a few months with reference to article titling policy and evidence of 1) common usage (WP:COMMONNAME) or 2) an explicit discussion of the title as descriptive and not subject to common name concerns (WP:NDESC). Here the discussion of these two methods of naming was mixed. Please let me know what you think; I will reopen this if you still would like me to, but I believe a new request later on would be more likely to succeed. Dekimasuよ! 17:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I would prefer it to be re-opened at this stage. This event is also something recent, unlike IRA-related ones, and is why I believe this request should remain open for quite some time to get the attention and opinions it needs. Doing this months later may gradually decrease the chances of more responses as we get farther away from the event itself. I'm not doing this in desparation to make it move, but rather because I believe there are lots of opinions/thoughts unaccounted for. This bombing was obviously a major event here and we should be able to get many thoughts on it if fellow Wikipedians are aware of the move request - if this was a minor event or one that happened long ago (like an IRA bomb) I probably wouldn't have minded. Hope you understand, thanks. --Gateshead001 (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I have reopened and relisted the discussion. However, please be aware that another closer may choose to close the request if discussion does not appear to be proceeding toward consensus in favor of a move. Dekimasuよ! 05:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you very much.--Gateshead001 (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Move of Remington adaptive combat rifle

Thanks for moving it to a title that is at least properly capitalised. However, the consensus was that Remington ACR is the more common name, and I had been meaning to add my support to that name, though rather unhelpfully didn't get around to it. As such, would you please move the article to Remington ACR. Thanks, RadiculousJ (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello RadiculousJ, I have modified the close and re-moved the article as you requested. Best, Dekimasuよ! 23:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I have a doubt

Hello, I saw that you removed the "retail location" and "supporters" section of B&E. I based the re-write on the basis of this article, where there are separate sections for the information provided. Why is it okay on one article page and not okay on another? Or is this something that has been overlooked? Jesstan01 (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Jesstan01–in the case of the "supporters" section, this was an editorial decision based partially upon the existing article tag suggesting that some material was too promotional. The fact that certain celebrities have worn a product does not seem to contribute greatly to an understanding of the subject of the article. (The first sentence, "The label has been worn by a number of singers, idols, and actors of different nationalities," was uncited and not very specific. In the case of the second sentence, "Celebrities like model Hailey Baldwin, and NBA players E'Twaun Moore and Stephen Curry have also been spotted wearing the brand," it is not clear that this represents particular "support.") I do not believe that the information is better for one page than the other, and in response to your question, I have also removed the "supporters" section from the other article you mentioned. However, this was not based upon a particular guideline, and can of course undergo further discussion. In the case of the retail locations, the Blanc & Eclare article is quite short and it did not seem to be necessary to break the information on retail locations into a separate section. I did retain all the information itself, moving it to the lead, where it is arguably more prominent. Best, Dekimasuよ! 23:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dekimasu: I had based the rewrite based on The Row and hence was confused. Your explanation has cleared my doubt. Thank you! Jesstan01 (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT

DEFAULTSORT, which you have added for several airline destination lists, is in the form of {{DEFAULTSORT:Example}}, not {{DEFAULTSORT|Example}}. Note the colon. HotdogPi 00:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I copied the format from other pages but should have realized it was a magic word. I probably would have noticed had it not worked with the vertical bar. Best, Dekimasuよ! 03:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Tropical Storms move

Sorry for the closure conflict; but nice to know I was on the right track in my close. Happy editing! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

It's great when edit conflicts resolve themselves without any further work required. Hope you'll close a lot more requests! Best, Dekimasuよ! 01:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm planning on getting more involved in that aspect of Wikipedia. Cheers! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Dekimasu (and Cameron11598). The tropical storms moved were closed as no consensus, but there is a consensus. The broader consensus of the tropical storms naming conventions ( "If a name was used only once, no year is needed (e.g. Hurricane Rina or Typhoon Zeb)." Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones) and the even broader consensus of the articles titles policy WP:PRECISION ("titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that.") both show consensus for dropping the unneeded disambiguating qualifier from titles that are not ambiguous on Wikipedia, and that's why the tropical storms naming conventions were updated to stop conflictng with WP:AT. The oppose !votes in the discussion had no guidelines or policies to support them. I'd like to suggest that you re-close the moves in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello JHunterJ, I dislike preemptive disambiguation, but there was no consensus in favor of removing the years in these move discussions. The title guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones is not a naming convention with guideline status, and the editors opposing the move cited recognizability, which is one of the naming criteria in WP:AT policy.☆ Move requests are assumed to attract a general cross-section of the user base, so we should not assume that the move discussions represent a local consensus that is unrepresentative of the community. Rather, WP:C explains WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in terms of WikiProjects attempting to set rules without establishing consensus guidelines. Hopefully the result of the discussion might turn out differently in the future if the WikiProject's advice is elevated to guideline status, but on the basis of the discussions at hand it is not clear that they currently enjoy that support.

☆(Presumably they do not believe the distinction between Subtropical Storm Nicole and Tropical Storm Nicole, etc., is sufficient, which is borne out to some extent by the fact that Tropical Storm Nicole does not redirect to the only article called "Tropical Storm Nicole".) Dekimasuよ! 15:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Toshiba Kawasaki Brave Thunders

日本語を母語に近い状態で扱えるとのことで、日本語で書かさせていただきます。日本版のタイトルは 東芝川崎ブレイブサンダースから川崎ブレイブサンダースに既に移動してあります。これは、Bリーグ2018-19シーズンから、同チームの経営が東芝からDeNAに移行することが既に発表されているからです。だから記事名から東芝を削除したいのです。宜しくおねがいします。　Ntsctalk (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Ntsctalk、ご連絡ありがとうございます。頂いた理由をもとにTalk:Toshiba Kawasaki Brave Thundersに改名提案を再度提出しました。ご検討お願いします。Dekimasuよ! 17:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

President of China

Hello, Dekimasu. You have new messages at Talk:President of China#Redirect or disambiguation. --Bejnar (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Bejnar, I have replied at the talk page there. I am not involved in this discussion at a content level, but hopefully my reply will be helpful. Dekimasuよ! 17:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Zaporizhia

I think you have misunderstood this edit by IP editor 46.200.143.183. The long list of links are his/her arguments for why he/she supports the move.

That was why I added a signature block using the{{subst: unsigned IP}} template at the end of his/her post.

You have tried adding a second signature block in the MIDDLE of his/her post.[84] and [85].

I hope that you do not mind, but I have attempted to fix the problem.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The current version shows as broken again at WP:RM, continuing through the end of your comment in reply to the IP user and timestamped using your comment as well. This is partly because it isn't possible to carry this sort of formatting over onto the WP:RM page, and partly because there is no "(UTC)" at the end of the signature. You can see the version I was trying to fix here; after your edit it shows up in a similar fashion, like this. I was trying to prevent both the long, unformatted list and your subsequent comment from showing up at WP:RM, so I hadn't actually misunderstood: it came out like this, with the listing at a reasonable length. I am trying a new version since it seems that the previous version was unclear. Dekimasuよ! 20:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Google result numbers

There is no support in any guideline for the googling technique that you are using: "Hit counts reported by Google are only estimates, which in some cases have been shown to necessarily be off by nearly an order of magnitude, especially for hit counts above a few thousands." (WP:GOOGLELIMITS). When the hit count is over 100 million, I would say more like two or three orders of magnitude. Two academic studies of the Google algorithm are cited to support this claim. In my opinion, you would profit from reading them both. Google trends and ngram were created to replace the result numbers, so we must assume they are superior. Why do consecutive searches yield the same result number? At one time, the result numbers changed in consecutive searches. Users wondered what was going on, so Google rejiggered things to make the earlier number come up again and again. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 01:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Please note that numbers of such size were not in my reply to the proposal, I specifically called the hit counts estimates, and I made reference to usage in individual reliable sources. My primary intent was to point out that the search listed in the proposal did not corroborate the claims about a common name, since it is necessary to put search terms in quotation marks in order to get any meaningful results at all; and secondarily to point out that the method being employed would not lead to the claimed result. Dekimasuよ! 02:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Move request

I have noticed you have closed the request on Talk:War in Donbass. One again I think you have prematurely closed this down, after just one response. This is clearly not reasonable enough. I would like you to re-open the case so that at least several more opinions are added before a consensus. --Gateshead001 (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I have relisted the proposal as requested. However, low participation is not in and of itself an indication that a discussion should be relisted. Dekimasuよ! 17:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

RM close

Dekimasu, in regard to the debate at Talk:List of Vice Presidents of the United States#Requested move 21 May 2018, forgive me because I disagree with that outcome. The list title must be changed to be in accordance with MOS:JOBTITLES, which represents the community consensus on the subject of whether or not to capitalize common nouns in article titles. If you disagree with that guideline, then you should open a discussion to change it on the talk page of the style guideline. If you choose to abide by the community consensus that shaped the style guideline, then please overturn and rename the list.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  15:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

We have had a similar discussion elsewhere, but there was no consensus exhibited in the linked discussion. My closes should be unrelated to whether I agree or disagree with a guideline and my opinion did not affect this close. In the discussion, individual editors were faced with a decision about how to react to various concerns, including but not limited to MOS:JOBTITLES, that might influence their understanding of whether the titles should be changed. As a whole, they did not agree that the titles of the articles should be changed. To close the discussion in a way that reflects this is a reflection of the norms of the community, not a way to avoid abiding by community consensus. The earlier discussion I refer to is here: "All move discussions are basically 'localized' interpretations of community policies and guidelines. Local consensus doesn't override community consensus, but a requested move listing is supposed to be sufficient project-wide advertisement that it receives attention from a broad cross-section of editors in order to avoid concerns that the results of the request are simply products of local consensus. To state that 'consensus has already been determined by the community' in relation to any individual move request is basically to argue that we don't need move discussions. If a requested move discussion does not reach consensus (because editors on both sides make relevant arguments that reflect guidelines and policies, which can conflict), that is considered a reflection of the overall position of the community, and should not be overridden by reference to a particular guideline. In other words, the applicability of specific guidance is what is under discussion here." Dekimasuよ! 05:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation! Still a bit hazy about all of it, especially when I consider the comment made that the MOS guideline had been altered recently and was apparently made more vague. I think you over-generalize when you say "To state that 'consensus has already been determined by the community' in relation to any individual move request is basically to argue that we don't need move discussions." There are plenty of situations in which RMs are not necessary, and sometimes discussions are begun even when policies and guidelines indicate they are not needed. Murder Me, Monster was a case in point, and these decap discussions may also very well be similar cases. I wondered if this might be hashed out at MRV, but I see you are already being reviewed there, so I won't pursue that. Maybe we need an RfC on the guideline talk page. Let me think about it some more. Thanks again for the above!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  13:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Paine, I know your objection is in good faith, so I do not mind this being taken to move review if you are still uncomfortable with the close. These things happen when you do a few hundred closes in a month. In some ways the points in question are similar between this case and the one at move review, but I see that you have endorsed the other close. I would still argue that the results of the move request you mention here indicate it was not an uncontroversial request, and thus it was a good thing that there was a full move discussion. Of course I am not opposed to making bold moves in general. Best, Dekimasuよ! 03:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Decided against MRV and not just because you're busy there, also because I really don't have a problem with your close and would have closed it the same way you did. I don't have a good handle yet on the true intent of the guideline, and Blueboar's idea that "Presidents" and "Vice Presidents" remain a part of the office titles even after pluralization is a strong argument in the eyes of several editors. So at this point I hope that someone will start an RfC to clarify the guideline and put the issue to rest. Thank you for your kind words!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  16:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Move review for Subtropical Storm Alpha (1972)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Subtropical Storm Alpha (1972). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. B dash (talk) 02:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I do not believe I misread the discussion, but I have replied at the move review. Dekimasuよ! 03:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Rajneesh

Hi Dekimasu, You have recently closed the article move discussion for this which was initiated by Accesscrawl. In this relation, you might find this interesting. I have heard of paid editing, but not paid discussions: [86]. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. It does not appear that any off-site actions altered the outcome, which is encouraging. Dekimasuよ! 19:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Merge

I checked out the result of move discussion! Can you merge these articles? (Title is List of Kerala Blasters FC head coaches). Do we have a discussion again? I think that discussion is waste time! I hope that controller deal with it without discussiaon.

• List of Kerala Blasters FC managers
• List of Kerala Blasters FC head coaches

Footwiks (talk)

Well, I see that you have changed the redirect back into a second article. If you think there is sufficient consensus in support of merging the articles in the other direction, feel free to merge them and see if anyone is interested in reverting the merge. I am not going to perform the merge myself; I was only involved as the closer of the move discussion. Best, Dekimasuよ! 19:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Reza Pahlavi requested move

Hey, can you relist this discussion please? Actually, there's just one oppose with the other opposes being mirrors of FactStraight's comment. Moreover, I think this support comment brought something new to our eyes and we can work on it. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Mhhossein, I appreciate the work that you put into this move proposal, but in this case I do not believe the discussion would benefit from a relisting. The editors who opposed by making reference to FactStraight's comments serve to reinforce the idea that those objections to the move carry weight among a variety of editors, and it is very unlikely that relisting would result in a consensus to move the page. There was an objection to applying WP:SOVEREIGN to this discussion, but the basic guideline not to apply ordinals to "someone who has not reigned" still appears to be applicable, and an editor who supported the move also did so citing WP:SOVEREIGN. The second supporter you mentioned actually appears to favor Reza Pahlavi or Reza Pahlavi, exiled Crown Prince of Iran to the proposed title (but the title including "exiled" would be extremely unlikely to result in consensus as well, and is less concise than the current form). At a more basic level, presenting a range of citations showing that the proposed title is in use can be helpful, but there were issues with the citations presented. For example, the New York Times and Independent searches include a large number of listings that do not refer to the Reza Pahlavi who is the subject of the article in question, and do not use the requested ordinal. Further, although the additional searches below this showed that the ordinal is sometimes used, it did not show that the requested name was the subject's WP:COMMONNAME in English, or that this is a relatively frequent occurrence. Thus it does not appear that the move would succeed were WP:SOVEREIGN to be set aside. In fact your proposal indicated that this was not the most common way to refer to the subject. Given the second comment of support I would not object to the initiation of a new multimove request seeking to move the article to Reza Pahlavi and the disambiguation page to Reza Pahlavi (disambiguation), but I know you are aware that similar requests have failed in the past because of the sorts of issues raised by the results from the Times and Independent. Best, Dekimasuよ! 20:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear Dekimasu: You're welcome. So sorry for the belated response. I was impressed by your comprehensive and precise reply. It shows your deep understanding of the events happening around the discussed subject. Yeah, that ordinal number is prohibited by WP:SOVEREIGN and I had to see that. Anyway, I still think the current title does not really obey the guidelines mentioned. Would you please providing the link to the aforementioned Times and Independent? Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Mhhossein, I was referring to the links included in the original proposal. Clicking on the link to the Independent search results yields hits on the first page like this and this that refer to other Reza Pahlavis. The New York Times link (despite omitting hits including "Mohammad" or "Mohammed") has similar results. This shows the ambiguity of the title "Reza Pahlavi"; again, I know that you are already aware that it would be difficult to move Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran to simply Reza Pahlavi on this basis. It is possible that a different parenthetical disambiguator could be used–based, for example, on other of his activities that make him notable–but in this discussion it was argued that the current descriptor is the most recognizable. I hope the discussion can reach a resolution that everyone is content with at some point. Best, Dekimasuよ! 05:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Dekimasu. Thanks for the reply. In fact, I was trying to show that there are many reliable sources calling him simply Reza Pahlavi, hence he's "most commonly referred to by a non-monarchical title" and per WP:SOVEREIGN he's an exception to the “Former or deposed monarchs” provision. As you know, there are many sources for this (see this source for instance). Yes, there are cases where Reza Pahalvi is used for his father, however, I believe he's mostly referred to as Reza Pahlavi with his fathers being Mohammad Reza and Reza Shah (Khan). Anyway, can I ask you come up with an example or guide me how I can find that parenthetical disambiguator. Many thanks for your helps. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey Dekimasu, did you notice my previous comment? Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Mhhossein, in terms of selecting an appropriate disambiguator, I don't think I can do better than to point you to WP:NCPDAB, which may have more generally applicable advice than WP:SOVEREIGN. Category:Heirs apparent who never acceded would seem to indicate that the current title is acceptable, but there are examples of other types of disambiguators there as well, including birth year. Dekimasuよ! 20:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisting

Purely for my own learning... what does the addition of relisting mean to the move proposal. Did I do it incorrectly, or does this just mean it's been proposed before? Cheers, Basie (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Basie, sorry for missing your message. This didn't mean that you did anything wrong or that the move had been proposed before. It's just an indication that the discussion hasn't reached a resolution. "Relisting" renews the period of the listing at Wikipedia:Requested moves, bumping it back up to the top of the list for more editors to add input. There's a bit more information at WP:RM#Relisting. Best, Dekimasuよ! 04:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Aha! Thanks, that makes perfect sense. Cheers, Basie (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

MR-443 Move

I posted the following to Wikipedia:Move review regarding the page move of MP-443 Grach before I realized that I should discuss with the closer first. Well. Here are the contents of my move review post:

During the discussion, it was stated that "The Latin-looking "МР" is actually the Cyrillic letters "М" (Em) and "Р" (Er)". However, in reality, the letters are in fact Latin, and not Cyrillic. They stood for "Mechanical Plant". This fact can be found on the Russian version of the page: "Буквы MP следует читать как латинские буквы, которые являются сокращением от Mechanical Plant (Механический завод)" (Machine Translated: The letters MP should be read as Latin letters, which are an abbreviation of the Mechanical Plant), with this page as its citation. Relevant paragraph from citation follows:

После долгих работ над возможными вариантами конструкции, многочисленных усовершенствований и доработок, готовый пистолет на ИЖМЕХ-е получил наименование MP-443, при чем MP следует читать как латинские буквы, которые являются сокращением от Mechanical Plant (Механический завод). Однако для официальных испытаний оружию был присвоен индекс 6П35. На научно-исследовательском полигоне Министерства обороны России пистолеты проходили испытания на ресурс, надежность функционирования в нормальных и затрудненных условиях (стрельба без смазки, при температуре – 50 до 50 градусов по Цельсию, в условиях запыления, при дожде). Всего во время таких испытаний было произведено около 1500 выстрелов.

Machine translated:

After much work on possible variants of design, numerous improvements and revisions, the Ready pistol on Izhmeh-E got the name MP-443, at what MP should be read as Latin letters which are reduction from Mechanical Plant (mechanical Factory). However, for official tests the weapon was assigned the index 6p 35. At the research site of the Russian Ministry of Defense pistols were tested on the resource, reliability of functioning in normal and difficult conditions (shooting without lubrication, at a temperature of 50 to 50 degrees Celsius, in conditions Dust, rain). In total during such tests about 1500 shots were fired.

The discussion simultaneously resulted in the renaming of MP-412 REX, MP-444 Bagira, MP-445 Varyag, MP-446 Viking, and MP-448 Skyph. These should all be reverted. --Wuzh (talk) 04:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Wuzh, I have replied at Wikipedia:Move review, but the central issue here is that the discussion took place about five months ago. For move requests that old, it is perfectly fine to open a new move request with a new rationale to move the page to another title (or the previous title). I appreciate you bringing this evidence to me, and I recognize that your evidence may be important (I don't speak Russian), but as the closer my role was to evaluate the outcome of the discussion. At the time, that outcome was clear. My advice is that it would be more effective and more efficient to start a new discussion than to further pursue the move review. Dekimasuよ! 05:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Discovery Science (TV channel) listed at RfD

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Discovery Science (TV channel). Since you had some involvement with the Discovery Science (TV channel) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. jamacfarlane (talk) 02:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Jamacfarlane, thank you for the notification. As the closer, it is probably not my place to become involved–but a disambiguation page seems like a reasonable outcome. I considered creating it myself, but I'm busy with closing other move discussions; it's always helpful if the dab is created before the move discussion closes in cases like these. Dekimasuよ! 02:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Double redirect

Hey, from your recent moves of professional wrestling templates, Template:Infobox Wrestling promotion is double redirecting to Template:Infobox wrestling promotion rather than targeting Template:Infobox professional wrestling promotion. I cannot fix it myself due to page protection. Prefall 21:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Prefall–Fixed. Thanks for letting me know. Best, Dekimasuよ! 21:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thinking of requesting close

Hi Dekimasu

I'm thinking of requesting close of the RM at Talk:Giuseppe Pitrè.

You closed it and it was then reopened by an involved editor, claiming that the listing period had not elapsed (by 51 minutes).

I'm just wondering, was it listed at WP:RME at the time of closure?

Best. Andrewa (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Hello Andrewa, you've probably noticed that the editor who took issue with the close has withdrawn his objections (to a point) and offered to let me reclose the discussion, but I still felt it would be best to let someone else take charge of the situation, so I appreciate your message.

I believe the editor is correct that the page was not listed at WP:RME at the time of closure according to the page histories. However, I usually access WP:RM through Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions (table), which at the time showed the discussion as the oldest discussion under "Days open: 7". It seems that this actually means six, since the listings start at "1" the moment they are first listed. Before there was a separate section for "elapsed" at WP:RMC, we weren't strict about 168 hours as opposed to seven days. Since there is now an "elapsed" section (maybe this also had to do with creating relistings? I remember a debate over whether those had to be left open for another full period, and it took a while for the answer to be no), maybe it would be useful for RMCD bot to start these listings at zero, so that it is clear when seven complete days have passed. In any event I have closed move requests early before without explicitly invoking WP:SNOW, and I think this is the first time anyone has ever objected. In this case it was my error to have misjudged the temperature of the room.

Thus the objection was correct that the close occurred 51 minutes early. The result would have been unaffected and I am uninvolved as stated, but in giving those pushing for the move "grounds for appeal", so to speak, the close was unfortunate. I still believe that there is a bit of Wikilawyering involved to argue over 51 minutes, but in this particular case the editor is also correct that there was an addition to the discussion over the subsequent 51 minutes (if not one that shed any more light on the issue). Dekimasuよ! 17:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I just wanted to have the facts before me.

Reopening the discussion was IMO completely unjustified, it should have gone to MR where I think it would have been laughed out of court. But of course we are all human (it won't last, POV-pushers will eventually employ artificial intelligence against us, and it's an ideal application for it but hopefully we will beat them to it). See wp:creed#bold.

I have not !voted but probably will, as I think it's better to request a close than give MR ammunition however poor that ammo may be. Andrewa (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Amakuru has beaten us to it. They're good value. Andrewa (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Restoration of Military aristocracy

Hi can I get military aristocracy restored, you had previously deleted it per WP:G5, thanks.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Prisencolin, there was only one edit to the page, and it contained only a set of five external links on various "military aristocracies"–it was never really an article as such, and the links do not appear to be very useful. There shouldn't be any problem with creating a new article, of course. Would you still like the deleted content to be refunded to your userspace? Dekimasuよ! 00:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Jimmy Doherty

I moved the page history to the more appropriate location of Jimmy Doherty (Third Watch character). I then kept the dab page deleted since I don't see any further value in retaining it. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. Dekimasuよ! 05:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Akutagawa/Naoki dates

Thanks for your edit summary comment on Naoki dates in the Miyuki Miyabe article. Clarifying conferral date vs. award time frame is important. Following your lead I'll start using conferral date for the awards list and text, but also indicate the award time frame (e.g. 2003下) in the awards list. That should help clarify for readers why source articles say one year while the official list of winners sometimes indicates another. I've gone back through articles I've created or updated and made similar edits to keep things consistent. Good catch, thanks. Bakazaka (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bakazaka, thanks for following up on this. I appreciate how much work it must be to standardize the dates–even academic sources tend to get them incorrect. Thanks for all the great work you've been doing on the literature articles. Dekimasuよ! 00:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Bill Potts

Hi - on the Bill Potts close, would you mind a little more meat on the bones of your rationale and maybe weigh the strength of the arguments? Seems to me like the !opposes were largely based on a faulty premise - that articles on fictional characters have to meet a higher standard to be primarytopic. I and a few other editors noted that that is not the case in any WP policy, guideline, or essay. I'd appreciate a second look. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I have added the following: "Although it is possible for a fictional character to be a primary topic for a search term, there is no consensus in this discussion that the Doctor Who character fulfills the long-term significance criterion of Wikipedia:Primary topic." It is difficult to add more than this–there is no requirement that fictional characters must meet a particular standard to be the primary topic, but at the same time, individual editors may have different perspectives on what is required in order to fulfill the long-term significance criterion, and discussions about adding explicit ways to measure long-term significance have not achieved consensus at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. I do not think the standard should be different for fictional characters, but there was still no apparent consensus as to long-term significance in the discussion at Talk:Bill Potts. Best, Dekimasuよ! 17:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional response. I would also quibble that the guideline does not state that there has to be long-term significance in order to have a primarytopic. Where we have such a strong primarytopic by usage, it seems reader-unfriendly to force them to a dab page. But c'est la vie. Dohn joe (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisting move request

Hi, I would like to come back to you because you closed my move request: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_and_Information_Space_Command_(Germany) I attached a new official source to the article with the official naming of the command. Please look into it and relist my move request. Schariez (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Schariez. Since this was a request from two months ago, I have reformatted your comment at Talk:Cyber and Information Space Command (Germany) as a new move request rather than a relisting. Dekimasuよ! 19:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. It took some time to get an official article in English online. Schariez (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

RM close

Thanks for your contributions. However, regarding Talk:List of Persian Roman Catholic saints would you mind giving it a relist, since it is actually 2-2 stakes? WP:CONSISTENCY for article realm should perhaps merit at least one relist, shouldn't it? Thank you! Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Chicbyaccident, I have relisted the proposal per your request, but the count wasn't a major factor here. If you'd like the request to have a better chance to go through, it would be worthwhile to respond to the concerns of the other editors. As an aside, while it appears that there were particular concerns regarding removing "Roman" here, that doesn't usually seem to be the case in these requests. Is there a reason you tend to introduce the move proposals separately instead of as a group? Best, Dekimasuよ! 19:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, I don't think there is lot of articles around that apply that formula. If you know more, feel free. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Luccombe, Isle of Wight

Wouldn't that have benefited from a relist. Even if "Luccombe" was the most common name then WP:NATURAL could apply, but I think the OS is a more appropriate source than Google Maps. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Crouch, Swale, I will respond to this as soon as possible. Dekimasuよ! 19:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I have relisted this per your request because I haven't had time to discuss the close in any detail. However, there are a few caveats that apply here and I hope they can be addressed in future move requests. First, the proposal is phrased in terms of favoring an WP:OFFICIAL name. Perhaps there is an argument to be made about the official name, but the OS name has little bearing on whether or not a disambiguation page is necessary, because it has already been demonstrated that Luccombe, Isle of Wight is at least sometimes called "Luccombe". Whether or not the disambiguation page is necessary or any of the pages should be moved hinges upon whether the names are in general, not official, use–and there hasn't been any evidence presented to show either that "Luccombe" usually refers to the place in Somerset or that the location on the Isle of Wight is usually called "Luccombe Village". The question is not whether to favor Google Maps over OS, but what a preponderance of sources show. Dekimasuよ! 17:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks I have replied there. My point was that I had replied to the "oppose" argument and no other comments had been made. Likewise I'd point out that if a RM debate has had no comments then it might be OK to close it as moved. As pointed out at WP:RMCI#Determining consensus unless the move is dubious or controversial its often enough that no one opposed to it, for example Maldon, Essex but I trust you're judgement on this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale, as you noted, there's no minimum level of participation for move discussions. Whether or not I relist a move discussion that has no responses usually has to do mainly with the complexity of the issues raised by the request (including whether the nomination references relevant policies and guidelines), whether it is likely to have been read by any editors with sufficient competency in the subject area (that is, unopposed requests on pages with greater exposure are more likely to be uncontroversial), and whether the issue has been discussed in the past. Where I've not closed your recent move proposals, usually it is the second of these that gives me enough pause to relist the discussion. However, it's also the case that clear evidence of the WP:COMMONNAME in rationales would usually be enough to put these through.

Thanks for the vote of confidence in my judgment; I try to deal with these in a reasonable fashion, despite the backlog. Dekimasuよ! 02:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

A Baker Barnstar

		The Disambiguator's Barnstar
		The Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who are prolific disambiguators. For piloting to a solution for the James Addison Baker articles. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Dekimasuよ! 00:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Change of article name from Casma/Sechin culture to Sechin Complex

Today you changed the title of the Casma/Sechin culture article to Sechin Complex.

Apparently you requested the move on August 17, but my watchlist does not indicate any changes in the Casma/Sechin article on that day or any proposal to move the article. Had I known of the proposed move, I would certainly have commented, and probably opposed the move.

My problem is that the title Sechin Complex is not inclusive enough to describe the topic. The several archaeological remains of the culture are found not only in the Sechin River valley, but also in the Casma River Valley. The title Sechin Complex might be interpreted to exclude the ruins in the Casma Valley. The title Casma/Sechin culture makes clear that all these ruins were similar in culture, existed contemporaneously, and were possibly politically united for part of their 2,000 year history.

Yes, the name Sechin Complex is often used to describe this grouping of ancient settlements. However, as several of the ruins already bear the Sechin name (Sechin Alto, Sechin Bajo, and Cerro Sechin), I also thought it would be better if the article bore a more encompassing and less confusing name than Sechin Complex.

There is also precedent. The culture found about 100 miles distant is described in the article titled Norte Chico civilization. One reason that title was chosen was that it is more inclusive than other possible titles such as Caral and Caral-Supe civilizations.

I'm not going to wrestle you down to the mat on this issue, but I am irritated that the watchlist system failed to notify me of the proposed change.Smallchief (talk) 02:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Smallchief, please note that I did not request the move, but only followed through on the unopposed request. Perhaps you would receive better feedback from Koavf, who filed the proposal. It should have shown up on your watchlist, however, according to the page history. In this particular case, I will revert the change and relist the discussion to give you the opportunity to respond at Talk:Casma/Sechin culture. Perhaps there is some way both to satisfy MOS:SLASH and to address your concerns. Dekimasuよ! 03:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry to attribute the change of name to you. To put it mildly I'm not technically savvy. Smallchief (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Zakarid Armenia

Hello, because you were the closer of the move request on Talk:Zakarid Armenia, I would like for you to reconsider the result in order to avoid the lengthy WP:MR process. I had established that Zakarid Armenia is by far the more WP:COMMONNAME. Considering that "the debate is not a vote" and "valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements", this should've been convincing enough to move the article. And even if you do not believe it is sufficient, please consider the article had been named Zakarid Armenia for years until it was recently moved with no discussion taking place (and articles can't be moved back to a previous name by regular users). So if you still consider there to be no consensus, then reverting the article back to Zakarid Armenia should've still been the correct result. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Move review for Armenia within the Kingdom of Georgia

An editor has asked for a Move review of Armenia within the Kingdom of Georgia. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I have replied there. I am sorry that you had to wait so long for a resolution to this. Dekimasuよ! 06:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Moving templates

Hi, when you move a template, please check whether there is a "name" parameter within the template. If so, this needs to be updated to match the new page name.

This applies to all stub templates and navigation templates, and probably others too.

I mention it because you did not update the parameter after doing the requested move of Template:RC-society-stub to Template:Catholic-Church-society-stub.

I hope this is helpful. Thanks for all you do here! – Fayenatic London 09:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Corn, N64 Emulator listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Corn, N64 Emulator. Since you had some involvement with the Corn, N64 Emulator redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I have replied. Thank you for the notification. Best, Dekimasuよ! 06:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Unprotect request

Hi Dekimasu. You protected the page Template:Lookfrom. It was subsequently made a redirect after the template was moved, and thus the original basis for protection, that it is a high-risk template, no longer applies. Could you unprotect the page? It would also facilitate a pending edit request. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure that this is a good idea, since there are still a large number of pages that link to the old title. Because I am unable to be active at the moment, I'd suggest that you ask for review of the issue from another administrator. Best, Dekimasuよ! 06:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Fusao Hayashi

Hey, I just noticed this. I don't recall, but was the version of the page you deleted a separate (content fork) article created by me during 2017 Asian Month? The article appears on my list of articles created, but the live version of the page has no edits by me; I suspect what happened is someone created an earlier article at the wrong title without leaving a redirect at the right one, and I accidentally concluded that no article existed and created my own (this is what happened at Talk:Kanikōsen, and I actually recall venting to User:Curly Turkey about inconsistent naming order of modern-but-dead Japanese authors at around that time). If you don't mind, could you restore my version and put it in my user space as User:Hijiri88/Fusao Hayashi so I can overwrite my version (which unlike the present version was almost certainly fully cited) and keep whatever of the existing article is worth keeping? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

It seems the page was just a redirect. In future, it might be better if you just moved over the redirect (even non-admins can do that) rather than deleting, since it seems the tool can't tell the difference if someone created a redirect, the redirect was deleted, and then the original article moved to the redirect title. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Hijiri 88, I don't remember performing the move either, but as you said, the deletion overwrote a single-edit redirect you created to point to the existing article which was at Hayashi Fusao at the time. I probably never saw your redirect, just saw the page at Hayashi Fusao and had it go through without issue when I put Fusao Hayashi in for the new title on the move screen. Thus it appears that what I did is what you requested, moving over the redirect without performing a separate admin action–that just created an automatic G6 notification in the history (deletion by overwriting). Best, Dekimasuよ! 02:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't blame you for not remembering, but it seems you actually deleted the redirect first, for whatever reason. I don't see any standard procedural issue in you doing this, as the end result is the same, but it messes with some of the automatic analysis tools, as my "articles created" now includes that article, since the tool recognizes that I created the first page at that title, and can't see that the "deleted" version that was "restored" is now and always was a redirect. (The list is not supposed to include redirects, and didn't apparently until the page was deleted.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri 88, I can verify that I did not perform an additional admin deletion of the page. I just created User:Dekimasu/test1 as a redirect to User:Dekimasu/test2, created User:Dekimasu/test2 with dummy text, and then moved User:Dekimasu/test2 to User:Dekimasu/test1 over the redirect as a normal move without performing an admin action, and it still shows a G6 deletion in the log. Whether it only does this because I am also an admin, I can't say. However, I am sure that I did not perform the deletion separately. Dekimasuよ! 08:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah, okay. That's super-weird. Then again, the tools are weird -- apparently EditorInteract will randomly not list certain pages unless you change the namespace or date parameters. Anyway, sorry for bothering you about a non-issue, and thanks for clearing that up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dekimasu. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet problem/voting illegally!

@Dekimasu: The hospital article Frank R. Howard Memorial Hospital had the sockpuppet User:Frayae illegally rejected the move of Frank R. Howard Memorial Hospital to Adventist Health Howard Memorial. So the article should be moved to Adventist Health Howard Memorial. I greatly support this move since it makes sense to move Frank R. Howard Memorial Hospital to the new name Adventist Health Howard Memorial.Catfurball (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest submitting a new request, given that the previous discussion occurred several months ago. You may be technically correct as far as the sockpuppetry involved, but a new request should be just as successful and have a stronger mandate. Or perhaps another uninvolved admin would be willing to act on this right away; feel free to ask. Dekimasuよ! 06:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Reopen move discussion?

Hi!

I'm wondering if you would consider reopening/relisting the move discussion at Genesis flood narrative you closed as "no consensus"? [87] I would argue that there needs to be more time and perhaps more attention brought to the discussion as there are outstanding questions that are unanswered by some of the participants and the quality of the arguments is rather uneven up until now.

I would be curious if you had any ideas of how to more widely advertise this discussion to get more input if you do find occasion to reverse your close.

Thanks.

jps (talk) 10:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

User:ජපස, from my reading it does not seem likely that the discussion will reach a consensus in favor of a move, so the simplest conclusion was to proceed with a close. I recognize that this would be a disappointing outcome, but you may find it helpful to your cause to disengage a bit; to the extent that discussion is still ongoing, it appears to involve those who chose to respond to your objections to their opposes. I do agree that some of the arguments presented are stronger than others. I have relisted the discussion per your request and we'll see what happens. Dekimasuよ! 20:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take your advice and disengage. jps (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Similarly, it seems indecently brief for you to have closed this move discussion within 15 hours of the first response, and with the !votes at 2-2. Please explain how you consider the requirements of WP:NOTMOVED section 2 in such a short (in both the temporal and extension senses) discussion. Kevin McE (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The move request was open for the requisite seven days; note that there is no minimum level of participation for the processing of move requests. In this case, per WP:NOTMOVED, "there is neither a strong consensus to move nor a strong consensus to keep the current title." As far as the policy on article titles is concerned, in this particular discussion the nomination made reference to one of the naming criteria, concision, while those opposed to it made reference to another criterion, consistency. Thus there was "lack of consensus among participants along with no clear indication from policy and conventions [which] normally means that no change happens" (WP:RMCI#Determining consensus). (The tally of participants is not particularly relevant.) I am only making reference to WP:RMCI because you asked about it specifically; this was a normal result under the broader WP:CON policy and I made the determination–always a judgment call–that the discussion was unlikely to reach consensus, because the arguments based on the naming criteria are not going to be resolved by further discussion. Leaving such a discussion open longer is counterproductive if it draws editorial resources away from improving the encyclopedia in other areas. If necessary, it might be possible to make a new move request for all pages that might be affected by this sort of change, since this would resolve the objection of User:Fyunck(click). I assume that there are a large number beyond what User:Fyunck(click) cited. Please proceed with that if you'd like, or pursue a naming convention regarding lists. Note that the current titles are probably in line with the existing naming convention at WP:LISTNAME.

As far as "similarly" is concerned, for better or for worse it currently appears that the original close was a suitable analysis of the discussion at Talk:Genesis flood narrative. In closing a large number of move discussions there will always be editors who have objections to the results. The existence of an objection to one close is not necessarily an indication that the issues involved are commensurable or indicative of a systematic error in the process followed by the closer. Dekimasuよ! 18:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, but you seem to have ignored the first of those principles, Precision: "Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article" The scope of the article is well beyond a list of champions. Surely the most important job of an article title is to identify the subject of the article. Kevin McE (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Note that I linked WP:LISTNAME, which reads in part, "The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject." The precision criterion is generally focused upon distinguishing the contents of the article from the contents of other extant articles, and that wasn't at issue here. In either event precision wasn't brought up in the request; likewise editors opposed to the move might hypothetically have brought up naturalness or recognizability, but didn't. The role of the closer is to evaluate the existing discussion, not override it, and there was no consensus in this case. Dekimasuよ! 01:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Take part in a survey

Hi Dekimasu

We're working to measure the value of Wikipedia in economic terms. We want to ask you some questions about how you value being able to edit Wikipedia.

Our survey should take about 10-15 minutes of your time. We hope that you will enjoy it and find the questions interesting. All answers will be kept strictly confidential and will be anonymized before the aggregate results are published. Regretfully, we can only accept responses from people who live in the US due to restrictions in our grant-based funding.

As a reward for your participation, we will randomly pick 1 out of every 5 participants and give them $25 worth of goods of their choice from the Wikipedia store (e.g. Wikipedia themed t-shirts). Note that we can only reward you if you are based in the US.

Click here to access the survey: https://mit.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eXJcEhLKioNHuJv

Thanks

Avi

Researcher, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy --Avi gan (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Move review for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One

1.129.104.218 has asked for a Move review of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Hhkohh (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again for the notification. Dekimasuよ! 06:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Rationale request

Hi Dekimasu, can we have your more detailed reasoning (policy considerations, etc.) behind the closure on Talk:2018 Leicester helicopter crash#Requested move 6 December 2018 please. Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

This did not really come into my close, but it may be worth noting that the current title is a descriptive title based upon naming conventions, and when an article is named descriptively the prevalence of the title (i.e. WP:COMMONNAME) is not the primary concern. Although you provided an argument that usage has changed since the November discussion, editors who participated in the current request do not seem to have found that evidence sufficiently convincing. As far as whether the year is to be included in the title, WP:NCE notes that inclusion of the year "is a judgment call" to be decided upon through discussion. I apologize if this sounds curt, but Wikipedia:Consensus is policy, and the consensus of editors who participated in the discussion was fairly clear in this case–that the current title with the year included remains preferable at this time. Dekimasuよ! 06:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I must be misunderstanding Wikipedia:Consensus then because from its "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." I assumed that statements of support or oppose based on personal opinion rather than supported by Wiki policy would be disregarded. And WP:CONLEVEL (part of the consensus policy) is explicit that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." It also says "Wikipedia has many naming conventions relating to specific subject domains... This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names.... So I would have thought from that, that WP:COMMONNAME policy should trump a Wikiproject naming convention, rather than vice-versa. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:NCE is a standard Wikipedia-wide naming convention that complements WP:AT, not a WikiProject naming convention. As above, WP:NDESC is policy on the same level as WP:COMMONNAME–it's even on the same policy page. When consensus favors a descriptive title, WP:NCE is the convention that determines how the title will be formed. The convention is not in conflict with policy. Note that WP:NCE makes specific provision for cases in which there is no clear common name, which is what editors argued is true here. They disagreed with your assertion that the common name is clear, and no actual evidence of the existence of a common name was presented over the course of the discussion.

Further, all move discussions are "localized" interpretations of community policies and guidelines. Local consensus doesn't override community consensus, but a requested move listing is designed to represent sufficient project-wide advertisement that it receives attention from a broad cross-section of editors in order to avoid concerns that the results of the request are simply products of local consensus. To state that community consensus has already been determined by policy in relation to any individual move request is basically to argue that we don't need move discussions. The applicability of a range of specific guidance is what is under discussion in a move request. Dekimasuよ! 16:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the further explanation, but I didn't see anyone mention WP:NCE in the discussion, though one person argued that as it complies with Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force it shouldn't be changed. Interestingly though, WP:NCE states for aviation incidents that "Article titles should not contain the year of the incident unless needed for disambiguation." -- DeFacto (talk). 17:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good point that was likewise not brought up over the course of the discussion. It would be worth mentioning in a future move request, although the reasoning is probably that most articles on aviation incidents already include other quite specific identifying information (the convention also recommends including the air carrier and flight number), which is not applicable here. The convention also recommends not using the word "crash," in contrast to the WikiProject's attempt at standardization. All in all I think that subsection of WP:NCE is not taking helicopter incidents into account, but that's not something to settle via conversation on my talk page.

To summarize, you are correct that consensus is ascertained by the quality of arguments. However, you would be hard pressed to find any closer who would interpret the discussion at hand as a consensus to move the page to the title you suggested at this time. The editors who participated in the move discussion did so in good faith. They (a) were not convinced that the quality of your argument was unassailable, and/or (b) did not believe a suitable amount of time had passed, either for the purposes of establishing the suitability of the proposed title or simply since the conclusion of the previous discussion. In practice, while we deprecate (!)voting, to some extent participants' analysis of the discussion often serves as a proxy for analysis of the quality of arguments. I am sorry that you are disappointed by the outcome of the request. I would suggest returning to the matter after several months have passed, if necessary. In the future, WP:NDESC/WP:COMMONNAME point aside, it would be best to support a claim about the common name with evidence of the relative prevalence of the suggested title. That tends to convince both participants and closers. Dekimasuよ! 18:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your further comments and insight. I'll leave it at that. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 18#Christian

I have initiated a discussion specifically about the redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 18#Christian. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification–I will think about this. Dekimasuよ! 16:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Dekimasu, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Hhkohh (talk) 13:15, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Hhkohh! Happy holidays. Dekimasuよ! 01:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Please see query

• Please see Wikipedia:Requests for history merge#Queried requests. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you Anthony, I have replied there. Best, Dekimasuよ! 20:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Creation of the article "2019 in Japan" in English Wikipedia

Hello, Dekimasu. Happy New Year to you! 2019 is coming soon. Can you creat the article "2019 in Japan" in English Wikipedia? Thanks a lot!
123.150.182.177
13:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year. The new article has already been created, but I added a few things to it to bring it closer to the structure of the 2018 article. Best, Dekimasuよ! 17:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Radeon

Just in case I've updated the main article for AMD's proprietary graphics device driver "Radeon Software Crimson Edition" (Formerly Catalyst) after the requested move. Maybe the weird overlong section title should be also fixed, e.g., drop the Crimson Edition detail, but keep proprietary formerly Catalyst as is. –84.46.53.87 (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems like it would be fine to be bold and see if your edits stick in this case. Dekimasuよ! 03:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

 – by Sakkura in this diff

–84.46.53.83 (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Closure of RM

You recently closed a RM at Talk:Hewlett-Packard. I'm wondering if I should merge HP Inc. into Hewlett-Packard then get an admin to do the move or if I should start a merge request. I thought the request I opened was suppose to be a merge and move request at the same time. I started the RM rather then a merge request after a discussion at Talk:HP Inc.. So, what should I do next? – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 21:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello BrandonXLF, I would advise you to go ahead and follow the procedure at WP:MERGEPROP, although that process isn't as formalized as the one at WP:RM. The main issue with holding a merge and move request together is the one I noted in the close: the result of a move request is supposed to be a closer's assessment of consensus, possibly followed by a simple technical move, whereas merges are involved editing processes. Closing a move discussion is supposed to be done by an uninvolved editor, whereas merges are usually best performed by editors with a strong knowledge of the concerned topics. The best next step would be to verify through continued discussion that there is a consensus in favor of a merge. If there is a consensus to merge there is normally no need to perform a subsequent move request, since the merge can be performed in the direction desired from the start. However, if consensus is clear and you decide to merge away from the title where the article will end up, you can later make a request at WP:RMTR to have the pages moved via technical means that will retain the respective edit histories.

I know that you have been around for quite a while, so please forgive me if this response mainly tells you things you already know. Best, Dekimasuよ! 03:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Dear Dekimasu, thank you for listing the "Universität Klagenfurt" discussion! Cambridge51 (talk) 10:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Did you mention me at WP:RM?

Good day! Did you mention me at Wikipedia:Requested moves? Please {{ping}} me when you reply. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Jax 0677, you may have received a ping when I reverted an issue with the Wikipedia:Requested moves page last night. There was a small problem unrelated to your request. Please do not worry about the notification. Best, Dekimasuよ! 17:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Moscow Metro RM

Hey. Regarding Talk:Moscow Metro#Requested move 31 December 2018, I just wanted to let you know that you moved the Moscow Metro page to Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya line by accident. It was supposed to be the Arbatsko–Pokrovskaya line page that was moved. I've moved the pages to the correct title. Just a friendly reminder to please be careful next time. Thank you. epicgenius (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Epicgenius, thank you for this. It appears that the move template had been applied incorrectly on the talk page, so when I clicked on the "direct move" link the template did not recognize the proper title change. I did realize that a different page was hosting the move request and as such linked Talk:Moscow Metro when moving the other pages manually (e.g. here), but trusted the system too much when I moved the topline article. I should have noticed the error, however, particularly since I noted that the talk page did not travel across successfully. Dekimasuよ! 02:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

No worries. I also realized that the RM request wasn't being hosted on the primary page being moved, so I think that's part of the problem . Thanks for your response. epicgenius (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Move review for Zayn Malik

You recently closed the move discussion of Talk:Zayn Malik. As a matter of fact move discussions are generally closed after at least 7 days. And I do not know how to send a Move Review, so I discarded the close.68.195.141.2 (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Zayn Malik. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Neel.arunabh (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Move reviews go at Wikipedia:Move review, not on the talk page of the article. In this case, consensus was clear without waiting for seven days. It is not necessary to wait for the full period when it is clear that a proposal will not result in consensus to move the page. Dekimasuよ! 09:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

"Sarah Vaughn with Clifford Brown"

You are certainly right that renaming the page "Sarah Vaughn" would conflict with the existing page. Can we rename the page "Sarah Vaughn (album)" to distinguish it from the main entry on the person "Sarah Vaughn"? Dr.skim (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, if you would like to create a new move request with the proposed title Sarah Vaughan (album), please feel free to do so. Dekimasuよ! 05:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

EPIC Church International name change

Hello Dekimasu, EPIC Church International is an official name change credibility verified by multiple sources locally and on the internet. Thank you. Yours truly, follow of Jesus Christ always. John1427 (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

From the love of Jesus, I admit it

John1427 (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello John1427, and thank you for the kitten. I have retained the source that you added to the Faith Fellowship Ministries World Outreach Center article showing the name change. However, it is preferable to have secondary sources rather than relying on primary sources when possible, and page history needs to be retained when moving pages. If you would like to proposed that the title be changed to EPIC Church International, please use the established process at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move. Also, the other changes to the article were not cited. It is good that you can state that there are sources that help show why these changes should be made, but they must be shown and added to the article directly in order to support the changes. In general, it may be best to discuss the changes you hope to implement rather than trying to make the changes yourself, since it appears you may not be familiar with many Wikipedia processes; thus the reversion of your other move, at John Wagner, which is considered a primary topic. Dekimasuよ! 19:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear Dekimasu, Thank you. I will use the process, however the move is not yet recognized by newspapers. I will remember that in the future. Yours truly,John1427 (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dekimasu. You have new messages at Britishfinance's talk page.
Message added 17:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Dekimasuよ! 21:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Move request by IP

Please move my request [88] onto the main Wikipedia page please, thank you. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 13:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, there is no such move request and no new proposed article title seen there. Dekimasuよ! 17:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Name change closed as refused

Back in May 2018 I requested a simple name change, which you closed as refused. I recently found it had been renamed exactly as requested by a registered editor with no drama.--86.29.222.228 (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I closed it in accordance with the substance of the discussion that showed no consensus to change the current setup, not because I particularly wanted to reject your request. Because there was already a past discussion on the topic, it should not have been moved without discussion by the other editor as you noted. It seems that change has since been reverted. If you would like the page to be moved to the title you originally suggested, please consider creating a new move request and supplying the evidence that was requested in the previous discussion. Dekimasuよ! 21:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

You might like to look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Many null edits (particularly the content relating to IP Talk/change requests). I think it is disrespectful of Wikipedia and its ongoing processes/members to refuse the official name as obvious for the article title - based on procedural expectations contained in WP:COMMONNAME, not WP:common sense - WP has an obligation to show it correctly on a world-platform, considering GFDL. The initial upload (permalink) was at fault. I have no reason to consider if the team name had changed since 2007, and if it had, WP has an obligation to show it correctly.

Secondary sources were not supplied as being largely irrelevant - they do not determine the team name in any way, but can be keyed-in sloppily, or be copied from WP without acknowledgement due to the internet being unregulated, as you will know, so better to 'get it right'. I had actually looked at third-party sources, generally (and so found the comment "Do your homework first" to be condescending, as a registered username would not have had to supply substantiation). Accordingly I will not being re-submitting. Some website presences do show the name 'wrongly', but the majority are in accordance with the historic team name. A basic google search shows WP to be out of line in the initial results - note there are other (sometimes) unconnected businesses using Tech3 or Tech 3.--86.29.222.228 (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The requirement to create a new move discussion in this sort of case would be the same for any editor, IP or otherwise. The idea, for better or for worse, is that the primary source does not determine which name is "right," and that Wikipedia does not take a position on what name is "right" or assume that secondary sources that differ from primary sources are "wrong." Wikipedia's standard as a tertiary source is to follow secondary sources for naming in all cases, not to be a leading indicator. It is fine to cite WP:IAR, which is policy, but since the lack of consensus to move the article was based on WP:AT policy and its explanatory supplement WP:OFFICIAL, if you really think WP:OFFICIAL itself is a violation of common sense, you can always consider initiating a discussion to change the policy.

I was not the editor who wrote "do your homework first," and I'm not sure what the reference to GFDL is intended to show here. However, again, as the closer of the discussion it was not my task to do additional research on the name that editors, including you, did not choose to present during the discussion. See WP:BURDEN or the essay WP:DEMAND. Best, Dekimasuよ! 16:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Aceyoutoo

Today you blocked this user, but I feel like that may be a very heavy-handed response. While they are self-admittedly associated with that company and did make some questionable edits in the past, those seem to have been over 5 years ago. Their main recent activity was contacting Wikipedia via the Help Desk and Teahouse (an acceptable way to engage with Wikipedia rather than directly editing), and at the time, they were given a standard COI message on their talk page. I feel like we can be a bit more diplomatic and offer them an opportunity to WP:DISCLOSE and continue to use methods like community boards and the article talk pages to contact us. -- Netoholic @ 16:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear Netoholic, I respect your position and I will take it into account if there is an unblock request. I gave this some thought before going through with the block, but took into account that these are all the edits made by the account since it was registered in 2012: the addition of unsourced information to Ty Warner; repeated unexplained removal of sourced and cited negative information at Ty Warner over a period of years; addition of promotional information to the article currently at Ty; repeated references to "our company," "our name," "our heading," being "the actual company," and "we" which is indicative of a WP:ROLE account, although it is possible that only one person is in charge of the account; and finally, continuing to edit without making a disclosure of employment after two different requests to do so (there was a more specific request after the standard COI message). I recognize that the trips to the teahouse and the talk page are less problematic than the earlier edits, but the account has never been used for any purpose other than the promotion of the company and its owner, which indicates to me that the account is WP:NOTHERE. Dekimasuよ! 21:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

transclusion fix

Thanks for catching and fixing this. But it's kind of a drag because it's nice to have references from a given section all co-located at the end of that section, instead of having one global References. Any way to fix that? --В²C ☎ 01:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi В²C, I think the only way to do so would be through asking Wbm1058 for some additional work, since normally any changes from our end will be overwritten by the bot. Best, Dekimasuよ! 03:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

{{Reflist-talk}} is the standard template used on talk pages (as its name suggests). You can have multiple {{Reflist-talk}} templates on the same talk page, as each talk section in which cited references are used and discussed should have a refs. box at the end of that section. Global references should not be used on talk pages. wbm1058 (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Reichs-Rundfunk-Gesellschaft

Hi, regarding the recent close, there were three supports (including one as the nominator) and one oppose. This sounds like sufficient consensus to me. Would you be willing to reconsider the close? --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello K.e.coffman, I do not think the discussion reached a consensus to move the page to any particular title, since it does not appear that the evidence that a common name has been established in English here is very strong. However, I have reopened the request for someone else to close. Best, Dekimasuよ! 08:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 08:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I would point out that both the supporters seemed to be relying on WP:UE, which doesn't say what they appear to think it says. It is too often misinterpreted to say that all titles should be translated to English, even if the original-language title is more commonly used in English-language sources or a translated title is not especially commonly used. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Move review for 2019 Indigenous Peoples March Incident

An editor has asked for a Move review of 2019 Indigenous Peoples March Incident. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Jax 0677 (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad this could be cleared up quickly. Best, Dekimasuよ! 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

Why did you close the requested move at Talk:TVA this soon? There were only four comments, and one of them used a factually incorrect statement in his/her position, and we were still waiting on them to reply. Would you mind relisting it so we can possibly get a clearer consensus on whether or not to move the page? Bneu2013 (talk) 06:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Bneu2013, the move request was listed for a standard length of time. In this case, it did not appear likely that relisting the request would lead to any consensus in favor of a page move. Because there are no hard-and-fast criteria for determining whether one title is the primary topic, if the page view data is not accepted as sufficient by participants in the discussion, that is usually sufficient ipso facto evidence that there is no primary topic at this time. In this case, it was also pointed out that the page view data does not make it clear whether the number of readers arriving at Tennessee Valley Authority is illustrative of relative use of the acronym. Dekimasuよ! 01:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Your closure

Regarding your closure; The are 3 opposes the last two being the copy of Icewhiz's comment. I checked all the sources Icewhiz grounded his argument on. NY times does not say it was an Iranian plot rather it says "The European Union penalized Iran on Tuesday over allegations that the country’s intelligence service orchestrated a series of assassination plots in Europe," and there's no sentence showing NYTimes is supporting the title. The Telegraph article begins with "The Dutch government has accused Iran of..." and again claims and allegations are reported and there's no text saying the assassination plot was made by Iran. Same is true for for the the Reuters saying "Iran has denied any involvement in the alleged plots..." and "as the Netherlands accused Iran of two killings on its soil ...". I think sources were misinterpreted to reach the conclusion that the current title fits and it's not an allegation, while all the sources mentioned by users are cautious and use terms like "alleged", "claimed", "accused" and etc. So, the only argument opposing the proposal was based on a misunderstanding/misinterpretation of the sources. That said, do you really think those opposes have the same weight as the supports? --Mhhossein ^talk 14:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Mhhossein, a few points here. First, there was a comment on January 25 that effectively opposed the proposed move despite not including the word "oppose" ("As for the 'alleged' this doesn't look very alleged") and it appears you may not have factored this into your analysis. Second, closes are based upon the discussion at hand. The oppose by Icewhiz was made a full week before I closed the discussion, and you did not raise any of these objections to the comment over that week. I do agree that the summary of those articles was insufficient, and amounts to synthesis of content where it instead claimed that the term "alleged" was no longer used. I will relist the proposal in order for you to make any points you'd like to make on the page there, but in the future please do so during the discussion rather than after it. I believe the close was an accurate reflection of the discussion as it stood. Dekimasuよ! 01:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for relisting. Yes, I had to show my objection before the closure. Note that the January 25 comment used 2011 Iran assassination plot as an argument, while it's actually 2011 alleged Iran assassination plot. Thanks anyway. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

FYI on SPI

I've actioned Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AmYisroelChai with CheckUser. NativeForeigner ^Talk 06:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again for this. Dekimasuよ! 23:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Marina and the Diamonds

StraussInTheHouse relisted this discussion about ten minutes before you closed it as no concensus, specifically to avoid that outcome. Would you mind reopening? PC78 (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• I have to say I was originally going to close it as no consensus too but I opted for a relist because a conclusive moved or not moved will make it much easier to point and say "look, there's the consensus, let's speedy close this" whereas no consensus means we'll just have an endless stream of them every month. SITH (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• I see. It seems like StraussInTheHouse relisted the discussion during the time when I was reading through it to make the close, and I didn't notice it because I was only editing the header and footer. I respect StraussInTheHouse's perspective and optimism, but I feel that "no consensus" was the right close in this case. StraussInTheHouse noted that there was additional discussion over the past few days, but it was precisely the content of that discussion, with dueling points continuing to be made by both sides, that convinced me leaving the discussion open longer would not result in consensus in favor of a move. And again, StraussInTheHouse's relist and comments here make it clear we agree that there is no consensus in the discussion to this point.

