User talk:Yamamoto Ichiro/Archives/8

Your recent block
Please reconsider your block because the editor only give the anon a level 4 warning an another editor gave him a level 2 please reconsider,Regards- Arnon Chaffin  ( Talk ) 21:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Which block are you talking about? Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 21:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * User talk:68.55.69.186 This 1,Thank you- Arnon Chaffin  ( Talk ) 21:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That user has been previously blocked, and he received a level 4 warning within the 24 hour range, that's why it was blocked. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 21:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Plus you gave him to same block time(31 hours) should it be longer? Sorry about that anyway.

Arnon Chaffin ( Talk ) 21:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we'll see if he will stop being disruptive in the future. I will usually give longer blocks if the user has been blocked more than 2 - 3 times before. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 21:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for devandalizing my user page. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations
Congratulations for your RC patrolling, you have been very fast and have beaten me on several reverts. Wikipedia needs more editors like you who fight vandals and block them. Canjth 22:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

MEXICO
I WANT TO DISCUSS ABOUT MEXICO. LEAVE THE PICTURE I ADDED ABOUT MEXICAN ECOMOMY. SANTA FE SHOWS AN IMPORTANT FINANCIAL DISTRICT OF MEXICO CITY, THE EIGHT GDP INCOME OF THE WORLD. LETS NEGOCIATE THE PICTURES IN THE GALLERY. AT LEAST LEAVE THE NATURE PICTURES, AND JUST LEAVE 10. CAN I TRUST YOU TO NOT ERASE THESE PICTURES. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chokolate (talk • contribs).
 * I couldn't care less about the picutures, however, I am concerned about this edit. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 22:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:68.192.56.88
Could you please semi-protect User talk:68.192.56.88? This user keeps vandalizing his/her talk page. NHRHS2010 Talk  22:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 22:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism revert
You recently reverted IP vandalism to Hashi, in which case User:201.21.211.105 replaced the page with "Nobody want to know about this." However, I think your comment on his talk page was a bit counter-productive, as it probably would've been better to educate him on the deletion process, rather than post a cookie-cutter warning template. If you look at the page he vandalized, you'll see that it really is full of useless information (and I've nominated it for deletion). Best, CA387 02:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually your right. There is actually a more suitable template for this, such as . However, since most recent change patrollers have to make split second decisions, it's hard for someone to always place the correct template 100% of the time and we are bound to make some mistakes in one way or another. Anyhow, I changed it to a more suitable warning. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I wasn't even aware of that template myself. Well, I guess you learn something new every day. :) --CA387 03:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

-- : (
Your SO mean. u deleted my article.

It's not like anyone will read it..

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 10014derek (talk • contribs).

Fred Thompson
I was reverting that page to a much earlier version at the same time you were protecting it. Make sure I didn't blow away anything you were doing. - Crockspot 05:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't, the page protection was to protect the article from vandalism only. I don't have time to look into the edits in detail, I guess I'll leave it up to you. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 05:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Political_positions_of_Fred_Thompson
Original sources are avaliable to back up the claims that were in dispute. The vandalism that took place was actually a dispute between two users over the validity of those claims. One kept adding the info and the other kept subtracting it. I request that the page be unprotected so that I can add the sources to settle the matter. Otherwise we will see a repeat of the dispute once the lock expires.--BarryGoldwater 19:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikibreak?
How are you on wikibreak when you just added a warning message to an IP talk page? Ashura96 21:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm kind of on a wikibreak, I'm not as active as when I am not on a wikibreak. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 21:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually now that you mentioned it, I have something in real life I need to get done, thanks for the reminder. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 21:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I see, just like the wikibreak I took for over a year without ever hearing of the term wikibreak back then. Ashura96 21:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Block please
User:Posttraumatic only leaves comments on talk pages, no interest in helping the encyclopedia, only an interest in my dog and that image on my talk. Thanks :), -- S WE ET CA RM EN ♥  20:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes
I see I'm not the only one doing recent changes patrol today. Any suggestions for those of us who are a little newer at this?

Rockerbaby 20:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest using WP:VF, and rollback scripts such as WP:TWINKLE. You could also copy my User:Yamamoto Ichiro/monobook.js if you want, it has some useful scripts for vandal warning and revert scripts. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 20:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Untitled
I noticed that you leave warnings to many IP-address users, but the orange "new messages" bar does not appear for IP addresses, so it is pointless to leave messages for them. It seems HagermanBot is not working so well, either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.108.64.200 (talk • contribs).
 * Unforunately, there is nothing I can do to fix the orange "new messages" bug. But, since it does work sometimes, it's better to leave a message than not to leave one at all. About the HagermanBot thing, you have to talk to the bot owner about it, who is Hagerman. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 22:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

67.124...
Forget WP:AIV. He's not stopping, so give him a block now. Yechiel Man 05:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't remember I seen that ip prefix, is that a range you referring to? Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 05:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

84.9.147.3
Holy crap, this person was setout to get me! Thanks for reverting my userpage! That IP is from London?! I am going to investigate on who that might be. Edit: Oh yeah, he acutally edited his own talk page after the block! Ashura96 16:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked users could still edit their own talk page, in case if someone needs to contest an inappropriate block or a block which causes a collateral damage. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 18:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well he changed his the number of hours blocked on the messsage from 31 to 5000 (O_o), but I went ahead and changed it back to be appropriate. Ashura96 18:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

William J. Clinton Presidential Center and Park
Hi, I didn't see you had reverted when I clicked the button. Kevin 03:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Coop
hey why'd you revert my edits to Coop's page? i was trying to give the article a more real world feel by adding stuff from interviews. I know i'd only done a little bit but i wasn't finished yet. i don't mind you deleting my stuff as long you give a reason why. 86.142.62.17 05:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That was a mistake revert, sorry. I probably got it mixed up with another vandal edit. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 05:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * um.. what's going on? my talk page went all screwy and now it says i have new messages when i don't.  ???  86.142.62.17 06:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's probably a glitch with the messaging system, oh well. It's been known for a while now. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 06:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you're really fast
Hi, I'm kinda new to this...ummm...protecting wikipedia thing...yeah so I guess you've been at it for a while so I just wanted to say good job. Peace. Spartan-James 18:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism
Hello there. I just noticed that on May 18, you reverted the edits of a vandal at my user page. I never even knew that my page had been vandalized until I recently checked my user page history. Many thanks. Best regards, Cliff smith 16:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You Rock
Thanks for handling this. You are awesome. DangerousNerd talk  01:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Unkind "Reverting" of legitimate edit, please explain.
Unkind "Reverting" of legitimate edit, please explain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.250.218.49 (talk • contribs).
 * Deletion of text without an explaination, I might agree with your deletion if I had the time to read the text, but please at least provide A reason, even if it's just simple as, "not neutral". Also, comments about the edit does NOT go on the article, use the edit summary box, it's there for a reason. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 01:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

vandal
Hi, user 203.49.225.187 has been vandalizing again. He was previously blocked on May 11 for one month, but that blocked expired. I do recent changes patrol, and came across this vandalism and removed it, but since I'm not an admin was wondering if you could block him.  BH  (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 02:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick action, you do a good job fighting of vandalism.  BH  (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 04:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

thank you!
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage! I was completely unaware that anyone had touched it until after I saw anonymous IP addresses in the page history. Rackabello 23:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Editing of "Shark"
Unfortunately, I have not made any such editing. Please advise me how my IP address was linked to the page edit.

Sincerely, Henry Kyemba (Currently dynamic IP is 72.146.22.163)
 * