User talk:Nihonjoe/Archive 42

Miyajima, Hiroshima
I think there is a problem with Miyajima, Hiroshima page. I think there needs to be details about the township on this page. The page refers to the "former" town, but the town still exists (ie the buildings). What has happened is the delegation of the town has now joined with another city. Whats up skip (talk) 05:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You may wish to bring this up on the Talk:Miyajima, Hiroshima page (or theWikiProject Japan talk page. If you have sources for information, though, feel free to begin working on it. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Table Hiragana
Thanks for opening the talk and please feel free to voice you opinion as well. I do not seek to destroy other peoples good faith (hard!) work however I found the choices made very "unhelpful" and in literally no way improving.

I myself now the table-style very well - however i don't think that we should only write for people who already "know stuff" we should try to keep it KISS principle.

Btw: I was aware of the 3 edit rule ;) I just don't like people undoing me after I wrote a good explanation (and they don't)...

My regards 79.192.239.160 (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you so into this that you had to do an indefinite protect? I'm not trying to be rude, but while you're at it discussing new ideas for the table, I'd strongly suggest that you revert to the old table which has stood for years. The current table does not show well in any browser and the old one was very satisfactory all the time that I used it.--10:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.141.146 (talk)


 * And I'm not 79.192.239.160 --59.96.141.146 (talk) 11:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Names on the man
Okay, I finally looked up the 穣 in your signature, and chuckled for a minute. But I gotta ask, of all the kanji for じょう (or じょ), why that one? —Quasirandom (talk) 05:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It uses the "prosperity" meaning, and was given to me by the father of Yuki Saito. Never met the singer/actress, but I've met her father a couple times. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Cool. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

re: WP:NOTPLOT
Good morning. You recently made a cogent and articulate comment at WT:NOT on the topic of plot summaries. Would you consider joining the effort at Plot-only description of fictional works?

The goal is to more fully explain all the nuance and detail about dealing with plot summaries without bloating WP:NOT any more than it already is. In that regard, this page is intended to parallel WP:WINAD, a drill-down page which very successfully elaborates on and clarifies WP:NOTDICDEF.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts you might have. Rossami (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I read through it and I think it looks good. I think it does a good job of emphasizing that having plot information is good, but that it shouldn't be the only content of an article (or even the majority in most cases). ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for working on the UAA backlog. Seems like lots of admins must be on vacation. Some of my notes from last night are still there. ありがとうございます    7   talk   02:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. I try to swing by once or twice a day to see how things are. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Kamon Tatsuo
Hey Joe. Thanks for the the Kamon Tatsuo article. I haven't heard that name in a while, but it sure brings back memories. The article does not really mention anything to the fact that his music is known for its humor. I have always considered him to be the "Weird Al" Yankovic of Japan. Unfortunately I do not have any references to contribute, though. As always, thanks for your many contributions. Regards, Bendono (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I just started it and I have a few refs for expanding it. If you can find any possible refs and toss them on the talk page of the article, that would be helpful. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

{{hidden|Nothing to see, move along now...|2=

User:Ronz
If you can have a spare time, would you evaluate the two links from Korean Tourism Organization and Seoul Metropolitan Government? Ronz has accused me of restoring "spam links" to Insadong one of favorite tourist zones in Seoul, but I've used sources from the sites for DYKs, and reviewers confirmed them as "reliable sites". Dekkappai saw his visits to my talk page regardless of my pleas not to visit my talk page, and he lived in South Korea, so he edited to remove the accusation from the article. Ronz violated 3RR today, but he reverted his edit after he seemed to realize that, so I'm not gonna report him to AN3 board. I just need your objective evaluations on the article's status quo. Thanks.--Caspian blue 21:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * , you first accused me of harassment because I gave you a 3RR warning and you indeed harassed me, that why you're ignore the fact? Do not redact others' comment without permission. Since here is not your talk page, do not engage in edit warring. I modified the title because of your disruptive behavior.Caspian blue 23:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Ronz has accused me of restoring 'spam links'" Let's look at the facts:
 * I removed some links that had been spammed by a few editors to numerous articles with the edit summary, "External links: removed spammed links"
 * Caspian blue reverted my edit with the summary, "rv by Ronz (talk) Not spam links. You must carefully check before insisting so."
 * I reverted with the edit summary, "Undid revision 300126897 by Caspian blue (talk) removed promotional liks previously spammed across multiple articles)
 * Caspian blue reverts again with the edit summary "rv by Ronz (talk) Please stop being disruptive and the "external links" provide useful sources, and if you do not like, change WP:EL"

I don't see any such accusations. I see a misunderstanding by Caspian blue, his advise-giving in response, his accusations of disruption, and more advise-giving. All in edit summaries. --Ronz (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm..Sorry, Nihonjoe for being dragged into the dispute. I just needed your objective evaluation on the two sites. However, I might have brought to AN3 board, since Ronz clearly violated 3RR instead of the generosity.
 * 1st revert: 2009-07-08T00:46:09
 * 2nd revert: 2009-07-08T16:00:09
 * 3rd revert: 2009-07-08T20:47:49
 * 4th revert: 2009-07-08T20:59:32


 * Ronz's 13 visit to my talk page
 * My 8 visits to Ronz' talk page You can confirm and see the fact.--Caspian blue 22:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What's more, I explicitly pointed out the misunderstanding and apologized for any confustion caused by my edits. . This apology wasn't taken well. --Ronz (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nihonjoe, all I've wanted you with the thread is just asking you for a favor to confirm the two sites's reliability since you saw Ronz' harassment on my talk page. However, Ronz is even edit warring here and fiddling my comments twice and endless false accusations, so if you're active, I wish just confirming the sources. Again, sorry about your inconvenience.--Caspian blue 23:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Caspian blue
Yep. I would have refactored if given a chance.

Meanwhile, by taking sides in this dispute it has encouraged more statements like those already used to attack me you appear to be encouraging statements such as: (refactored 7/10) --Ronz (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see there's a little Napoleon taking over a certain neighborhood in Seoul
 * I always enjoy seeing a self-important jack-ass make an even bigger fool of himself, and I can use the laugh
 * I know exactly why he is doing that on "Korean articles" due to his conflicts with a non-Korean editor working on Korean and traditional Korean music.
 * removing "notability" tag-- if you don't know Insadong, you're too fucking ignorant to touch this article. Take it to AfD. Note: refusing to source article based on demand from self-important jackass
 * Ronz, you're manipulating your statement as If I made the comments. Except the third comment, all are not mine. Please don't harass me any more.--Caspian blue 21:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm manipulating nothing. The diffs clearly indicate who wrote what. --Ronz (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my poor English but you're clearly misleading as if I wrote all the comments toward you since you're complaining about the comments that I did not say under the title with my name.--Caspian blue 22:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've refactored it, hoping to eliminate any possible confusion. I only hope that Caspian blue will respect similar refactoring on User talk:Nihonjoe --Ronz (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I guess such hope was wasted in this case. Maybe next time. --Ronz (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * headerstyle=background:#ccccff|bodystyle=text-align:center}}

Thank you again
You're right, I should've not brought the matter on your talk page, but gone to RS board instead and discussed with him calmly. I am sorry for causing the trouble on your page, and I apologize for that. I felt cornered and just needed a 3rd opinion on the sites. Admin GTBacchus who knows both of us seemed inactive at that time and you were there. In the meantime, the article of Insadong is now in good shape by Dekkappai and Bendono's nice expansions with many reliable sources other than the two sites. Bendono was also helping in a similar discussion with Ronz at BoA, so he seemed to see another dispute at Insadong. User:MS, the highly established content builder with 5 GAs and 1FL is challenged by Ronz for the interpretation on WP:EL and WP:SPAM that I also can not agree. Perhaps, there also requires your 3 opinion. Anyway, I really appreciate your help. Thanks again.--Caspian blue 05:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, let me know if you need any further help. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

So called "Civility Warnings"
Please explain yourself or apologize for your threat to block me for supposed incivilities here on your talk page that were state were "completely unacceptable". I'm at a loss as to why you've decided to threaten me for supposed incivilities that you deem "completely unacceptable". Could you explain with quotes or diffs as required per WP:NPA? (refactored 7/10)

I came here to discuss the problems after you gave me a warning. Instead of responding to my concerns, you threaten me? You brought yourself into the situation, and did so unilaterally. In my experience, that was a poor choice on your part. Your continued threats are actionable, but I'm here once again hoping you can discuss the situation this time.

When I came here, I said I would have refactored my comments for which you were concerned if I had been given a chance. I then pointed out the incivilities that you appeared to be overlooking. I provided diffs to point out that accusations against me were without merit. I refactored my comments so to appease the other editors.

As I pointed out, you appeared to encourage attacks against me. I was concerned that your taking sides would encourage more attacks on me. As expected, the attacks continued. (refactored 7/10) I think I handled it well and without "completely unacceptable" incivility as you accuse me. --Ronz (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You were engaged in incivility on Caspian blue's talk page; anyone who read what you put there would be able to see that. I asked you to tone things down a bit and instead you came here to my talk page and continued here. You refactored information placed here by Caspian blue (multiple times, I might add, even after Caspian blue requested that you stop changing what he wrote), continued attacking him and his motives, and generally caused a big mess here. You weren't here to discuss anything; all you did was attack Caspian blue. Now, you weren't completely to blame for it as Caspian blue defended himself here and also furthered the arguments in a few ways, but you were still the main instigator. So yes, your behavior here was completely unacceptable, and that's the reason for the warning. All you have to do is stop and there won't be an issue. Not once have I encouraged attacks against you. I also asked Caspian blue to stop bringing your apparent inability to get along here to my talk page, and he agreed. If you have a dispute with someone, my talk page is not the place to hash things out. You need to follow the steps outlined on the various dispute resolution pages. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide diffs or retract your statements per WP:NPA. I came here in response to your comment on my talk page.  I found Caspian blue here on your talk page once again misrepresenting the situation and attacking me.  I provided diffs to clarify the situation.  I started a separate discussion, as I originally intended, to discuss the situation with you.
 * Once again, I'm here to discuss the situation. Please stop accusing me of being here for anything else. --Ronz (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "but you were still the main instigator" I haven't the foggiest what you're referring to.  I've provided diffs above showing when and how he started attacking me.
 * You are aware of course that Caspian blue has been twice blocked for harassment and personal attacks, most recently in April'09. Yet you sided with him and the attacks from him continued. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Examples of not assuming good faith:, ,.
 * Examples of incivility (by harassing Caspian blue after being told not to):, , , , , , , ,.
 * Examples of edit warring to push your own POV:, , , , , , ,.
 * Examples of you using my talk page as a battleground (not to mention accusing me of supporting comments which I have never said I supported):, , , , ,.
 * Examples of refactoring of others' comments (a big no-no):,.
 * I think that more than shows the issues here. You really need to learn how to work better with others or you'll keep running into these problems. You seem to accuse others of battling you or not assuming good faith almost every time someone raises a concern with you or makes a suggestion they think may help you. Reviewing your history here shows these time after time. That said, your efforts at trying to keep spam out of articles is commendable, but as Dekkappai indicates below, you need to keep in mind the overall goal of the site. If someone reverts your edit, instead of immediately reverting theirs, take things to the article talk page and try to determine why they reverted your effort. Conversations via edit summary are rarely helpful, and tend only to inflame the situation.


 * I'm certainly not saying you are the only guilty party in these situations above, but you are also not innocent by any stretch of the imagination. You've been blocked yourself, so pointing out another's missteps when you've made them yourself isn't going to help you any. If you do your part to keep things civil here, then others will follow. Just do your part and worry less about the behavior of others. I strongly suggest taking this advice as well as the advice given by Dekkappai, below. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the response.
 * "Examples of not assuming good faith" I'm sorry that you feel this way.  Howso?  I responded to incivil remarks by citing policy was being violated.  Why is that "not assuming good faith"?
 * "Examples of incivility" Yes, this was incivil, and shouldn't have been made.  As I said, I would have refactored if only given the chance. The rest were honest and civil attempts to resolve the dispute.
 * "Examples of edit warring to push your own POV":
 * On BoA I made a revert, started a discussion, then made another revert. Sorry that you don't like such editing practice, but it's a long way from edit-warring.
 * On Insadong I did make three reverts, then I self-reverted. I think the self-revert says enough now, doesn't it?  Adding new content, in this case tags to identify the information in dispute, is not edit-warring.
 * "not to mention accusing me of supporting comments which I have never said I supported" Again, I'm sorry that what I wrote could be interpreted that way.  I refactored, correct?  My concern was and still is that you took a side, and that the other side continued with the attacks.
 * I stand by my comments about the use of your talk page. I came here to discuss the warning you gave me with you, only to find that I was being attacked here on your talk page.
 * "Examples of refactoring of others' comments (a big no-no)" While you're correct in most cases, this case is an exception.  WP:TPO says, "Because threads are shared by multiple users, the original title becomes communal property. To avoid disputes it is best to discuss changes with the editor who started the thread, if possible, but it is generally acceptable to change section headers when a better header is appropriate."  Given Talk, I have no problem changing section headings when used inappropriately. --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "You seem to accuse others of battling you or not assuming good faith almost every time someone raises a concern with you or makes a suggestion they think may help you." Not at all.  It just depends on how they raise their concerns.
 * "Conversations via edit summary are rarely helpful, and tend only to inflame the situation." I started conversations on the discussion page, right?
 * "You've been blocked yourself" For edit-warring in order to restore comments on a talk page that were being blanked by a couple of sockpuppets who were subsequently blocked.  I saw their blanking as "Reverting obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking" which is exempt from 3RR.  I was wrong in my interpretation of that exemption.
 * "as well as the advice given by Dekkappai, below" Sorry, no.  I don't waste my time trying to find useful tips amidst such incivility.
 * All this said, I am sorry that this happened. I'll continue to work out ways to prevent such problems from occurring, and continue to learn to avoid escalating such disruptions.  --Ronz (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

OK-- I'll just butt in once to say: The "personal attacks" above (most of them) were mine. They were of my own volition, and neither NihonJoe nor nor Caspian "encouraged" me. They were my own bluntly-spoken responses to your own actions, and, as I stated on my talk page, the tone was inappropriate, but I still feel the meaning was accurate-- Indeed you seem to confirm their accuracy more and more. During one of our interactions I made reference to Santayana's definition of fanaticism. I'd really like you to think about this: "redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim". Our aim here at Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia-- a populist encyclopedia of "the sum of human knowledge." This should be the aim of every editor here. We are not here to fight vandals, write a manual of style, build a bureaucracy, fight "spam", delete other people's work, etc. All these things may be necessary at some point, but they should never take the place of, much less interfere with our aim here-- to build an encyclopedia. When you take spam-fighting to the level of removing perfectly good sources, just because you (or some "consensus" of like-minded editors) feel they are used at too many articles, you have forgotten Wikipedia's aim and redoubled your effort. When I've asked you to try to take a constructive hand in some article here, you've taken offense and accused me of "Battling" or "Personal Attacking" or not "Assume Good Faithing"-- or one of those other handy self-made rules so beloved of wiki-cops. Again, I ask this sincerely, just try this: Find a subject area in which you have some interest and try to build up content in that area. Try avoiding Wiki-cop-like activities for a while and work on an article or two. See if your outlook on Wikipedia and your fellow editors doesn't change, and for the better. I've said it before: Researching, writing and building articles here is fun, challenging, and educational. And not only does it make contributing here a pleasure, it should be the aim of every editor here. Dekkappai (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Article help
I'm trying to write up a new article, but I'm not quite sure what one of the references I want to use says. Could you take a look at the third reference here? I know he's talking about the lyrics of the song, but I'm not sure on the specifics.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 03:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm in the middle of a couple RL things, so I recommend asking User:Oda Mari. Sorry I can't help with this right now. Perhaps in the future. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Move request
Quick request. May I have you move Late Old Japanese to Early Middle Japanese? After discussing the issue with an established expert as well as reviewing several other more modern resources, I am slightly updating the nomenclature to match. I'll take care the redirects and updating links. Thanks. Bendono (talk) 10:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That seems to be a significant move. Should this be discussed on the talk page of the article, or perhaps at WT:JA first? ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hardly significant when I personally wrote both articles from scratch. Anyway, references on talk page. Bendono (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Bendono (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

ICSC
I have unblocked so that he can change his name. I have counseled him regarding Conflict of interest and FAQ/Organizations. Fred Talk 01:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. Thanks for taking care of that one. :) ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Bamnera
hi Nihonjoe,

Anyway no need to apologies, Thank you so much for releasing my block. My name is Rasik Dave and I am working in one of the leading Company. I used to spare time for contributing in our Wikipedia. I request you to represent my candidature for Administrator role. I will definitely add value with additional responsibilities.

Regards....Rasik —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamnera (talk • contribs)


 * note: this message was left at Bamnera prefix:User talk:Nihonjoe and was moved here by Kingpin13 (talk)


 * I don't understand your request regarding adminship. Are you asking me to nominate you, or are you planning a run for adminship and simply wish for my support? ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible POV-pushing on Japanese architecture
Hello Nihonjoe, it appears you have alot of experience with Japan-related articles, so I've come to ask for your opinion about an incident. Referring to these edits on Japanese architecture made by User:Cherry Blossom OK, he claims that Japanese architecture comes from "The Three Kingdoms of Korea", while adding a few printed sources. Since he has only added the titles and names of the "books" (some are in Korean) and not publishing detail (such as ISBN numbers, etc), it would be very difficult to verify if these books actually exist. Also, he has been screwing up the WikiSyntax, and completely ruining the grammar of sentences by copypasting in the strangest of places. What do you think should be done? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 12:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Tatsuo Kamon

 * Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

House of Kujō
I need some advice on the articles about present members of the House of Kujō. There is a whole group of these articles, but I can't find any evidence for any of those people (in, admittedly, searches with the Western alphabet, not with the Japanese). Furthermore (and this rang my alarm bells) the source used in e.g. Kyousuke Fujiwara or Sadako Kuroi is a book published before the subjects were even born. The majority of the articles list these persons as if they are royalty (e.g. Fujiwara Manami). It seems strange that I can not find any evidence for any of these people in reliable sources. Can you confirm that a) these are not hoaxes, and b) these people are notable? Thanks! Fram (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The one for Sadako Kuroi uses the kanji for Empress Teimei, which is an unlikely occurrence, IMO. The others don't even have articles on the Japanese Wikipedia, which I find suspect given their alleged standing in the imperial families. You might check with Oda Mari and see if she can help with this. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have asked for her advice. I hope that she can shed some light on this. Fram (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

All twenty-one articles plus one template are now at Articles for deletion/Fujiwara Manami. Fram (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
I thank for your advice.  I wrote my opinion about Baekje in TalkPage. when you have spare time, Please write your opinion. --青鬼よし (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request
Hi Nihonjoe, this user has made an unblock request. In the context of agreeing to a username change, I think an unblock could be possible. What are your thoughts? PhilKnight (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Feel free. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

3RR
Thanks for your concern. I appreciate your effort, even if you are Japanese, I think you try to keep neutral stance in my opinion, so i appreciate it. However, your recent 3rr warning is truly inappropriate.

Edit war
 * The most common measure of edit warring is the three-revert rule, often abbreviated 3RR. Under the three-revert rule, exceeding three reverts on any one page in under 24 hours (with some explicit exceptions) is generally considered edit warring.