There have already been over five full weeks of discussion on this topic since November, and it is important that we not require participants to come back and restate their previous input over and over. Finally, relisting does not necessarily mean that the discussion will remain open for an extended period after the relist note. Let's try this: I would not reopen the discussion in this case, but StraussInTheHouse can undo my close and reopen the discussion if he thinks it's warranted. Dekimasuよ! 23:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Dekimasu, I think your close was justified, as you say, I think your call was a more from a realist perspective and mine was from an optimist perspective, but as I said in my relisting note, it's a big maybe because a lot more input would be needed to conclusively sway consensus. I'd advise the nominator to wait until Love Fear has been released because it will enable a much stronger case to be made if reliable sources refer to her using the new name. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks and a suggestion

Thanks for your edits on Talk:List of Sword Art Online episodes. I didn't know that a move discussion is kept for 7 days. I still have a lot to learn. Pardon me can I make a suggestion? You added an userbox stating that you have made more than 50000 edits. But your contributions number is 41827 at the moment. Please modify it. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Masum Reza^talk 05:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Masumrezarock100, thank you for your note. The number of contributions an editor has is no big deal, but in case you were wondering, different tools count edits in different ways. If you click on the link in the userbox it takes you to this edit counter, which says I have 55,723 edits on the left side. Off on the right it says I only have 44,429 edits. The difference is particularly large for me because one of the main things I do is move pages. You can see an explanation for why this might be at Wikipedia:Edit count#What is an edit count? and, in a slightly different vein, I also perform a variety of administrative actions that aren't counted in edits, some of which are counted at User:Dekimasu/Adminstats. In general it's best not to focus on edit counts too much, but I think a box of that sort has been on my user page for a decade now, so I've gotten used to having it there. Best, Dekimasuよ! 05:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Masumrezarock100, please also read Help:How to move a page and Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves. Pages need to be moved using the move function, not manually by cut-and-paste. I have repaired the change in the case of List of Sword Art Online episodes, but if you have done this sort of cutting and pasting for other pages, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge to be repaired. Best, Dekimasuよ! 06:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I have never done cut paste move except for this page. I tried to move the page using page move function but that page already has redirect. So I had to do it.
Sincerely,
Masum Reza^talk 10:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Masumrezarock100, in these cases, please wait for an administrator or a page mover to move the page. Dekimasuよ! 17:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Anita Hassandani move

Why are you objecting to Anita Hassandani move. That is her name that she uses now. If you type up her name anywhere it will say she uses Anita not Natasha anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.178.72 (talk) 11:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, you seem to have misunderstood what I wrote. I said "I don't object to the move." Dekimasuよ! 18:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Page mover

Hi Dekimasu, My page mover rights has been expired. Could you please reassign page mover rights with no expiry. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 02:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello ZI Jony, I have readded the page mover permission. Please use it wisely and carefully! Dekimasuよ! 02:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Page move

Is it possible to re-open this discussion. It's only been a week and it is a low traffic page.--Let There Be Sunshine 17:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Let There Be Sunshine, I don't think it would be very useful to reopen the discussion in this case. The discussion was closer to being "consensus not to move" than "consensus to move", and more time would be unlikely to result in a consensus in favor of moving the page to the proposed title. The participation was probably based not upon page traffic but rather upon the listing at WP:RM, where the request had as much visibility as any other request. Both of those who opposed the move pointed to concerns about WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. You mentioned WP:COMMONNAME in the proposal, but did not provide evidence showing that the proposed title was the common name. However, it's of course possible to turn the target from a redlink into a redirect to the current page, and since I didn't close the request as "consensus not to move" it might be possible to raise the issue in a new request in the future with more evidence. Dekimasuよ! 17:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Cybele Palace (Madrid) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cybele Palace (Madrid). Since you had some involvement with the Cybele Palace (Madrid) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. B dash (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

IDFC FIRST Bank move discussion should be reopened and relisted

Hi Dekimasu,

I'm wondering if you would consider reopening/relisting the move discussion at IDFC First Bank you closed as "not moved"? The official spelling "IDFC FIRST Bank" is very important since this is how it would appear in Google's Knowledge panel. I am providing you with few reference links so that you can consider reopening/relisting the move request.

IDFC FIRST Bank Official Website See how IDFC FIRST Bank is written in logo used on this news publishing site Official Twitter Account of IDFC FIRST Bank Official YouTube Channel of IDFC FIRST Bank Official Instagram Account of IDFC FIRST Bank Official LinkedIn Account of IDFC FIRST Bank See how IDFC FIRST Bank is written in logo used on this news publishing site

Hope this helps!

Thanks & Regards, namrata.kadam 09:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello K23.namrata, I was not the closer of this discussion despite arguing that the page should not be moved, so it is not my position to reopen or relist it. Separately I understand your point, but as stated in WP:OFFICIAL and WP:MOS-TM, Wikipedia does not necessarily use official names or official stylizations. Any proposal to change the title needs to be grounded in Wikipedia policies and naming guidelines such as WP:COMMONNAME; we prefer secondary sources as well (the final link actually writes "IDFC First Bank" in the text of the article). Titles are not chosen based upon how Google or other outside organizations might employ them. You might consider creating a redirect from the title you prefer to the current title. Dekimasuよ! 14:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dekimasu,

As you suggested, I had redirected the IDFC First Bank to IDFC FIRST Bank and it was reviewed by Narutolovehinata5, but today I found that it is again redirected to old one by JJMC89 with a comment "moved page IDFC FIRST Bank to IDFC First Bank over redirect: revert undiscussed move" though we have discussed this move. Could you please let me know what can be done in this scenario? Should i undo the changes made by JJMC89?

Best Regards, namrata.kadam

Vela Trading Technologies now "moved"

Hello Dekimasu, just a quick courtesy note fyi about this page's recent copypaste move (I noticed you objected to this move at Talk:Vela Trading Technologies in 2018). From a technical point of view, it would be far easier to accept the change now instead of reverting the whole mess once again. But of course you could revert the move, if you strongly disagree with the recent changes - I have only cleaned up some tagging and linking afterwards, and have no horse in this race either way :). GermanJoe (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

An enquiry about my page mover permission.

Hello there Dekimasu, I hope your new year has been well. I'm writing to you about my page mover permission. As according to WP:INDEFRIGHTS: "In general, rights of editors blocked indefinitely should be left as is. Rights specifically related to the reason for blocking may be removed at the discretion of the blocking or unblocking administrators.". However, you removed my page-mover right in December. I'm guessing (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) the reason you removed it was the 7th reason: "The editor has been inactive for 12 months.", as I was blocked indefinitely. However, now I have completed the Standard Offer, that is no longer the case. I am now wondering would it be possible for me to regain my permission. Apologises if I seem demanding, this is not my intention. Thank you. The Duke 20:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello The Duke of Nonsense, there has been some discussion about whether WP:INDEFRIGHTS applies to page mover permissions in the same way it applies to, say, pending changes reviewer or extended confirmed status; I tend to think that the appearance of impropriety is particularly important under WP:PMRR. But in your case I do not believe that there is any issue with restoring the permission. Dekimasuよ! 22:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The page mover right itself, one of the more powerful added permissions, did not exist at the time of the RfC referenced in WP:INDEFRIGHTS. I tend to think that were the same RfC to be performed today, it would be more likely to emphasize the "case-by-case" aspect of things and less likely to emphasize what comes after "in general". I respect the fact that the community has not decided the point definitively, but I sometimes try to clean up the page mover list based upon the most recent information we have; socks are a particular problem in move discussions. In most cases asking for restoration through another case-by-case review (e.g. showing that socks were not an issue in the use of the page mover right) should work and seems like a useful step. Dekimasuよ! 22:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

From Japanese to English

Request translation: ja:烏丸家 (Karasumaru family), ja:山本顧彌太 (Koyata Yamamoto), ja:亀井重清 (Shigekiyo Kamei), ja:片岡常春 (Tsuneharu Kataoka), ja:伊勢義盛 (Yoshimori Ise), ja:駿河次郎 (Jirō Suruga), ja:鷲尾義久 (Washio Yoshihisa), ja:富樫泰家 (Yasuie Togashi), ja:大社駅 (Taisha Station), ja:村田勝志 (Katsushi Murata), ja:藤井恒久 (Tsunehisa Fujii), ja:宮根誠司 (Seiji Miyane), ja:諸國沙代子 (Sayoko Shokoku), ja:世界一受けたい授業 (THE MOST USEFUL SCHOOL IN THE WORLD), ja:にっぽん丸 (Nippon Maru (1990)), ja:馬場元子 (Motoko Baba), ja:生ハムと焼うどん (Nama Ham & Yaki Udon), ja:さわかぜ (護衛艦) (JDS Sawakaze), ja:いず (巡視船・2代) (Izu (PL 31)), ja:かめりあ丸 (Camellia Maru), ja:京都府警察 (Kyoto Prefectural Police), ja:柳川次郎 (Jirō Yanagawa), ja:花形敬 (Kei Hanagata), ja:小林楠扶 (Kusuo Kobayashi), ja:毎朝新聞 (Maiasa Shinbun), ja:田中六助 (Rokusuke Tanaka), ja:角田 久美子 (Kumiko Tsunoda), ja:安村直樹 (Naoki Yasumura), ja:三枝夕夏 (Yūka Saegusa), ja:少年ケニヤ (Shōnen Kenya), ja:チャンピオン太 (Champion Futoshi), ja:ジャイアント台風 (Giant Typhoon), ja:引田有美 (Yumi Hikita), ja:松岡巌鉄 (Gantetsu Matsuoka), ja:鈴木理子 (ホリプロ) (Riko Suzuki), ja:谷内里早 (Risa Taniuchi), ja:尾崎仁彦 (Kimihiko Ozaki), ja:アーサ米夏 (Aasa Maika), ja:ミスター高橋 (Mister Takahashi), ja:吉村道明 (Michiaki Yoshimura), ja:沖識名 (Shikina Oki), ja:芳の里淳三 (Junzō Yoshinosato), ja:SAKI (SAKI), ja:MIZUKI (MIZUKI), ja:万喜なつみ (Natsumi Maki), ja:篠原光 (Hikaru Shinohara), ja:沖野ヨーコ (漫画家) (Yōko Okino), ja:徳住有香 (Yuka Tokuzumi), ja:とみながまり (Mari Tominaga), ja:堀内博之 (Hiroyuki Horiuchi), ja:永野椎菜 (Shiina Nagano), ja:諏訪道彦 (Michihiko Suwa), ja:阿部ゆたか (Yutaka Abe), ja:渡部陽一 (Yōichi Watanabe), ja:吉岡昌仁 (Masahito Yoshioka), ja:グレッグ・アーウィン (Greg Irwin). Thank you very much, if you can help me, because I'm too busy. --95.244.236.110 09:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, many of us are busy. I appreciate that you would like help with these, but I would prefer not to receive further requests. Thank you, Dekimasuよ! 12:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

RM closure issue

Hello! Since you closed this Move Request of Chowkidar Chor Hai, the two discussion subsections below it; of Merger and Non-neutrality, also appear to look like they are closed. Can you please fix it? I tried; but wasn't able to. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I have fixed this. My autocorrect has been taking the “t” out of “subst:” lately. Dekimasuよ! 12:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

City of Manchester Stadium

Many thanks for your closure on this proposed move. TomHennell (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Dekimasuよ! 03:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Rationale: Close of Move Request for Trump administration family separation policy

Hello Dekimasu, I was wondering if you could explain to me the closing of this move request. There was barely any rationale given for keeping the name as it is. One user mentioned that I hadn't proven the real name was the real name even though I posted the official release of the policy. and One other user posted that this was an article specifically about the Trump administration's separation of families, which is untrue because the title mentions a policy name, and there are several other Presidential administrations mentioned in teh article itself. However, on the support side you had my explanations, and two other supporters who agreed and gave reasons for their belief that titling this by a made up policy name is wrong. I know that if this was a straight vote, the name change would lose, but as I understand it, it is not supposed to be a vote. I think the points made in favor of moving it far outweigh the minor points made in favor of keeping this fictitious policy name. Thank you. Doniboy71 (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

A few points. There was no actual evidence provided as to which title is more common, but the underlying rule is to use the common name even when an official term exists. If the same title fulfills both criteria, that is great evidence that a page should be moved. However, that was not shown in this case. The rationale given by any particular government administration (or even the official title, or a variety of government administrations) has little bearing on what title we use here if that is not the common name in reliable sources. The most common title used in reliable sources in this case still seems unlikely to be a specific match to the title used on the official policy release, but you are free to present evidence to the contrary at some point in the future. It is also worth pointing out that while the opinions of all editors are important, one of the accounts you refer to as a supporter has never posted anywhere in Wikipedia outside of this topic, making it possible that it is a single-purpose account. Dekimasuよ! 03:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

OfficeBoy ANI

Since you were the blocking admin, this is a heads up that I've created an ANI discussion about OfficeBoy and his sourcing problems, if you want to weigh in. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I was able to check in on this, even though I wasn't able to weigh in. Best, Dekimasuよ! 03:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me how old we're getting! Dekimasuよ! 03:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはDekimasuたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 02:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, happy holidays. Dekimasuよ! 10:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Page move

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks for creating the discussion and presenting this evidence. Dekimasuよ! 15:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Dekimasu!

Happy New Year!

Dekimasu,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-Nahal^(T) 23:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Happy New Year. Dekimasuよ! 06:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Malformed RM

Per this close, it's interesting that moving one redirect over another to the same article is perfectly OK to do manually, but is considered malformed by the bot. The move would have accomplished exactly what was intended; the redirects are not "identical" as you said, because one of them appears in a category and the other one doesn't. Don't you think it makes sense to use RM for this, to rename the item in the category? It seemed to me like the most sensible way to get some eyes on the question. Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Dicklyon. There is basically never a need to move a redirect manually either, though; I wouldn't say that it is perfect OK to do manually, but rather that it is basically a null result since it will create a double redirect that's fixed by a bot soon after. Categories can be modified manually without performing moves that would confound page histories. I understand your point about centralized discussion, particularly since there are regulars around RM who have set understandings of the underlying issues, but categories on redirects are still more the realm of WP:RFD than WP:RM. Dekimasuよ! 06:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

In the past, when I wanted to fix the styling of a redirect that shows up in a category, I usually used move rather than the alternative of cutting the category tag from one and pasting it into the other, as I thought that would be regarded as a "cut-and-paste move". I'll just drop that idea. Dicklyon (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Relisting at Talk:Mirroring (psychology)

You have relisted the move request at Talk:Mirroring (psychology). Two support and two oppose. One oppose is based on a refuted claim ("No primary topic"), the other is invalid per WP:NOTNEEDED. How does your close mesh with WP:NHC? Paradoctor (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Relisting is not a close. It presents a further opportunity for both current and new participants to continue ongoing discussion. The discussion can still be evaluated by any uninvolved closer at any time. Best, Dekimasuよ! 12:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Put a different way, relisting could be taken as an invitation to build stronger evidence of consensus in favor of a certain close. Dekimasuよ! 13:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right about a relisting not being a close, of course. I still don't see the problem with not closing as accepted, though. After discounting invalid opposes, only support !votes remain. Paradoctor (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Studios Fox (and Living Capital)

For what it's worth, I generally agree with what you said when you pinged me at Talk:20th Century Studios/Archives/2020#Requested move 17 January 2020, I just got to the discussion too late to comment in it before it was closed. We should usually wait for usage in sources to change. That said, such moves are usually actually harmless as long as redirects work and the lead is clear, unless there's something potentially very reader-confusing about the case (e.g. the Kraft others instances in which the old company name remains the dominant brand/service name and all that's happened is a background change of the name of the legal entity, or a merger into a different one). I doubt that 20th Century Studios versus 20th Century Fox has much in the way os major user-confusion potential. If Apple Inc. changes its name tomorrow to Global iDevices Inc., then we'd have a different kind of case, because they'd continue to be referred to as Apple by almost everyone for several years, except in financial news, etc. It's been my experience that it's often actually easier to move barely-notable company names shortly after such a corporate name change, because COMMONNAME barely applies due to the lack of much coverage at all. I.e., there's not much RECOGNIZABILITY to even consider.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks SMcCandlish. I don't like the idea of following process for its own sake, but it seems clear that editors should be notified they aren't exempt from naming conventions and policies when someone (who wasn't me, as I didn't even oppose the move!) has already objected. I understand the recognizability argument as well, but it seems like anachronisms should be avoided too. For example, what's going on at List of 20th Century Fox films (1935–1999) is probably not worth keeping up with, but the article was moved without discussion, reverted (by me, citing WP:RMUM), a move discussion was initiated, and then the page was moved again without warning to a title not referenced in that discussion with the edit summary "The name of the studio was already 20th Century Studios, not 20th Century Fox anymore." Now, were any of the movies from 1935–1999 made by "20th Century Studios"? No. But moving everything immediately seems to be a priority for some. The page should be put under move protection but at this point I am probably considered involved (score at least one for process, I guess?). Dekimasuよ! 06:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, toward that objection-end, see also the three ongoing related RMs: Talk:List of 20th Century Fox films (2000–present)#Requested move 19 January 2020 • Talk:20th Century Fox Television#Requested move 19 January 2020 • Talk:List of 20th Century Fox theatrical animated features#Requested move 19 January 2020.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

PS: I also didn't notice your "living text" clarification at Talk:Das Kapital, Volume I/Archives/2021#Requested move 6 December 2019 until after closure. Thanks for the pointer to the legal sense of a similar phrase, which I had not encountered (or remembered encountering), despite being a non-lawyer steeped professionally in several areas of US law as a policy analyst. It's a good usage to know, even if it's not terribly common.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Your input is requested

at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Community view before Friday.

Only 100 or so words. It should be fun and serious at the same time.

All the best,

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Added one, hope it is worthwhile. Dekimasuよ! 11:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

nCoV

Of course you're right - a vaccine is not a treatment! Boud (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, the sections are finally back together again! Dekimasuよ! 03:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

"A Line (Blue) (Los Angeles Metro)" listed at Requested moves

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the requested move of A Line (Blue) (Los Angeles Metro) and other Metro pages. Since you had some involvement with pages related to A Line (Blue) (Los Angeles Metro) and others, you might want to participate in the discussion if you wish to do so. Lexlex (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. Although I do not have an opinion on this request, I have had to reinstate the stable page titles for now under WP:RMUM. Please note that when there is previous discussion of the titles on the talk page, that is an indication that moves are not uncontroversial and should not be undertaken boldly. It is good that you initiated a move discussion, but the pages should not have been moved to the intermediate titles per WP:RMCM. Dekimasuよ! 14:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Requesting input in resolution at 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak

Greetings. Not sure if this is the correct channel or whether if this is an appropriate request, but I've navigated to your page through Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and the "Want to skip the drama? Check the Recently Active Admins list for admins who may be able to help directly" option. As I've noticed your activity on 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak and thereby be fit to understand the context of the discussion, I've like to request your input in an informal DRR/3 for a stonewalled discussion thread there, if possible. The link to that is here: 1 Best. Sleath56 (talk) 06:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Sleath56, sorry that I was not able to respond to this in a timely fashion. The virus article has been taking up most of my editing time recently, and the scale of what needs to be done at the outbreak page appears to be exponentially greater (and the political issues are certainly far more problematic there). I hope this has been taken care of to your satisfaction in the meantime, but I don't think I can cover this area at the moment. Best, Dekimasuよ! 03:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and no worries, it's understandable. I was under the impression the issue was resolved, but its reappeared under the same premise. The invitation still stands if you find time later on, as I believe the issue can only be resolved through a third party DRR/3 at this point. Regards. Sleath56 (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. At least I was around to catch this, which apparently put a lot of stress on the servers by filling the pool queue, something I haven't seen in years. I did a small amount of work on the lede but it seems clear that bloat and the number of editors involved are a major factor over there. Dekimasuよ! 06:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for copyright work on Coronavirus

Thanks for your cleanup on Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). The same editor you cleaned up after also put 4 large edits in 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak that might contain similar material. Can you skim them for copyright violations? oldest, #2, #3, and the most recent. These were all made between 05:25, 3 February 2020 and 10:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello davidwr, I had actually flagged this here since I wasn't able to take care of it myself at the time, and based upon the comments from another admin it seems to have been taken care of in some form. Thank you for keeping an eye out for this. Dekimasuよ! 03:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Free flow of information

Dear Dekimasu,

I appreciate your input. However, what you have been doing regarding the coronavirus webpages is a clear obstruction of free flow of information. I don't know your particular field of study. However, I can reassure you that there are no available review articles on the novel coronavirus at the moment. The publication added is a good source of information and blocking other people's access to this source does not make sense in any way.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by StatWikiped (talk • contribs) 07:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

StatWikiped, given that you are inputting these sources in different articles (not only pertaining to the coronavirus) that contain a small number of authors in common, it appears that you may have an undeclared conflict of interest. Per that Wikipedia behavioral guideline, WP:SELFCITE, and WP:REFSPAM, if you are associated with these articles, you should disclose your conflict or interest and avoid editing associated articles directly. Adding references to the articles can be requested in such cases on the talk page. If the sources are essential, then someone who is unassociated with them can add them. This is similar to a small amount of peer review to establish that the sources you are citing are relevant and reliable. If you are unwilling to do this because your intent is to add particular sources of information that you are connected to, then that is against the ideals of Wikipedia. Dekimasuよ! 08:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

In fact, to be clear, I would be likely to support readdition of the source to the "Further reading" section of Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) if the request were made on the talk page in this fashion and the question of affiliation answered; I note that you did not reply to this question at your talk page earlier. Dekimasuよ! 08:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the clarification, Dekimasu. I have no COI. However, since this issue was raised by you, I will not edit any related pages you mentioned and will let other Wikipedia authors contribute to the page. BTW, I don't know what talk page you are referring to. Please send me the link.StatWikiped (talk) 08:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The talk page would be the talk page of the article into which you are seeking to place the reference. Thank you for answering the question about conflict of interest. Can you see how it would seem to be an attempt at search engine optimization if you add a number of different papers with authors in common as your first additions to Wikipedia, and add cites only without supplementing article text? Dekimasuよ! 04:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Bio-star
		Thank you so much for your tireless and high quality contributions to 2019 novel coronavirus Mvolz (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Hear hear!  — Amakuru (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Dekimasuよ! 01:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

corona thingy

@Amakuru, Doc James, and BD2412: Hi. Kindly excuse the title for this discussion. As you are aware, most of the articles directly related to the 2019 coronavirus are having move/merge/split discussions every day. Is there any way to make all these articles consistent with 2019 novel coronavirus, and split the current 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak to reflect one article regarding outbreak in Wuhan, and China; and other article about the activity of coronavirus in rest of the world? —usernamekiran (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Urggh, thanks for the message username Kiran although to be honest I'm getting a bit tired of these endless move, merge and split requests myself. It would be nice to just let things stay where they are for a whole and reassess when the dust has settled a little. Your proposal is an interesting one, although I'm a bit sceptical myself - the outbreak in China, and that in the rest of the world, are inexorably linked, so unless the article gets over long and a child article on the China-specific cases us spawned, I'm not sure I'd go with that at this time.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I would support 2019 novel coronavirus Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Amakuru, even though I have not been participating a lot, I am actually irritated becuase of these requests :D But you are right, we should wait for a while. Thanks for the response guys. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I think I have been holding up pretty well, but it is very frustrating that a significant percentage of editors ignore WP:OFFICIAL and WP:NAMECHANGES and write "support per official name". Dekimasuよ! 05:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

It looks like a new set of requests was closed before I got back to this. Thanks for writing.

There is an article on the outbreak in Wuhan and China: Mainland China during the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. I am not sure about the "rest of the world", but as an example, I trimmed the Australia section of the main article significantly because it was very bloated, and it looks like all of the material I meticulously cut out has been reintroduced and more. (Do we need "a meat producer in New South Wales reporting to have already witnessed a 10% drop in their orders" in 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak? Of course not. The idea that it's a significant detail is almost offensive, really.) And I simply don't have the time that would be required to help protect the main article from bloat, so I have been concentrating almost entirely on 2019 novel coronavirus.

As to the other question, we could have moratoriums placed on certain kinds of discussions, but I think that should probably wait until we go through one more full set of requests that will show whether or not there is consensus for implementing SARS-CoV-2 (or the written-out version) or COVID-19 (or the written out version). I don't think it's possible to push a top-down solution for rearranging the pages. It's good that there are some admins around on these pages, but that has to be more for stabilization than for change (especially since those you pinged are WP:INVOLVED to some extent, with the possible exception of BD2412). Dekimasuよ! 03:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no objection to having one article on the virus itself, a second on the Wuhan outbreak, a third on the rest of China, and a fourth on the world outside of China. I note, however, that there is a not insignificant possibility that some countries outside of China may eventually see issues proportionately as severe as China is seeing now. BD2412 T 02:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Apropos the "corona thingy", could you'all decide on a standardize name for this virus? It has at least three that I know of. Use the WHO name? Cheers! Shir-El too 09:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

If I were in charge, the Wikipedia titles for this set of articles would all be standardized in ten minutes (and none of them would contain "Wuhan"). It would be easier if I weren't involved in editing the articles, as well. But I'm just one editor, so the best I can do is try to help other editors agree. Dekimasuよ! 09:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Will leave the experts to it. God Bless! Shir-El too 07:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank You Dekimasu.

The adjustments you made to the entry were perfect and exactly what was needed, and you summarized the two entries to say the same thing. And thank you for the reference cleanup and additional information added there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan (talk • contribs) 07:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Great, glad that works for you. Best, Dekimasuよ! 08:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Dekimasu, on that latest removal regarding the "pangolin identified as early as 2003 in a list of illegally traded animals" was added because, yes, as you say it is not been concluded yet and yet at the same time that research is being conspiratorially called a "red herring." It should be shown this "pandolin" connection is not a conspiracy but a natural evolution of focus and thought over the last 17 years, and not even as recent as October 24, 2019. The research in Vietnam, among many that could be cited from that time, began because the world started looking at a list of illegally traded animals as sources of zoonotic viruses. This provides a context for serious consideration and to encourage more to study this scientifically. Finding the reservoirs is the most important aspect of correct antivirus creation.

I will of course, yield to your considerations in the overall scope of the article. Thanks again for your tireless efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan (talk • contribs) 08:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Humanspan, it was not my intention to denigrate the source. Hopefully the South China Agricultural University research can be released soon so that the connection, or lack thereof, can be established and reported upon in reliable secondary sources. Best, Dekimasuよ! 09:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I see I am longer able to add to this page. Can I be cleared of not being a bot? Dekimasu, this is, I believe, what we needed. If not, then the following should be added to the end of the paragraph on Reservoir. Citations below.

Further examination of the pangolin involvement in the genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 by the South China Agricultural University confirms the receptor-binding domain of the S protein of the Pangolin-CoV is virtually identical to that of SARS-CoV-2. Other virologists confirm this ancestral relationship further in the RaTG13 SARS virus of bat origin, and reveal recombination and retention is something coronaviruses do "to the extreme." Related pangolin genomes are now represented in the ancestry of SARS-CoV-2 having been recombined with RaTG13 sometime in the distant or more immediate past. This also could show more evidence toward the pangolin as the intermediate source.

SOURCES:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.17.951335v1

http://virological.org/t/ncov-2019-spike-protein-receptor-binding-domain-shares-high-amino-acid-identity-with-a-coronavirus-recovered-from-a-pangolin-viral-metagenomic-dataset/362/21

https://nextstrain.org/groups/blab/sars-like-cov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan (talk • contribs) 07:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. It will take me a bit of time to read the paper, but I see what you mean. I am surprised that this hasn't been picked up by mainstream sources considering that the original story received so much attention, but perhaps that's because it's a preprint. As to your other question, the article is currently semi-protected to reduce vandalism. The system does not think you are a bot, but will not let you post to the page without more experience on Wikipedia. In this case, you can use {{Edit semi-protected}} on the talk page to request an edit. Best, Dekimasuよ! 07:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The paper looks to contribute to the theory of recombination involving pangolins, but this will be a second study coming out of South China Agricultural University that does not show the 99% similarity previously claimed. Dekimasuよ! 07:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not inclined to add the virological.org source to the article, because while it is a technical forum, it is still a discussion forum. Dekimasuよ! 07:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Dekimasu, thank you so very much for your swift response. These are the most reliable sources and we should be very excited Wikipedia will break this first. They are not picking this up because the main stream is not digging. Many journalists are just repeating stuff and many sensationalists are going to extremes. Thank you for protecting the page. It is of utmost importance we substantiate natural origin of this virus. I have two more (just released in last few days) that will show natural origin.

Also, the pace of information is mind boggling on this. I have spent 5-7 hours a day scouring the scientific journals and interacting with grounded virologists, microbiologists including Richard Ebright! He said on twitter to me the other day, "Pangolins are definitely involved." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan (talk • contribs) 07:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Humanspan, in general, it is not Wikipedia's goal to be breaking news, but in this case there are studies available that can be clearly connected to the contents, and in this particular case the consensus at the article's talk page has been that preprints are important because of the speed of developments on this topic, as you mentioned. In some ways it was the very fact that the 99% announcement that was put out through press releases that was the problem here. For articles of this type, we tend to prefer scientific sources over news sources, and while we prefer secondary sources to primary sources in general, the secondary sources that are processed through news organizations tend to be of lesser quality than the secondary sources represented by scientific/medical reviews. I have started out adding one sentence from the biorxiv paper, and switched it to a direct quote (the form that you had it in was already very close to the original phrasing in the paper. Dekimasuよ! 07:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The 99% issue. The math on the sequence is 98.6% and this second paper is a refinement of that 99%. Look at this quote that is the basis of Nature's page: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-02/07/c_138763355.htm

They have refined it, and this link is a refinement of that immediate "shoot from the hip" statement back on Feb 7th. This second study you mention is the more relevant information. Perhaps the first sentence can be adjusted to indicate this "was an initial reaction." Depending on how many blocks in the genetic code have been counted, 100, there is only 1 differing! Thank you again for all your efforts. 100%, 98.2%, 96.7% and 90.4% amino acid identity with 2019-nCoV in the E, M, N and S genes, respectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan (talk • contribs) 07:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Once again dear sir. You nailed it and your circumspection curbs my passion. And yes, not intending for Wikipedia to break it, but Wikipedia is a great source of information because of people like you. Thank you.

Dekimasu, we have a new study and possible addition to the Reservoir/Pangolin. "Continued examination of the receptor-binding domain of SARS-CoV-2, suggests suggest that the development of new variations in functional sites in the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike seen in SARS-CoV-2 and viruses from pangolin SARSr-CoVs are likely caused by mutations and natural selection besides recombination." Source: https://academic.oup.com/nsr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nsr/nwaa036/5775463

This is an acknowledgement of how a 60 amino acid sequence in the Sub Unit 1 98-99% match to Pangolin can end up being in the receptor binding domain of SARS-COV-2. "...likely caused by mutations and natural selection besides recombination." We will probably never find the intermediate source because of this explanation also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan (talk • contribs) 04:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Humanspan, there have been some doubts raised about this study. They are under discussion at Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Add mention of multiple strains. The doubts do not discuss the link to pangolins directly, but dispute the idea that the changes are due to selective pressure. So far, we are trying to wait for more responses in reliable sources in this case. Dekimasuよ! 06:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Dekimasu, thank you for referencing the discussion prompted by this academic.oup.com study. The L and the S "multiple strains" is insignificant, shown by Trevor Bedford by mutation history. However, the portion of the link cited still includes any possible manner of natural selection, i.e. selective pressure, recombination, mutations, et. al. therefore believed it was relevant. Will continue scouring scientific articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan (talk • contribs) 23:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Dekimasu, patience has paid off. The 98-99% pangolin amino acid sequences of the Sub Unit 1 of the Receptor Binding Domain of SARS-CoV-2 is now being reported as a clear indication this of natural selection or natural origin. (based on the discussions above you recommended we wait for to be published). It is also now being reported in LiveScience.com

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9 https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-not-human-made-in-lab.html

This reality is the single most important questions about the virus, as it determines whether it will recirculate or not, and now a preponderance of peer review and professional journalism has established that. Therefore a final paragraph with citations to the article(s) above would be fitting:

The appearance of the 98-99% pangolin sequence in the Sub Unit 1 of the Receptor Binding Domain, including all six key RBD residues, "clearly shows that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein optimized for binding to human-like ACE2 is the result of natural selection."

I am very excited that the Nature.com link above cites all of these materials we had been finding and put it all together just like you recommended.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan (talk • contribs) 19:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, "The KD values for the bat and the pangolin SARS-like CoV RBDs indicated that it would be difficult for bat SARS-like CoV to infect humans; however, the pangolin CoV is potentially infectious to humans with respect to its RBD. " Without the pangolin reservoir, this novel coronavirus would never have become so potentially infectious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan (talk • contribs) 19:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Humanspan, it appears to me that the preprint you are linking here is not too concerned with the role of the pangolin or to the origin of the spillover, since it is citing selection pressure as a reason for development of increased ACE2 affinity, and it is looking for variations within SARS-CoV-2 in human populations. The only part I see that is close to what we have been discussing here is on page 11. In either event, I think this might be one of those cases where we are better off waiting for acceptance or publication. Was there something in particular that you thought should be altered about the current article text? Dekimasuよ! 05:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Dekimasu, I hope you and your family are doing well. Yes, I agree with you on the overall assessment of the preprint. The preponderance of scientific viewpoints is now that a pangolin sequence in Sub Unit 1 of the Receptor Binding Domain explains giving SARS-CoV-2 its infectious ability. It has been shown Pangolin involvement cannot be denied as a part of the Reservoir sections.

I am going to be more precise. Here is the 3rd paragraph under Reservoir section:

A metagenomic study published in 2019 previously revealed that SARS-CoV, the strain of the virus that causes SARS, was the most widely distributed coronavirus among a sample of Sunda pangolins.[46] On 7 February 2020, it was announced that researchers from Guangzhou had discovered a pangolin sample with a viral nucleic acid sequence "99% identical" to SARS-CoV-2.[47] When released, the results clarified that "the receptor-binding domain of the S protein of the newly discovered Pangolin-CoV is virtually identical to that of 2019-nCoV, with one amino acid difference."[48] Pangolins are protected under Chinese law, but their poaching and trading for use in traditional Chinese medicine remains common.[49][50]

Adding:

A metagenomic study published in 2019 previously revealed that SARS-CoV, the strain of the virus that causes SARS, was the most widely distributed coronavirus among a sample of Sunda pangolins.[46] On 7 February 2020, it was announced that researchers from Guangzhou had discovered a pangolin sample with a viral nucleic acid sequence "99% identical" to SARS-CoV-2.[47] When released, the results clarified that "the receptor-binding domain of the S protein of the newly discovered Pangolin-CoV is virtually identical to that of 2019-nCoV, with one amino acid difference."[48] Bats and pangolins are suspected as the reservoir and the intermediate host. The receptor binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 S protein plays the key role in the tight binding to human receptor ACE2 for viral entry." https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.15.991844v2

Furthermore, "The KD values for the bat and the pangolin SARS-like CoV RBDs indicated that it would be difficult for bat SARS-like CoV to infect humans; however, the pangolin CoV is potentially infectious to humans with respect to its RBD." Hence, the 98-99% pangolin amino acid sequence in Sub Unit 1 of the Receptor Binding Domain of the virus, explains how the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV2-2, gained its ability to infect a human host efficiently.

Pangolins are protected under Chinese law, but their poaching and trading for use in traditional Chinese medicine remains common.[49][50]

"The genome sequence of the virus isolate (GX/P2V) has very high similarity (99.83-99.92%) to the five sequences obtained through the metagenomic sequencing of the raw samples, and all have similar genomic organizations to SARS-CoV-2". https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2169-0_reference.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan (talk • contribs) 04:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Humanspan, I will look at this as soon as I can. Best, Dekimasuよ! 04:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Again, the point of these entries is not to say the pangolin is the immediate reservoir, but that the pangolin sequence in the RBD is significant. And SARS-CoV-2 like viruses in Pangolins prove pangolins can be a reservoir of a human infectious strain. We believe this is noteworthy and applicable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan (talk • contribs) 02:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Titles, MOS, Tree of Life, etc

Thank you for opening my eyes to several topics at the end of the SARS-CoV-2 move request. It had not occurred to me that there is no WP:MOS for something like viruses and that they likely should be separate from WP:NCMED. Also, thanks for the pointer to MOS:ALTNAME. Finally, I went back to the move talk discussion tonight after seeing a new Lancet letter suggesting the CSG's proposed name be changed. It may be weeks (or more) till the name is truly resolved in the scientific community. Best, Inkwzitv (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad that this was helpful to you, Inkwzitv. If you happen to bring up a discussion of the guidelines at some point, please let me know. Best, Dekimasuよ! 12:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Planters

I think you should have closed Talk:Planters#Requested move 17 February 2020 as "no consensus to move" instead of "not moved". Yes I realize that the arguments against the move were probably stronger than those in favour in the !votes, but I had provided provided a significant rationalization in my nomination statement with reference to the guidelines and conventions (previous discussions). While there were only 2 supporting (with 1 weak) v 4 opposers, only 2 of the opposers contained any substantial rationalization, the 1st originally being a personal attack (that was removed by another editor) and the 2nd only with a link to PLURALPT which usually (but not always) supports the singular and plural forms going to the same place. While the 2 supporters didn't contain as much rationalization they did appear to allude to the 2nd criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. While I realize that this change doesn't actually physically affect the outcome I think it would more appropriately reflect the discussion since "no consensus" to move is usually in between "not moved" and "no consensus", thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale, first, I apologize that my intention was unclear. In large part I do agree with you on your reading of the discussion (that the discussion did not exhibit a consensus). Part of the issue that arises here is that I have been closing moves since well before WP:THREEOUTCOMES existed and propagated a certain definition of "not moved", and I wasn't involved in the creation of that section. Also, that page implies that it's a guideline while I don't think it has ever been elevated to the level of a guideline. But communication of what I intended to express via the close is important.

To go into a bit more detail, years ago I used to only close move requests as "consensus to move", "no consensus to move", or "consensus not to move". These are statements based upon reading the consensus of the discussion, so I prefer them. (I also try to avoid long statements on my closes because they tend to lead to disagreements over reading of particular arguments rather than the overall outcome, so I usually write "per the discussion below".) At this point many other closers focus on the effects of the discussion rather than what form of consensus is shown, which leads to statements like "moved". I generally only use the statements "moved" and "not moved" in a limited set of circumstances. One might be an unopposed request with little discussion; to me this will result in a move, but is not a very good indication of strong consensus in favor of the action.

Another is what we had here. In my reading of this discussion there was not a strong "consensus not to move" the page, and if there were I would have used that phrasing in my close. However, at the same time, I intended to discourage the initiation of another request based upon the same set of arguments in the future, because I do not see any indication in the discussion that it would move forward toward a consensus in favor of a page move among a different set of RM participants, and it does not appear that there is anything that would prompt a significant shift going forward (such as the possibility that one page or the other might now be coming to prominence, or that its name might be changing). Thus while in effect there is no difference in the outcome (as you stated), I was in fact trying to make a somewhat stronger statement than would have been reflected by closing the discussion as "no consensus to move", which might encourage future attempts to make the same request. One of the reasons this tends to be effective is probably that there has recently come to be a wider acceptance of the idea that "not moved" is a fairly forceful wording, so I have probably benefitted from the newer definition at times. But at the same time I did intend this to be a more nuanced close, and as I wrote above I wish that my intention had been clear to you.