 * 1) I did not making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period.
 * 2) I reverted 青鬼よし's own original research.

and please try keep an neutral stance, shall you? I think you need more attention to 青鬼よし's POV pushing. and i want discuss with him. and i can discuss it, and i can point out why his POV pushed edit is wrong. till now, 青鬼よし did not satatement why his edit is right at discussion page. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's why it was only a warning. You have made three edits in this little battle so far, and if you make another you will be breaking the 3RR rule. That's why I gave you the warning: so you would know you're pushing the limits. If you have a problem with the content of the article, discuss it on the talk page and come to a consensus rather than continually reverting it to your preferred version. This is a collaborative encyclopedia, so please collaborate instead of pushing your own views. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * and please try keep an neutral stance, shall you? why you did not give 3rr warning to 青鬼よし? you have double standard? I think you try to incline 青鬼よし's vadalism edits. I think you need more attention to 青鬼よし's POV pushing. and i want discuss with him. and i can discuss it, and i can point out why his POV pushed edit is wrong. till now, 青鬼よし did not satatement why his edit is right at discussion page. and I'm neither a POV pusher nor vandalism editor. I just found how 青鬼よし's edits are "absurd" and serious POV pushing. if you check every 青鬼よし's edits, you can realize that he omiited every single 'Korea influence to Japan' in every articles.(very intentional POV pusher) I'm not a nationalist. We are the world. please keep neutral stance until solve dispute. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * and I appreciate your neutral stance till now. anyway, thanks. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) Cool it with the accusations, please. If you look at the history of the article, 青鬼よし has made two edits in the last 24 hours. Therefore, he is not pushing the limits yet. If he does, I'll be happy to warn him, but until then, he's not breaking the letter of the law. If you want to discuss what is wrong with the information 青鬼よし is wanting in the article, discuss it on the talk page of that article instead of constantly reverting. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks to your inform. However, You intentinally ignores fact that I did not violate 3 rule under 24 hour. anyway, thanks. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't ignore anything. If you read my message above, you'll note that I gave you a warning that you were about to violate 3RR if you continued with your reverting. I never once said you actually did violate 3RR. Please don't put words in my mouth. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I apready point out why his edits are wrong, for exmaple, He intentinally made fabricated translation. There is no credible source backing up his own original research. you must attention his POV pushing, too.Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Then discuss it on the talk page. If the translation was fabricated, then it's likely to be found out as there are quite a number of people here who can translate from Japanese to English. If you need more of them to look at something, post a polite request at WT:JA and I'm sure someone will come along and assist you. However, until you can prove it (and even afterward), you need to remain polite about things and not simply engage in a revert war. That's the only point I'm making here. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * it is not japanese source. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sairuki Mourino
Hi NihonJoe, The article Sairuki Mourino, which you deleted on July 5 (thanks - I had proposed deletion), has been created again, with all-new contents, apparently nonsense. Fg2 (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Slain, along with the prom picture used in it. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Fg2 (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Retrieving Supply Chain Compliance Article
Hello Nihonjoe! Recently a Supply Chain Compliance Article was deleted. I'd like to request to get that article back.