I am fine with changing the close to "no consensus to move" if you'd like, but I would discourage making the same request again in 3 months, 6 months, etc. Dekimasuよ! 02:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed I have noticed that you usually use "at this time" in you're closers which suggests that although there is a consensus (or lack of one) at the current RM there could easily later be a different consensus. In this case you're "not moved" "at this time" suggests that although there is consensus against that specific RM there could easily be consensus later. I agree with you that a new RM in 3 or 6 months probably wouldn't be a good idea unless significant new information was presented or it was by someone who didn't participate in this RM, Talk:Wyndham Vale is an example of one that had a new request about 6 weeks later by the same user with the same reason. In the case of Talk:Dowland (disambiguation)#Requested move 20 January 2019 you used "consensus not to move" (which was unanimously opposed) instead of "not moved" here, compare this to Talk:Peter Sutcliffe#Requested move 2 January 2019 where you noted clear "consensus not to move". So yes while I agree there might have been a slightly stronger consensus against the move than for it I think "no consensus to move" would have been more appropriate. I'd also note that because primary topic was at play (rather than best title) there is some consensus that the burden should always be on those wanting a primary topic to get consensus for that even if the article has been a stable primary topic. Consider that if the move was being made the other way round its unlikely that there would be consensus. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think you have noticed most of my strategies. In general, they work fairly well. I haven't been taken to WP:MR in at least a year now, I think. The question of what would happen if this were "no consensus" and the other way around is probably another factor that led me to use the closing statement I did. If "no consensus" were taken to be evidence that nothing should have the primary topic, then again, I think the most appropriate result of the discussion in this case was that nothing should be moved at this time. Dekimasuよ! 12:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I think a statement like "no consensus due to the arguments on the oppose side being slightly stronger than the support side" would be better. Otherwise we would be left in situations where we have to close as "moved" due to no consensus (where arguments for and against are split) and "not moved" in situations where the arguments against are slightly stronger. I think "no consensus" is an appropriate outcome in cases where the arguments against are slightly stronger as long as that's noted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't realize that this was still an ongoing issue. When I offered to change the wording of the close, I was under the impression that you did not want to take me up on the offer. Thank you for the notification of the move review. As far as your final comment here is concerned, there have historically been cases involving dab pages in which pages have been "moved due to no consensus". This is probably rarer now. Dekimasuよ! 11:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I did want you to change the wording of the close per the comment of I think a statement like "no consensus due to the arguments on the oppose side being slightly stronger than the support side" would be better but I probably hadn't made that clear. As I said at MR I understand you're busy and because you have several messages further down its possible you missed my later message but anyway its probably better to let this be sorted at MR. Thanks again. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

What is your variety of English?

Just wanted to know what your variety of English is so that I can replace the ugly {{EngvarB}} template on Coronavirus disease 2019 with the correct regional one, like {{Use British English}} or {{Use Australian English}}. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 09:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Haha, good question. Actually, I believe Template:EngvarB was already in place when I started editing what was at the time Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). When I helped split what was then 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease from the virus article, I moved the template over as well. However, while I understand your concern, I don't think it should be necessary to switch the template to something else. EngvarB is not deprecated, and the topic has no strong links to any national variety of English, so I think for it to be nondescript is just about right. Not having any such template on the page at all might have the same effect, but I don't think we would want the page to be "colonized" by a specific variety later on. (To answer your question to some extent, I use American spelling in the mainspace when there's nothing telling me I shouldn't. I think I am responsible for most of the body text at Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 if you'd like to diagnose my dialect.) Dekimasuよ! 12:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

It's alright; I identified the originator of the text. Thank you for the help though. In response to what you said, a template for keeping an English variety in flux goes entirely against the guideline of keeping a variety consistent. The {{EngvarB}} template is not without criticism and is understandably seen by non-Americans as US-/North America-biased. It's also virtually useless given that 99% of the time it's referring to a {{Commonwealth English}} variety, most often British English. But thank you anyway. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I found it too. An IP editor in Indonesia. Interesting. As far as consistency is concerned, I tend to think there is a difference between aiming for flux and aiming for retaining a variety without label(l)ing it. But I see your point. Dekimasuよ! 12:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

help with Move for Heated Tobacco Products

Hi, I don't know the procedures for summarizing a Wiki discussion and actually performing a Move of "heat-not-burn products" to "heated tobacco products" now that it has been under discussion for a week and the consensus of support looks consistent. Could you perchance do so or let me know who can? thank you very much. DrNicotiana (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

DrNicotiana, since we have participated in the discussion, it is best to wait for an uninvolved closer to read the consensus of the discussion and move the page for us. I agree that the outcome is clear, but allowing the process to play out this way is useful for avoiding any disputes that might arise subsequently. Dekimasuよ! 16:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

About archival bot on Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

The bot is meant to free up whatever menial work the manual work entails, but if you think is fine still, let's put it in much later as you have mentioned.

The RM section can be pinned just like what's done with Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_outbreak#Semi-protected_anti-vandalism_request_on_3_March_2020:

<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message}}<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 08:46, 1 March 2030 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1898585168}}<!-- END PIN -->

robertsky (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I will use this if/when it becomes necessary. I rather like manual archiving (though pinning would have the same effect) since it's easier to highlight perennial questions and previous consensus that way. Best, Dekimasuよ! 13:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey,

I'm a journalist writing about the COVID-19 wikipedia page. Any interest in talking real quick? Thanks! Journo0000 (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Journo0000, please send me a short summary of any further information you can give via e-mail using Special:EmailUser/Dekimasu. I am probably happy to answer questions but would like to know more. Also, in case you are on a deadline, please note that my current time zone is UTC 09:00. Dekimasuよ! 16:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Hi Dekimasu, just a note of thanks for your ongoing work on the coronavirus articles, ensuring they're kept factual, on-topic, and free from spam and POV pushing. It's at times like this that we realise what an amazing body of editors we have working here, and how fantastic this project really is. Keep up the good work!  — Amakuru (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Amakuru, I appreciate this, and I regret that I haven't been able to keep up with WP:RM lately. Thanks for all of your work as well. Dekimasuよ! 06:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Covid infection section is incorrect

Hi Dekimasu,

I saw you edited my contribution to the Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2 Infection section. Unfortunately, the resulting paragraph features the early February WHO spread model which discounts asymptomatic transmission, but it has been superceded by the results March 16 article from Science, showing the majority of infections are from pre-symptomatic shedders. That is extremely important information. I am ready to update but figured you would have thoughts and want to avoid revision conflicts. Please let me know how you'd like to proceed as soon as possible.

Thanks, Pablo Mayrgundter (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

My main qualm with this is that the WHO guidance is based upon direct observation, while the study arguing that there must have been asymptomatic transfer is a mathematical model. There are other variables that could create the same results, up to and including the presence of a considerable number of symptomatic people who didn't seek or receive medical attention. I will try to reply further on the relevant talk page. Dekimasuよ! 10:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

On SARS-CoV-2

Hi there! I noticed that you reverted my edit to SARS-CoV-2. However, I'm a bit confused as to exactly what was wrong. COVID-19 is the official name for Coronavirus disease 2019, and nCov-19 was it's provisional name (Novel Coronavirus 2019, as it was unclear as to if it was a disease or syndrome). Neither of which, are viruses, and simultaneously, you can't have a symptom of a virus be a virus, as you seem to indicate. In reality, the only change I made was change the symptom from it's provisional to its official name. ItsPugle (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

ItsPugle, COVID-19 is the shortened version of Coronavirus disease 2019, the name for the disease caused by the virus SARS-CoV-2. "2019-nCoV" was the provisional name of the virus, not of the disease (the disease's provisional name was "2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease"). It stands for "2019 novel coronavirus", so yes, "2019-nCoV" was a virus name rather than a disease name. The article you were editing is the article on the virus; COVID-19 is not a synonym for SARS-CoV-2, and the field you edited was the field for synonyms of SARS-CoV-2. Does this make sense? Best, Dekimasuよ! 01:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Agh! I hate myself, I can't believe I thought it said symptoms, not synonyms! So sorry ItsPugle (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem! Dekimasuよ! 01:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOR COVID-19

Hi Dekimasu,

Unlike the two previous deletions of the entry I wrote regarding LTB4, you've made an interesting point, that deserves some consideration. I think your reason for deleting my entry is a bit of a gray area because the conclusion that LTB4 may be worth considering for future research is a soft conclusion that in the current context I think justifies some slack with respect to the Wikipedia no original research policy (as stated on the page that you helpfully directed me to). I get the purpose of the WP:NOR policy, but in this instance I think it applies weakly and for the sake of the greater good (because of what is currently at stake) should perhaps not be so rigidly adhered to.

Regards,

Elariphe (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Your reversion

Hi Dekimasu, you reverted [89] my edit [90] stating it would not improve the article.

Actually, my edit realized quite many detail improvements, so I'm a bit puzzled about your reversion.

Regarding 4-digit years, MOS does not require 4-digit years for consecutive years, but it recommends them unless there are strong reasons not to use them. Why should we use abbreviated years? This is fine for space-constrained areas, but otherwise it looks very unprofessional (after all, we are an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and this is about a virus, not a sports season or such). Regarding broken links, can you point me to one, I must have overlooked it. It was certainly not my intention to break anything.

Regarding the expansion of the citations, a reference not even properly naming the authors is almost worthless. I therefore changed it so that all authors are displayed and their forenames can be spelled out as well. Authors, for which we have articles, can be linked as well (already started, but requires more work). Also, this change significantly improves the produced metadata. Some citations were using abbreviated Vancouver style names, others did not, that's why I made sure that all citations use the same consistent format. If there would be consensus to use Vancouver style it would be possible to add |name-list-format=vanc to display the names in that style while still providing the proper names in metadata.

|year= is a deprecated parameter kept only to support a special case (not used in the article), which should be replaced by |date=.

In a few cases, the author was given as "World Health Organization"; we don't normally specify an author if none is given in the source (and the publisher is the same anyway). What we usually do is add a hidden comment "staff writer".

{{cite news}} and {{cite newspaper}} are the same, but specifying "news" could be confused with {{cite newsgroup}}, that's why spelling it out as "newspaper" is better. However, this is only cosmetics.

|website= is typically used for website names (like google.com or nextstrain.org). If the site has a real name / logo or such, this typically goes into |work= instead (or into |publisher= if it is the publisher). Periodicals like New York Times or Wall Street Journal go into parameters like |newspaper= (or |journal= or |magazine= if we were using {{cite journal}} or {{cite magazine}} rather than {{cite newspaper}}), not into |website=. There's certainly more tweaking necessary here, this was just the start. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Matthiaspaul, I recognize that there are several parts of your edit, and I will try to respond to them part-by-part.

First, as for the years, they are given as in the linked articles and templates. The use of the 2019–20 style is well-established in this set of articles and in most article titles using consecutive years, and while as you stated it is not mandated, this usage reflects the titles of the linked templates and articles. Most importantly, the pandemic's article is at 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. The templates that you altered were not reader-facing, so I don't see a benefit in changing them either way, but they are all at titles using "2019–20", so this was simply changing them from direct transclusions to transclusions working through redirects. The same goes for switching to the direct template use of "Cite news" to the redirect "Cite newspaper".

As far as I am aware (meaning anything that was not introduced in the last few days), all of the cites used Vancouver format. I was maintaining the Vancouver format fairly assiduously. Of course, the article is attracting new sources every day, so that takes some work. The last= first= format is not specifically more difficult to maintain, but it is much harder to edit because it makes each citation at least twice as long. For editors, it can become difficult to find the actual text in such a heavily-referenced article. I'm sure you're aware of this, however. I do recognize the general usefulness of having the full names of the authors available, but if all the texts are online and linked (they are), then I'm not sure how helpful it is for readers, particularly if that data is not being used in the references section.

These were the two changes, which made up the bulk of the additions, that I disagreed with. I agree that year should be replaced by date, and also agree on standardizing work/publisher. I am happy to have the WHO references standardized in any reasonable way. I apologize for reverting your edit, but there are clearly a range of different issues involved, and to run them through as one edit (perhaps you were using a tool? I do everything manually) makes it very difficult to engage in this sort of discussion. Dekimasuよ! 12:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I am under the impression that you are knowledgeable in this area, but I am unsure why reformatting to avoid vauthors= would not fall under WP:CITEVAR. The Vancouver system is not deprecated. I was only able to find one cite in the article that did not use that format; it was added within the last few days, and I have fixed it now. Dekimasuよ! 12:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Addendum on Template:Cite news: if you really feel this is ambiguous, you can suggest moving the template, but it is not being treated as ambiguous by the community now, is it? Dekimasuよ! 12:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

|vauthors= is not deprecated (yet - some users want to ditch it), but it appears to be used rarely outside the context of medical articles. At least, I haven't seen it being used in technical articles for quite a while.

I have difficulties to understand why someone would find this oddly abbreviated style (not even following common interpunctation standards) desirable in an article when space is not an issue (WP:NOTPAPER) and when better alternatives exist. To me, it seems as if editors chosing this style just can't be bothered with providing complete citation information, something I find is going against our core ideas of compiling, presenting and preserving the past and present knowledge of the world for anyone now and in the future.

But that's just output style. Wikipedia infrastructure and template development is slowly reaching a point where the output of citation templates can be controlled by users according to their preferences, and, I'm sure, we will see full user-configurability in a couple of years. So, their is not much point arguing over presentation style - people have different needs and tastes, and the whole idea of using citation templates is to separate information from presentation and be able to centrally change the output in the future, would this become necessary. However, what concerns me more is when we miss out the chance to provide complete information in the first place. Information can be transparently trunced down if not needed for a certain output format like Vancouver, but it cannot be presented in other styles if it hasn't been stored in the template. That's why, even if I would prefer Vancouver style myself, I would try to collect the complete author information in a citation using |last=/|first= and then use |name-list-format=vanc to override the output format, so that the template would still contain all information for metadata and other styles.

You mentioned that interested users can use the links to look up this information externally, which I don't think is a really satisfactory solution. We have a general principle to not rely on external sources, but to incorporate relevant info into the article itself. While external links like PMIDs or DOIs are meant to be more static than normal urls, they aren't guaranteed to exist forever, unfortunately (we've seen too many broken PMIDs and DOIs already). So, if we want to create something that can survive many decades or even centuries into the future, we should try hard to remove external dependencies.

So, if you think we should continue to use Vancouver style for output, I will have to accept this as you have provided more input into the article - and earlier. However, for the sake of technical progress, I would still propose to provide it through a combination of |last=/|first= and |name-list-format=vanc instead of |vauthors=.

You mentioned that blowing up the source code of the citations makes it difficult to work on the prose. I see that point. My solution to this problem (in articles I created or provided much of the information) is to move the definitions into the references section so that only the anchors remain in the text portion - very convenient. This has other advantages as well, f.e. it allows to work on all references in an article in parallel (and to swap them out with improved versions used in other articles) without searching for them in the body of the article and without having to block the whole article for longer periods of time.

So, seeking a good compromise between full citation information (my requirement), Vancouver style output (your requirement), unobtrusive appearance of citations in the source code and easy future maintainance (our both requirements), a combination of |last=/|first=, |name-list-format=vanc and list style instead of |vauthors= appears to be a workable solution. If you are not familiar with this variant, I could demonstrate this for a test citation so you can see yourself. What do you think? (PS. Like you, I don't use tools or scripts for security reasons.)

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Matthiaspaul, I do agree that we should be able to compromise here. There were some reasons for the article to be set up this way that are less of a concern now; it was originally covering Coronavirus disease 2019 as well as the virus, for one thing, so when we standardized it we standardized to the more medical form. It is still often useful to treat this as an article subject to WP:MEDRS in order to maintain a high standard for the types of research and reliable reporting that are being cited. The article attracts some WP:FRINGE editing.

I do not take issue with expanding the list of authors and moving the definitions to the references section if Vancouver is retained. This is a bit more feasible now than it was before, because the article is much more stable than it was when we were starting out (a significant proportion of the cites at that time were accepted preprints). But since it is still being edited quite a lot, it will also take more work to keep up with orphans.

I am happy to do much of the author expansion, including filling out the full first names, later today (Asia time). It is still possible that other editors may object, since this is a high-traffic article at the moment (80k~100k hits per day). That is another reason I would suggest implementing these sorts of changes in a more piecemeal fashion, which makes it easier to determine what the points of contention are. If you are willing to help standardize the work/document/website field, that would be appreciated.

More broadly, I of course do not intend to WP:OWN the article, but since I have done a lot of work maintaining it, it came as a surprise to see a large-scale bold change like yours, and I assumed it was script-based. After reverting I did try to go back and institute a few of your changes right away. Once again, sorry to have reverted wholesale, particularly now that you've told me the edit was not simply done by a script. Dekimasuよ! 03:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest to first move the definitions into the references section so that they can subsequently be edited without much interference with other editors editing the prose.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Move review for Planters

An editor has asked for a Move review of Planters. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Message

Thank you for all you do...peace be with you... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100b:b124:b002:81d4:b3cc:32b2:7829 (talk • contribs)

Thank you, same. Dekimasuよ! 05:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020: reversion on Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

My edit was intended to render the sentence in concise English. The word "so" spells out what is already clear and obvious from the prose. If your native language is not English, I see where you are coming from. It's important to realize what the previous sentence imparted to the reader. If the reader is not generating their own "if...then" scenario based on the preceding sentence, how are they managing to understand the article's prose in general? My guess is that you are a native speaker of an Asian language, as the construction you employed is characteristic of the usage chosen by editors from Asia who are editing in English. I revert them all.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Quisqualis. I am a native English speaker, to the extent I am anything. "And" in this location in the sentence indicates that there are two separate thoughts being conveyed: one, that the virus was discovered in Wuhan, and two, that the virus is sometimes called "the Wuhan coronavirus". Were that the case, those would not belong in the same paragraph in the lede. Instead, we are emphasizing that the virus was discovered in Wuhan because it explains why the "Wuhan coronavirus" name has sometimes been used; that is, these are part of the same thought. To change this to "and" overemphasizes the importance of the fact that the virus was discovered in Wuhan at the same time it distracts the reader from the purpose of the paragraph, which is to describe a variety of names for the virus strain.

I am not sure concision plays an important role here, since "and" is not significantly more concise than "so it". Dekimasuよ! 04:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "China virus" and "Wuhan virus".The discussion is about the topic Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Thank you. Sorry about this, but I don't think the discussion will be resolved until it goes to the noticeboard. Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I had already asked for a close at WP:AN, but no one has processed it yet. If no one who is actually advocating for a change is interested in starting the RfC, then I think it will eventually be fine to archive the section. Dekimasuよ! 11:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

you've made article read worst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfdooger (talk • contribs) 02:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Dfdooger, sorry, but this is not an improvement to the article on the virus. Deleting multiple sections without discussion is also not productive (structural biology of the virus is clearly something to be covered on the virus page). We have an article on the virus and an article on the disease. Your change was reverted and should not be reinstated without discussion. If you take issue with the way the pages are constructed, please discuss it with other editors. There are many who disagree with you, and this is a collaborative project. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Dekimasuよ! 02:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for disrupting. pls put ecp indefinitely to the article, (since I also have no idea you're an admin and still requesting for protection on the page) so It'll prevent me from editing it again Dfdooger (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Im requesting Indefinitely block, thank you, so ill be off this site, it's really hard for me to ignore it. Dfdooger (talk) 03:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not process requested blocks, particularly if I am somehow involved. You can look at WP:SELFBLOCK if necessary. Dekimasuよ! 03:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I'd like to hear your opinion on this poll

Poll: 102,000,000 or 1.02 million Thanks! Feelthhis (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I left a few comments, but I don't have strong feelings about this. Best, Dekimasuよ! 08:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

Hi Dekimasu, [91] "undo de-capping, not mandated for piped links in this way" I'm surprised that's important enough to revert?! No edits are, in fact mandated, as it's voluntary. Is it an improvement? Well, not for readers no. For writers, arguably yes...my justification is User talk:Widefox/Archive 5#Caps in piped links . To me, it's a good indicator of a need for a copyedit of an article. In fact, I was suprised just how these SARS/COVID articles and dab were missing vital items in the lead, now fixed. Regards Widefox; talk 14:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Consensus reached on "China virus"

Hi Dekimasu, I guess from your lack of editing that you're pretty burnt out by the whole coronavirus thing, especially around the whole "China virus" debacle. The NPOV noticeboard discussion suddenly started several days ago and has now reached concensus, that "China virus" and "Wuhan virus" shouldn't be used in the lead, after nearly two months it is finally over. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The revert tag

About two years ago, you created the revert tag, do you recall the reasoning? I can't find a use at that time. It's basically unused and I think it's likely to cause confusion, especially as the devs plan to add a reverted tag (phab:T254074). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot remember. If it is still causing any problems, then please do whatever you think is appropriate. Best, Dekimasuよ! 08:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

"Coronavirus 2019" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Coronavirus 2019. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 21#Coronavirus 2019 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia podcast

Hi @Dekimasu,

I hope you're all good. I'm writing about a podcast documentary series I'm making about Wikipedia and the people behind it, and am looking for someone who's been active on the Covid-19 page. I came across your name and was wondering if you'd be happy to chat to me a bit about your work on the page and what it's like working on something that's a constantly changing, breaking news situation? Would be really interested to hear your thoughts.

Let me know what you think. Thanks! Wearecrowd (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Phil Salt (disambiguation)

The article Phil Salt (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page not required (WP:2DABS). Primary topic has hatnote to only other use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year to You and Yours!

Good to see you back editing again! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 19:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of redirect

Hey, please don't delete a redirect just because a RM closed as move. If that was the result, the redirect should be moved, including all incoming links. As it stands you not only deleted a redirect, but left incorrect incomings link that are meant for the Arrow TV version of the character. Gonnym (talk) 10:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello Gonnym. When a move like this occurs, it is not necessarily the case that all of the incoming links to the redirect are intended for the previous target of the redirect. In fact, the consensus to move to the base title is often an indication that many of the old links to the redirect may have been intended for the other article. I understand that it was not true in this case because you seem to have cleaned up the links in the past, but moving the redirect in every case would require each closer to determine a valid alternative redirect to the previous target article, and then wait for all of the double redirects to be shifted to the new target before completing the move. Unless something has changed recently, all that is usually required is instead to check to be sure there is not substantial edit history on the target page. I will be careful not to unnecessarily break links and to check the links to the target; in fact, when I first started editing Wikipedia I mainly worked on fixing ambiguous or incorrect links. Best, Dekimasuよ! 10:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe I have fixed all of the links to the character. Dekimasuよ! 10:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, I was the one who created the redirect in the first place it seems (as it was on my watch list, but you could probably see in the history). If that is the case, every link that was there was a valid one as I was the one that made those connections. I did not vote in that discussion as I really could not care if the page moved or not, however, that was not a RfD discussion, which if it was I would have voted oppose for its deletion. Additionally, your fix to the incoming links is also incorrect. Arrowverse (and other similar topics, like MCU redirects), do not link to the comic book article but to a specific redirect. Please restore the previous redirect with its history to Jake Simmons (Arrowverse) so I can correctly fix those links. I do not remember by heart what the target was and what categories that redirect had which is why I'm requesting its restoration. Gonnym (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The target of Jake Simmons had been a direct link to Deathbolt (i.e. simply "#REDIRECT [[Deathbolt]]") since October 2021, so the links I fixed had been redirecting directly to Deathbolt already, and overwriting redirects as part of a move discussion does not require a separate RfD. As a matter of process, it would be impossible to expect those moving a page to guess that there might have been preexisting objections to the stable target of a redirect. However, I think the link you want is List of supporting Arrow characters#Jake Simmons / Deathbolt and I will restore the redirect history there given that it seems you would have objected to the stable redirect. Best, Dekimasuよ! 11:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Requesting Reconsideration Of "Triangle Daruma" Section Deletion...

Hello...I appreciate your quick attention to my addition of the "Triangle Daruma" section on the "Daruma Doll" page. Rather than make a separate page for this folk art form, I added it to the main page for "Daruma Doll." I would like to have the section return to the page, and respectfully ask that you reconsider.

I get over one million results when I search Google for "三角だるま" or "三角達磨" and over two million when I search for "三角ダルマ". There are over 3,000 English results for "sankaku daruma," but only 200 for "triangle daruma." If you prefer that I list and identify it as "sankaku daruma," I certainly would be glad to edit the section to reflect that header.

Also, I am very willing to add more information and attributions from deeper sources, as I had done in adding the Nikkei.com newspaper article. The source from 2004 did assert that Imai's son was the only maker of these figures at the time, but since 2018 they are crafted by a contingent of women in Agano City, where they are listed as a cultural property. This is from Japanese Wikipedia, where these dolls have their own page: 三角達磨

These figures are an historic folk art form in Japan, which I believe is evidenced by their extensive presence in online articles found through native Google searches. I feel they are significant cultural adaptations of the Daruma doll phenomenon and a relevant folk art form in their own right.

Thank you so much for your consideration... DDDnfl (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the conversation to my talk page. I think you may not be putting your search terms in quotation marks when using Google. I get 80 hits for "三角達磨" in quotes, 95 for "三角だるま", and 90 for "三角ダルマ". Some of these are false positives, and most are selling the figures online. These are all what you call native Google searches, I suppose. "Sankaku daruma" in quotes yields 35 hits, and "triangle daruma" under 20. The best source I can find on them in English is Mingei: Japan's Enduring Folk Arts by Amaury Saint-Gilles, which has one page of description, although the author is not a specialist. I think it might make sense to have a sentence in the article about these (probably under the "Shape" subsection of "Physical features and symbolism") but am not convinced that they should take up over 10% of the article or have a separate section. Best, Dekimasuよ! 16:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! I will add a sentence in the shape section as you recommend. Many thanks. DDDnfl (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Kharkiv Collegium

Dear Dekimasu, I'm writing you regarding the discussion on the page Talk:Kharkiv Collegium. I've been very busy the last three days and haven't had time to reply. I have more arguments and I would like to have the opportunity to continue the discussion. I didn't know that in three days it would be closed. Can you please reopen the discussion or should I start a new one below? Ушкуйник (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Ушкуйник, thank you for your message. Move requests are usually closed after one week of discussion, and this discussion was open for two weeks. I believe it would be better to start a new discussion than to reopen the previous one. The older discussion needed to be reset in order to establish a status quo and prevent edit warring. (Please take to heart the comments I made about establishing consensus before making additional changes related to the title or its spelling in the article.) However, you may find that some editors would also object to creating a new move request immediately after the previous close. Rather than starting a new official move request, it might be better to build consensus through normal talk page discussion first, and then move on to a move request if necessary once the general direction of that discussion becomes clearer. Best, Dekimasuよ! 07:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Dear Dekimasu, the problem is that it would be important to hear the opinions of other colleagues who are specialists in Slavic Studies. Just for that reason I would prefer to be able to post my answer within the discussion that already exists. Would it be technically possible for you to reopen the discussion or is it difficult? Ушкуйник (talk) 07:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

If your concern is citing something specific in the previous discussion in order to reply to it, I would suggest adding a new talk section in which you quote it or refer to a diff. The contents are readily available on the same page, so this should not cause too much trouble for readers and editors. It should not be necessary to reopen the move request; continuing the conversation does not require any change to the close of the previous discussion. (Technically, there is a review process available at Wikipedia:Move review if you think I have done something incorrect, but I do not believe that is the case.) Finally, when you say that you would like to hear the opinions of other specialists, while notifying WikiProjects of discussions is generally fine, please be sure not to engage in canvassing. Dekimasuよ! 07:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Closing the Shining (video game series) RM

I am raising a concern there that your closure there was a pile-on supervote; the opposers operate entirely on the basis of rejecting definite articles as a good enough small detail, but I believe that is against our consistency policy due to longstanding precedent supporting the definite article as sufficient disambiguation. Much evidence that this is the case is cited this other RM I closed. Consideration of policy outweighs headcounts; doing otherwise is like failing to delete articles on blatantly non-notable things just because a majority voted to keep. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mellohi. Actually, I left you a message about relisting a while ago; not sure if you have seen it. First, I had no preference in this discussion, nor do I have any objection whatsoever to WP:SMALLDETAILS. Usually it is better to say less in a close; my comment below does not indicate that I had any particular motivation for the close at the time, but since you have asked me to look at the close again, I will try to reevaluate it objectively here.

WP:SMALLDETAILS is not absolute ("small details are usually sufficient"), which means that arguments by editors that titles that differ only slightly are ambiguous cannot be rejected out of hand. Those editors did not state that they reject disambiguation by definite article in general, but that they objected to disambiguation by the definite article in this particular case. Of course it is best for us to reach consistency in our titling over time—which is one of the reasons I help at WP:RM—but the stable title is the current one because the previous move took place in 2020, and it was clear that the discussion, which had been open for ten days, was not going to lead to consensus in favor of a change. Leaving open such a discussion when the final outcome is clear is not constructive.

I looked at your close at Talk:The Blacklist since you mentioned it here, and while I do not have particular objections to it, as closers we are tasked with weighing how requests coincide with guidelines and policy, and with evaluating consensus interpretations of existing policy. I would not write that "many of [the opposing arguments] are rooted in refusing to accept that definite articles are sufficient WP:SMALLDETAILS to discount blacklisting from consideration" because this ventures into analysis of the motivations of the editors, who are likely to be editing in good faith and using their own interpretation of the policy, rather than taking a stand against it or being oblivious to it. (Their argument appears to rely on the idea that use of the phrase "the B/blacklist" to refer to one particular blacklist has become basically idiomatic, whereas presumably they would not make the same argument in distinguishing a work from a word in the case of nonidiomatic use of the definite article, e.g. distinguishing The Godfather and Godfather or The Joshua Tree and Joshua Tree.) Likewise, personally I wouldn't write "other weak arguments relied on by the opposers include..." because it's likely to antagonize the participants whereas the close should ideally return everyone to productive editing in other areas.

Of course, closes do not need to follow headcounts. I closed an RM with one support and one oppose as consensus to move just a few hours after the close you are pointing out, because the "opposer" supplied no prima facie argument: Talk:Porte de Clichy. That is a particularly straightforward case, but at any rate I do not simply count the number of editors in favor of a position. Best, Dekimasuよ! 02:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I understand your methodology and how you view SMALLDETAILS differently than I do (you believing in a case-by-case approach and me under a precedent approach). Thank you for your thoughts. I also acknowledge that my closure reasons occasionally show signs of needing more care to assume good faith to even those I am not convinced by. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, I did read your previous message; that led me to stop voting and relisting in the same move discussion from then on. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on closing the RM of Swami Kriyananda

Dear Dekimasu, I realize that you have closed the RM discussion of the page Kriyananda. I would like to suggest that the arguments put forward by me endorsing the RM were entirely aligned with Wikipedia:CRITERIA, while OP's arguments lacked the reasoning on the same criteria. I would like to quote WP:TALKDONTREVERT : "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever."

The OP is strongly opposing my RM, yet they are not supporting their arguments with good reasoning (rather tends to overweigh on personal preference, often masquereding it as a preference of the article subject himself (Kriyananda). I request you to re-look at the discussion from this perspective. Bluesky whiteclouds (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

(1)In regards to your discussion on Precision and Concision - Kriyananda is the precise and concise name to use. There is no one else on Wikipedia using the name Kriyananda so no confusion exists. A person can search for Swami Kriyananda or Kriyananda and they are directed to the Kriyananda page. On top that if there is another Kriyananda on Wiki, a disambiguation notice can be placed at the top of the page.(2) in regards to consistency here are just two examples of swamis without the title in their name on Wikipedia [[92]], [[93]], (3) Don't assume other editors have personal preferences because they do not agree with your assessment.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Bluesky whiteclouds, as a neutral observer, there was no agreement as to whether the proposed title better fit several of the article naming criteria (concision, precision, and consistency). You were the "OP" of this request, but if you are using that as short for "opposition" here, then I would note that several editors contributed different perspectives with basis in policy and guidelines. In addition, other policy concerns like WP:TITLECHANGES and guidelines such as WP:NCIN#Titles and honorifics (as you noted in the request) may apply to this case. I understand that it can be difficult to share the perspective of other editors when participating in these sorts of discussions, but when there is no consensus the status quo is maintained, and here the status quo is also in line with the naming convention. (Note that the naming convention says "Exceptions may be made in cases where the subject is not known except with titles or other honorifics, or where they become the best means of disambiguation", but the title does not serve as disambiguation here and the subject is known to some extent without the title.)

It is true that the quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. However, conversely, it is important to consider carefully the possibility that the majority may have reasonable grounds for taking its position. Dekimasuよ! 07:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Dear Dekimasu and Red Rose 13, thanks for your reply. I meant "other person" by OP, sorry for confusion! You know, the subject is known to great extent with the "Swami" in his name. There may not be consistency by himself in using that name, but he was known as Swami Kriyananda by everyone and through out his life. I've showed that using 'exact match' searches on few websites. Hence, my request would be, can we redirect Kriyananda to Swami Kriyananda, instead of the other way around? Red Rose 13, it certainly felt that you had a personal preference for just Kriyananda, because of the reason I stated while saying that. Yet, I sincerely apologize if it has caused you discomfort. I'm sorry. Bluesky whiteclouds (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I need to point out that 4 people said no for various reasons. It is my understanding that Dekimasu's job is to assess the consensus of the editors responding. If I am wrong, Dekimasu please correct me.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

January 6 United States Capitol attack‎

Not sure if formal discussions are required, but there are templates and categories which should probably be moved, per the recent rename of January 6 United States Capitol attack‎. Are you open to moving these or submitting rename requests? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Another Believer, I am happy to perform any moves that are blocked by move protection, but this is not an area in which I normally edit, so I would prefer to stay out of the decision-making process. For now, I will go ahead and move Template:2021 US Capitol attack and Template:2021 United States Capitol attack to Template:January 6 US Capitol attack and Template:January 6 United States Capitol attack, respectively. I hope someone else can work on the categories, but it might be better to wait before starting on that, since move requests on this page have been sent to WP:MRV before. If there are other templates that need adjusting, please let me know. Best, Dekimasuよ! 15:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Robert Honywood/Honeywood

FYI, I have added the Dictionary of National Biography as a source for Honywell (and his date of birth). Please see discussion at Talk:Robert Honeywood#Requested move 17 August 2022. Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Salit (disambiguation)

It looks like mosdab was seriously undated recently. Thanks for pointing at it. Still, placing surname in "See aslo" is wrong. The policy says, in part, A list of name-holders can be included in a People section of the page, or alternatively in sections such as People with the surname Xxxx or People with the given name Xxxx below the main disambiguation list. Loew Galitz (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for President of Japan

An editor has asked for a deletion review of President of Japan. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Privybst (talk) 05:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Link piping

The reason of those here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here is because of the redirect links so I have to fix them. That's the reason, so don't block me indefinite while I'm fixing it. Obrigado (Thank you). Wildlover22User talk:Wildlover22:WL22 27, September 2022 (UTC) Wildlover22 (talk) 04:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Wildlover22, thank you for communicating with me politely on my talk page. You wrote, "because of the redirect links so I have to fix them. That's the reason, so don't block me indefinite while I'm fixing it." However, what I and other editors have been trying to explain to you is that links that redirects that get readers to the correct articles should not be "fixed". Wikipedia:Redirect says that Redirects aid navigation and searching by allowing a page to be reached under alternative titles and It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]. This is an editing guideline on the English Wikipedia, which means all editors are expected to follow it in normal circumstances. I do appreciate your communication, but you still must stop editing links that are working redirects. Dekimasuよ! 04:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Stop and how many times do I have to you? "DON'T BLOCK ME INDEFINITELY WHILE I'M FIXING IT!" Wildlover22 (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Translation request for Japanese Wikipedia: WiTricity

Hello! On behalf of WiTricity and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I've shared a draft entry for Japanese Wikipedia, which is a translated version of the English Wikipedia article. I'm searching for an editor who is willing to review this draft and update the entry appropriately. Might you be willing to take a look? Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The draft has been reviewed and the entry has been updated. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The edit was reverted by someone who hasn't responded to my request for an explanation. Perhaps they do not understand I was given permission by implement the draft by another editor. Are you able to take a look at the draft, or are you aware of a place at Japanese Wikipedia for me to seek assistance? Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Help with a particularly problematic user

Thank you for your work in dealing with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fuhitobe.

The editor in question for that has been active for nearly a year, consistently producing rubbish from multiple languages. From what I've observed, their MO appears to be 1) find an article on the JA, DE, ZH, and RU Wikipedias (and possibly others), run that through machine translation, and engage in some light copy-editing. I am a professional JA-EN translator, and I'm fluent enough in German to be able to assess their efforts in that language pair as well -- and it all shows a profound ignorance of the other languages, the translation / localization process in general, the subject matter of the articles themselves, and Wikipedia standards (particularly Wikipedia:Notability, with a side order of problems in understanding what adequate sourcing is).

I and other editors have tried advising them to change their approach, as documented in part at User_talk:Immanuelle/Archive_2#Dongyue_Dadi and User_talk:Immanuelle/Archive_3#Please_take_previous_comments_into_account, among other threads. Our entreaties have clearly fallen on deaf ears, as those threads concluded in August and September of last year, and the editor continues to create terribly incorrect content.

I spend most of my time helping to admin over at Wiktionary, where this user would have been blocked months ago for their persistence in adding misinformation. I am less familiar with procedure here at Wikipedia. What forum would be the appropriate place for nominating this user for intervention / censure? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Eiríkr, I do agree with your assessment of the situation, and thank you for contacting me about this.

I began to work on this last week here, but have not had time to move forward and may not be able to for another few weeks. If you are worried about additional damage during that period, the next place to take this would be WP:ANI. I believe the editor is acting in good faith, but since there are a number of policy violations involved (WP:SOCK given the history of overlapping use of accounts, WP:C as noted in the deletion discussion—the history of that page still needs to be handled, and there may be many other copyright issues on other pages) as well as behavioral concerns (WP:CIR, particularly the part that requires "the ability to understand their own abilities and competencies, and avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up") and content concerns (WP:CITE, WP:F, etc.), that is likely enough for the community to reach a decision on how to proceed without worrying about the problem of whether there is a meaningful corpus of "reliable sources" in this area of Japanese prehistory. Still, I feel it would be better to establish community consensus here. I was treating this as a slow-moving problem since I have not brought my concerns to the editor directly, but as you note, others have raised the issue, and complaints were also made on the talk page of the previous account. By all means feel free to bring it up at WP:ANI and to reference my comments at the deletion discussion, the sockpuppet investigation, or here. Best, Dekimasuよ! 05:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, unfortunately I can only write a quick note here, but it may be worth raising that the editor has begun to react to objections to substandard content (like deletion nominations or draftification) by "merging and redirecting" the disputed content into other locations, as was done with Fuhitobe, Ichidaisotsu, and Girl Temple. There may be other examples of this since I only went back a few days. This is also problematic behavior that will require future cleanup, making the issue appear more severe. Dekimasuよ! 05:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'd noticed that as well (multiple-redirecting and copy-pasting into other articles) -- worrying, as it partially hides the problem, and pollutes other articles that might not have had issues prior to the insertions.

Re: WP:SOCK, that is new to me (although I admit I may have forgotten something in the past several months). I had thought that these were two different people, but perhaps not...