Thanks! Jmiles1107 (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but that can't be restored as it was a blatant copyright violation. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Integration Point, Inc
I would suggest you taking a look at the Management Dynamics page. That article references their products and services and has not been flagged for advertising. The Integration Point article is not bias nor an advertisement since there is no mention of any products or services. The article simply talks about managing global trade and how that can be done with any system from any company. I am not an employee, but simply an interested party. The people referenced in the article are reputable amongst US Customs and Border Protection and other US government agencies and are often used as resources when there are questions of global regulatory changes. The materials written by those referenced in the Integration Point article have been published by several publications, which makes them "secondary sources" - what Wiki requires for an article to meet credibility. Wikipedia is a tool where people learn and educate themselves. International Trade is growing and it is important that there are company pages on Wikipedia to support the growth and educate those people who are importing and exporting around the world. Jmiles1107 (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you have a conflict of interest here as you appear to be an employee of Integration Point. Anyone with even minor searching skills can determine that quite easily. As an employee of the company, you should not be editing the articles like you have since it gives undue weight to your company in all or most of the articles you have been editing. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am a student trying to get into medical school. You may want to increase your "minor searching skills". Every person that writes an article on Wikipedia has some type of interest in the subject, if they didn't - you would not be an administrator for Wikipedia. I could understand the bias if these were my thoughts that I am writing, but I have performed my due diligence in researching facts and the processes of automation that benefit importers and exporters when managing their supply chain. The sources I have cited are credible. Im unsure exactly how other "company articles" are able to stay on Wikipedia when they are blatantly advertising their products and I have not mentioned any of Integration Point's products. What can be done to improve the article? Jmiles1107 (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You need to include references which don't have a direct connection to Integration Point. All (but one, I believe) of the articles used as references in the article are either written by an employee of Integration point, barely mention IP in passing, or are basically press releases disguised as an article. These issues make the references fail the guidelines at WP:RS. The sources needed to establish notability need to be third-party and unrelated to the subject of the article. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of sock templates
If you're going to remove templates on pages because they allegedly don't belong there, please replace them with one that should be there. Thanks. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't place the block, so I didn't add that template on autopilot. Sorry! As it happens, it's a bad thing to have the other template on the talk page since it causes the user to show up twice on the list of banned users, etc. Thanks, ⟳ ausa کui × 02:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a bad thing, and it hurts nothing since they are listed right next to each other. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request outstanding
Apologies for the nudge, but I've had a note from Enigmaman about this, which is still outstanding. As you're the reviewing admin, if you have the time are you able to take a final look and close things up? There have been no further responses from the editor. Thanks! EyeSerene talk 08:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That was fast; thank you. EyeSerene talk 08:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Page protection is requested
Hello Nihonjoe. Cherry Blossom OK destroyed my page. And, he suddenly participated in the article Kofun period in which I participated, and rewound the article the day before when I participated. (He rewound the article until March 15, 2009.) As a result, information accumulated for Five months is being thrown away by Cherry Blossom OK. (The explanation of "Aristocratic system of ancient Japan" and "Famous aristocrats" was thrown away by him.). Please return the article to the state of "302226007" (14:13, 15 July 2009 ), and protect it. --青鬼よし (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, Nihonjoe, sorry to bother you. This is content dispute issue.
 * An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sock...
 * I never destroyed constructive edits. I only found青鬼よし is a heavy POV pusher. I already point out why his edits are biased POV pushing "at each discussion pages". Cleary He is not a constructive editor. I think he have numerous sock accounts, too.
 * Here is the reason that why I guess he using sock accounts.
 * 219.101.251.98 user is "EXACTLY" similar edit with him, same article, and use same sentence. When I modified article, This IP user :219.101.251.98 suddenly appeared and revert exactly same edits at exactly same articles. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree page protection, but it is not keep as 青鬼よし's edit version. if article should be protected, please return the article to before the 青鬼よし's edits. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a content dispute, and both of you are pushing your own POV here. Both of you are pointing at the other and stating that the problem is the other one, not you. What you need to do is discuss the issue politely on the talk page of whichever article (since I've seen you doing this on more than one) and come to a consensus on what should be included in the article. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Finally, May I participate in this article?　Even if I add information on the Kofun Period of Japan, he will not stop the work rewound to the log five months. --青鬼よし (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