Thank you for the link to the investigation page, I will have a look in the next couple days. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 05:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Eiríkr Útlendi, I saw your miscellany for deletion request. Looking at the stated use of AI (this time based on an English-language source) to generate a mishmash of inappropriate synthesis and improper paraphrasing—and the citations are not all correct, either—at Draft:Gehōbako, I think it's clear something needs to be done soon at a more general venue related to editor behavior. Dekimasuよ! 06:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping! Things IRL have gotten quite hectic for me (in the midst of a move), so my bandwidth is limited. I will help as and when I can, but it won't be speedy.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Eiríkr Útlendi, another editor has raised this now at WP:ANI#Need Japanese-speaking and maybe admin help, so I have added what I could there in a small amount of time. If you are available, that would be a good place to comment. Dekimasuよ! 05:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Immanuelle: does this look like a good idea?

[94] Elinruby (talk) 06:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Oops meant to show you this one: [95] Elinruby (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello Eliruby, and thank you for the messages. I think it is likely that all or almost all of the redirects should be kept, but I would like to avoid any impression that I am hounding anyone, so in my case I am happy to let that discussion continue among editors who often participate at WP:RFD. Best, Dekimasuよ! 05:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I don't completely understand what they was doing, is why I asked. I bow to your judgement on the matter. Elinruby (talk) 05:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello

Thank you for the advice on page move perm. I saw that you changed the title of an article mentioned at perms. I made some comments there about how I came to use the lowercase letter in "life" Still life: An Allegory of the Vanities of Human Life. Thank you. Bruxton (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Doing more research, I think you are probably right, "Still Life: An Allegory of the Vanities of Human Life" I originally had it with upper case "Still Life" and it was changed to lowercase after a suggestion during the DYK nomination. There is a lot to know so I thank you for the help. Bruxton (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello Bruxton, in case you hadn't seen it, I replied at WP:RFPPM. Best, Dekimasuよ! 05:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Daniel Jolliffe archived website

Hello Dekimasu, Thank you for removing the spam site that replaced Jolliffe's expired website for his project One Free Minute which now directs to a casino. Jolliffe was an awesome Wikipedian, and I like to keep an eye on his biographic article. Re: his expired "Official Website" I found an archived version on the Wayback Machine and added it to the External links. But I'm not sure I did this correctly.

Two questions: 1) Is there a tool available that can help with adding archived links (I see this frequently in citations where the url expired)? 2) Can a link to the archived site also be in the infobox, or should that be deleted since it duplicates info? Netherzone (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello Netherzone, there is some information on tools at Help:Using the Wayback Machine, and there should not be any issue with using an archive link in the external links section (although I would mark it as an archive). As far as the infobox goes, I am not aware of any rule but infobox editors tend to have very specific opinions, so you might be able to get suggestions at a page like Template talk:Infobox person. Personally, I do not think I would include a link to a non-live site in the infobox. Best, Dekimasuよ! 02:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll follow your guidance on this. Netherzone (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Official name is Gurugram

Hi to whomsoever it may concern. We cannot retain former names of cities, the current name is Gurugram and not Gurgaon. Why do we need rfc ? it is common sense? If that is the case, then we should retain the city names Bombay and Madras. The advise received in preceding section is some editor's personal opinion. Personal opinions doesn't work in this case. News paper articles can write anything, they just take info from wikipedia, it is called mirroring of wikipedia. Coming to books and articles, there are still millions of articles calling cities as Bombay and Madras before their official name change. You cant take it as a standard, and forcefully rub your opinions on other editors. Your personal interest with Gurgaon instead of Gurugram cannot be endorsed by other editors. The Govt officially designated it as Gurugram city in (Gurugram District) - https://gurugram.gov.in/department/municipal-corporation-gurugram/ Fostera12 (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

This post duplicates Talk:Gurgaon#Official name is Gurugram. – Uanfala (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll post my response there as well. Dekimasuよ! 16:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

This seems to have been posted here because in one of the move requests that took place several years ago, I noted in response to a comment about Google Trends that "Gurgaon" remained more common than "Gurugram". That appears to remain the case. Fostera12, the current name of the article is not based upon my personal opinion or anyone else's, but rather upon Wikipedia policies like WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIAL, which on Wikipedia normally take precedence over names mandated by governments. Regarding the application of print sources, our standard is that we follow them rather than tell them what to write, and in the case of something like "Bombay", the change was performed due to a shift in usage after the name change per WP:NAMECHANGES. That shift has not been found here. If the common name changes then I will not take issue with any move request related to the article. Dekimasuよ! 16:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Minnow

Plip!

For Special:Diff/1149326615.  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 18:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi CityUrbanism, when relisting for a requested move, please put the relisting template at the end of the statement made by the person suggesting the request rather than at the bottom of the discussion (this differs from AfDs, for example). The RM bot will read everything before the relisting template as part of the initial request, leading to all of the previous comments in the discussion being improperly transcluded to the main WP:RM page (see here). I did position your relist incorrectly when I moved it, since the "contested technical request" comment was not on a separate line, but it was something that needed to be fixed. I have put it in the right place this time. Best, Dekimasuよ! 03:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Dekimasu Understood. Thank you for your work.  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 08:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

78.183.194.20

Please revoke TPA, they are somewhat violating NPA and are being disruptive. Thanks, Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 07:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello Zippybonzo—thanks for the suggestion. I agree that the IP's run through the project pages was quite disruptive, but given that it is an IP and seems to have given up for now, I think it is all right to leave the access alone. I'd rather avoid blocking the talk page access myself when a block I made is being appealed, even if it is a silly appeal, and as long as the personal attacks are directed at me then I'm fine with overlooking them for now. If another attempt is made to vandalize Nijisanji from another IP address then it should be able to be protected. Best, Dekimasuよ! 08:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Neger

I see undid my move of the german torpedo named Neger from Neger (torpedo). do you think when someone see the title of my comment here will think “ha, a discussion about torpedoes!” Neger is german for negro or to be more accurate the n word. Never heard someone using that word and discovered they were talking about torpedos! FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

When you moved the page and redirected Neger to Neger (disambiguation), the disambiguation page became WP:MALPLACED and came up in a database report. Evaluating the database report, the options were to move the disambiguation page to the base title, or to reinstate the status quo. Titles on the English Wikipedia are in English, so the meaning of the search term in German is not a central concern. Among the pages titled "Neger" on the English Wikipedia, the article on the torpedo is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC according to page views, and there is no large number of hits for the disambiguation page which might indicate that users are arriving at an unexpected page (see here). As I wrote in my edit summary when I reverted the undiscussed move (which also had no edit summary to explain its original intent), you are welcome to initiate a move request using the procedure shown at WP:RM#CM if you think it is warranted. Best, Dekimasuよ! 14:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Dekimasu your point about the views is a bit shaky as you understand that page views can be because people thinking it’s the right “N****”. These people are not there for a german torpedo

I think it’s a non controversial move but I will go through the process

But can I ask you a question, you don’t need to answer it, when you read the notification or the title of this comment did you think “yay torpedoes”? FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I remember reverting the move, so I thought it was about the move. When I saw it in the database report, I did not particularly think anything of it as a title. I understand from your comments that it is an offensive term in German, but it does not register for me as a word in English at all, and I cannot recall ever having seen it used in either an offensive or an inoffensive way in English. Dekimasuよ! 14:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Ketelaar book

Hi Dekimasu! Thank you for your kind help on my draft article for James E Ketelaar.

The 2006 version of Ketelaar, J. E. (1990). Of Heretics and Martyrs in Meiji Japan: Buddhism and its Persecution. seems to be significantly altered beyond a translation. The following is written on his Chicago uni page https://history.uchicago.edu/directory/james-e-ketelaar: "Jakyô, Junkyô no Meiji: Haibutsu kishaku to kindai Bukkyô. Tokyo: Pelikan, 2006. A substantially revised version of Heretics and Martyrs in Japanese with a new introduction."

to that effect I believe that they constitute separate books. What are your thoughts? Thank you! Coroz Coroz12 (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello Coroz12, translations very often contain new introductions or other editorial material. The Japanese translation of this book has the original English title on its cover, and this sort of translation is made due to the contents of the original work. I think it is more informative to the reader to know that the two books being listed contain roughly the same research. As a more general question about the inclusion of this biography in the encyclopedia, it is not clear to me whether the subject meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Right now, a lot of work is being done by one quote in one review. The explanation of the criteria note that one of them can "be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question." One review is probably not enough here. Further, the page notes that "For the purposes of satisfying Criterion 1, the academic discipline of the person in question needs to be sufficiently broadly construed. Major disciplines, such as physics, mathematics, history, political science, or their significant subdisciplines (e.g., particle physics, algebraic geometry, medieval history, fluid mechanics, cancer genetics are valid examples). Overly narrow and highly specialized categories should be avoided. Arguing that someone is an expert in an extremely narrow area of study is, in and of itself, not necessarily sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1". Here we would want to see a major effect on a larger field like history of religion or Asian studies, but I think the claim here is limited to something like "Buddhism in late nineteenth century Japan". Can a broader claim be made? Dekimasuよ! 04:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Dekimasu,

Thank you kindly for the feedback, and I concur wrt the exclusion of the translation as a separate book.

As for notability —

1) I removed several references to his book as I was provided feedback that it was "over-referenced"; however, I am happy to include them more tactfully to balance the scale of over-referencing and providing more credibility. The reviews in question come from notable academics of Japanese history with their own Wiki pages, many of whom created bold claims about the prominence of Ketelaar's work — a sign I took to suggest "substantial number of references... indeed widely considered to be significant." His text on martyrdom, I believe, satisfies this claim, and I will re-include the references as they constitute "Reviews of the person's work." Happy to discuss further on this point.

2) On "academic discipline of the person in question needs to be sufficiently broadly construed" — you make a good point here; however, I thought that the individual must satisfy just one criterion found in Wikipedia:Notability (academics) (which I argue is criterion 6 below). That notwithstanding, his academic discipline is Japanese religion (a subdivision of religion), a broadly-enough construed field, whilst his "significant new concept" is more specifically his analysis on the Meiji-era as a watershed moment in redefining and bifurcating ancient and modern Buddhism. To that end, I think that "Buddhism in late nineteenth century Japan" is slightly reductionist, and indeed Ketelaar's work does substantially contribute to the study of Japanese religion, as claimed by notable academics.

3) Ketelaar's standing as professor emeritus at the University of Chicago satisfies criterion 6:

1. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.

Particularly, the University of Chicago Center for East Asian Studies (https://ceas.uchicago.edu/directories/compact/professors-emeriti) lists only 9 emeriti faculty, of which Ketelaar is one. The same idiosyncrasy exists on the pages for other departments, like physics (https://physics.uchicago.edu/people/emeriti-faculty/). I take these lists to strongly suggest that, at the University of Chicago, emeriti is not an automatic title bestowed upon retirement, in which case there would be hundreds more emeriti faculty listed. As per Wikipedia's article on this: "In some cases, the term is conferred automatically upon all persons who retire at a given rank, but in others, it remains a mark of distinguished service awarded selectively on retirement." The latter condition seems to be the case here, and "distinguished service" matches the criterion's need for "distinguished professor."

Looking forward to hearing back,

Coroz Coroz12 (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, please ignore point 3. Evidence pointing to the contrary: https://provost.uchicago.edu/handbook/clause/statute-16-emeritus-status#:~:text=A Faculty member who retires,Member Emeritus of the faculty. Coroz12 (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I received an edit conflict, but I will put my original reply here as well: I should clarify that I am not going to accept or deny the article submission myself, so my feedback here is mostly for your benefit if you would like to try to improve the article before it is reviewed. However, I do not believe that criterion 6 is satisfied in this case; it does appear that all or almost all professors who end their careers affiliated with the University of Chicago receive the emeritus title. There are 24 emeritus faculty listed at history.uchicago.edu, along with 49 current or affiliated faculty; the university websites all appear to limit themselves to listing living retired faculty as emeritus faculty. It would run contrary to the objectives of WP:NPROF for us to exclude "typical" faculty when they are working but then to include them when they automatically acquire emeritus status upon retirement.

Following the edit conflict: with that agreement here in mind, criterion 1 is probably the one that would need to be met. Dekimasuよ! 06:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Dekimasu,

I appreciate your feedback and will strengthen the defence for criterion 1!

Best wishes to your day,

Coroz Coroz12 (talk) 06:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Sailor Moon block evader

Hey there, Dekimasu. I suspect the block evader who has been editing the Sailor Moon articles over the past few months (such as Black Moon Clan, Chibiusa, Sailor Pluto, List of Sailor Moon Crystal episodes, etc.) has returned, this time as EleventhBrother26.5 (talk · contribs), 2603:8001:4a00:ca8:154d:5d39:1fe2:fa76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 216.176.47.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Can you please take a look into this? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey, Dekimasu. Please don't listen to Lord Sjones23. Because I EleventhBrother26.5 (talk · contribs) the anti-vandalism and the anti-corruption. Another thing you should know Dekimasu, since Sailor Moon Cosmos part 2 is arriving that I saw on the trailer that the Inner and Outer Sailor Guardians and Tuxedo Mask have become Sailor Galaxia's slave, which means Sjones23 get rid of Sailor Pluto, Saturn, Mercury, Venus, and Jupiter except for Sailor Uranus, Neptune and Mars and Tuxedo Mask. Ever since then I am angry at Sjones23 for what he did. Distasteful! So I want you to block him for 2 months or 2 years so he will never change back. Can you help me with that? Please? EleventhBrother26.5 (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I have re-added both comments and am responding to them now. First, it is clear from behavioral evidence that EleventhBrother26.5 is a new account of an indefinitely blocked editor who has lately been targeting these pages with changes via dynamic IPs. This is a WP:DUCK block. I have made a rangeblock to handle the 2603... abuse. The other IP has only been used once and is not currently active, and has been used by other productive IP editors in the past, so it will remain available unless new abuse appears. I may not always be available to reply quickly to these sorts of problems, but because the behavioral evidence is quite clear, it may be possible to get something like this handled more quickly at WP:ANI than at WP:SPI or my talk page. Of course, I will do the best I can.

To the editor who has been evading an indefinite block: it is clear that you are frustrated by your block, and I believe we share the objective of improving the encyclopedia. However, block evasion is not a route to instituting your preferred versions of articles. In edits made with IPs or using this new account, you have continued the behavior that caused your initial block. In these circumstances, as a community, we have determined that it is preferable to continue with incremental improvements over time that are not created by the editor causing long-term disruption. If you would like to contribute positively to the encyclopedia, take 6 months off without editing as an IP, go to your original talk page, and request an unblock by explaining what behaviors you engaged in, what you plan to do in the future, and why we should think that you will not continue to disrupt the editing process. (See WP:PERSPECTIVES#What the community wants to see.) If you are not interested in doing this, edits made as IPs or with sock accounts in violation of your block will continue to be reverted. Dekimasuよ! 03:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

IPA

I've just stumbled on talk:IPA#Requested move 28 July 2018 where you (very reasonably) closed the discussion with a "consensus to move". But it doesn't seem to have happened? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The request on that talk page was to move the "IPA" disambiguation page to the plain title IPA, so I performed that move, and that's how things still stand now. IPA (disambiguation) continues to redirect to IPA as a way to mark intentional disambiguation links. Which move were you expecting to see that hasn't been done? Best, Dekimasuよ! 00:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I must have been having a bad day. I could have sworn that I got directly to International Phonetic Alphabet by putting "IPA" in the search box but I must have been in a parallel universe, because clearly that is not what happens. My apologies for wasting your time. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

On relisting of WP:RM discussions

In the discussion at Talk:Post-it Note#Requested move 13 August 2023, you said "Please avoid relisting before the discussion's initial week has finished; this can be interpreted as a sort of finger on the scale. Dekimasuよ! 09:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)"

Is that guidance stated somewhere? Isn't a relisting prior to the end of a week the only way to discourage immediate closure when the end of the week arrives? And as far as I can tell, the relisting was only 10 hours before the end of the week; maybe DaxServer needed some sleep or needed to go somewhere offline IRL at the time. I notice that DaxServer had not expressed any opinion in the discussion. I was surprised to see some discouragement of relisting in the WP:RM instructions; I had thought that some years ago it had said anyone could relist – even editors who had been involved in the discussion – but perhaps my memory is faulty.

—⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi BarrelProof, I've seen your message now and I'll reply as soon as I can. Dekimasuよ! 08:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

La República

Hi, Dekimasu! Remember your page move on 19 March? It seems I have to alert you first before I begin the process with this as you did it and you're an admin. It kind of drag me into what I've never been used to here on WP until now; see my talk page. It seems part of the community wants to move foward with this now so as to prevent this from ever happening again. Thanks! Intrisit (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Intrisit: You can just open a requested-move discussion. It doesn't matter in this instance that Dekimasu is an admin, and you didn't have to alert them. It's just that Dekimasu is an editor who reverted moving La República away from that title (and asked for an RM discussion before moving it again). SilverLocust 💬 21:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Sankebetsu brown bear incident

Please, can you help me with these Japanese translations? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.251.38.168 (talk) 06:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Move review for List of spaghetti Westerns

I have asked for a Move review of List of spaghetti Westerns. Because you were involved in the discussion, you might want to participate in the move review. --В²C ☎ 04:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Newly accepted species names

Short version when we move (at least at WP:Plants) we mostly follow Plants of the World Online (POWO) (except for ferns, World Ferns for them), but check with other major sources like World Plants, World Flora Online, USDA, VASCAN, etc. to see if they are the one source that says something different than everyone else.

Longer version example. The discussion at Mahonia came to the conclusion that since both POWO and WFO say synonym of Berberis, even though World Plants says valid and there is a very persuasive paper, we're going with them for now since there is not yet a complete survey of everything that "should" be in Mahonia or the two new genus proposed. We're going to move and then wait and see if everyone changes their mind in five or ten years. Or not. Also most new serious botany books like Flora of Colorado by Ackerfield are using Berberis so this seems to be the way the wind is still blowing in the botanical world.

I changed my position on this one after discussion. I wanted to stick with Mahonia, but I opened the discussion because I was not sure if I was right after seeing NatureServe using Berberis for a species I was working on. Edit to add: I could not avoid the thorny issue. (joke) 🌿MtBotany (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Ip editor

I noticed you reverted a lot of edits from an ip editor just now. Were they long term vandalizing Japanese pages? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

It does not only relate to pages about Japan, but there is an editor who has been using multiple IPs to evade an indefinite block over an extended period, mostly in order to continue altering WP:NOTBROKEN links to preferred forms. There may have been individual edits in the group that were not disruptive, and those can be reinstituted by uninvolved editors if necessary, but the reason for using rollback is to take care of the large-scale block evasion. Dekimasuよ! 13:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Would you be up for helping me out with Japanese book sources

I am working on a draft on the Kobe Watatsumi Shrine, also more intuitively read as Umi Shrine (海神社) but I've been hitting a major brick wall. I can't find english book sources on it. I think this is rather strange for how highly ranked it is.

It is currently the highest ranked shrine in the Modern system of ranked Shinto shrines without an article, being an Imperial shrine, 2nd rank.

I'd like you to search a bit through google books or a similar service for any book sources about the shrine and determine if you think it is notable or not.

My leads are as follows to start

• It is not to be confused with the Tsushima Watatsumi shrine, which dominates English search results due to Ghost of Tsushima
• It is not to be confused with Kaijin Shrine (海神神社) in Nagasaki
• It seems its kanji 海神社 are eccentrically read as Watatsumi Jinja due to Motoori Norinaga. Umi Jinja or Kai Jinja may have been the original readings
• It was supposedly founded by Empress Jingu after she returned from her Korea campaign alongside Ikasuri Shrine and Ikuta Shrine

Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 08:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

メリークリスマス！ (Merry Christmas)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Dekimasu, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 05:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 05:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Merry Christmas. Dekimasuよ! 05:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)