usernames
Hi, you say yet they refuse to accept that their username is misleading. I had actually said, in the text that you were responding to I'm pretty sure (after my recent experience) that consensus will be that blocking usernames that are IP addresses is correct. - that's pretty clear that I accept that consensus is against me. I'll try to be clear about what I want - admins block usernames (have done for ages, will continue to do so) that resemble IP addresses. I do not want to change that. I do want to change the text on the policy page, so that it says that admins will block usernames that resemble IP addresses. I hope this helps. Hurr87.113.86.207durr (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's all you wanted, you could have simply asked that it be clarified rather than raising a royal stinking pointy mess about it. Your block was perfectly acceptable as a block of a misleading username (especially as it had "(talk)" as part of the username). Your new username is fine as, while a bit strange, is not going to be confused as an IP address. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Show me this "royal stinking pointy mess", because I don't see it. I have found 87.* to be quite civil so far, and I see nothing unreasonable in his contributions to policy discussions. I fear that your impressions of his editing are colored by your foregone conclusion that he is acting in bad faith. rspεεr (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said he was acting in bad faith, so please don't attribute something to me which is completely false. 87.* has raised the issue on at least 3-4 different pages (despite being told where to raise it more than once). That's being pointy and disruptive. And I didn't say any of his actual contributions to policy discussions were unreasonable (since he registered an acceptable username he's done pretty well, actually). I'm already participating in the discussion of your proposed revision to the WP:U policy, so there's no need to further discuss anything here. Thanks for your comments, though. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Your block of 87.*
I know you believe you were doing the right thing by blocking User:87.113.86.207 (talk) because his username looked like his IP, but a polite request that he change his username would have done the same thing without biting a newbie. There is a discussion going on at WT:UAA about this. rspεεr (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He's not a newbie, as evidenced by how detailed his knowledge is of various policies and such. We're dealing with someone who should have known better and who refuses to accept that the username they chose was purposefully misleading. The block was perfectly acceptable under WP:U as a misleading username block (especially with "(talk)" being part of the username). ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:U says why the username is a problem. I agree that it is misleading. But WP:U provides multiple ways to resolve username problems, only one of which is blocking. Your hands were not tied; you could have considered the lack of severity of the situation and chosen an approach that was less harsh and punitive. Given that he was on the receiving end of a block for doing what he thought was the right thing, I think that 87.* has a reason to be upset.
 * Also, the user is a newbie by any reasonable definition of newbie, if you look at his contributions. He's been here for about 4 days, and while he's trying to get a feel for policy, his posts are full of "SORRY IF THIS IS IN THE WRONG PLACE" and such. Newbies are not forbidden from discussing policy, and don't forfeit their right to not be bitten in doing so. Regardless of your definition of "newbie", you should stop being so belligerent toward him. rspεεr (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not being belligerent toward him but rather toward his actions. He was blocked for a legitimate reason, he disagreed with that, and was told he could discuss the policy (but not as part of his unblock request) if he thought it should be changed. He's now doing that, but also continuing to whine about being blocked. This is the way it's been done for a long time now (as long as I can remember), and instructions for getting a different username were given to him very early in the process (and referred to at least once or twice after that). Instead of following the directions, he instead chose to complain. Multiple admins looked at his situation and agreed that the block was legitimate. I'm fine if the policy is changed to be more specific, but I do not agree that it was wrong for the account to be blocked. Based on this whole mess, I can see where the policy may be unclear, with one section stating one thing, and another stating something apparently contrary to the previous section. Rather than continuing here, perhaps it would be more beneficial to take the discussion to the policy talk page and discuss how to reword the policy to be more clear and less contradictory. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You have certainly painted an unflattering picture of 87.*; I just don't think it's accurate. I think you are searching for justifications, like that last bit about "he wasn't really a newbie". Yes, you understand Wikipedia norms better than him. You understand things like when the "get a new username" instruction trumps the instructions about unblock requests. This is to be expected, given that you are an administrator, and he has been here for four days.
 * And you don't even need to keep searching for justifications. Your block was, after all, defensible. Blocking was an option that was available to you, you chose it, and there was no reason to overturn it. But that doesn't mean it was necessarily a good choice. My hope, in addressing you directly, is that in future situations like this, you look for other options such as warnings, reserving blocks for the cases where they are necessary to improve Wikipedia.
 * The policy discussion you ask for is going on at WT:UAA. I do hope it leads to us clarifying the username policy, because something that you, I, and 87 all agree on is that it's a mess. rspεεr (talk) 03:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)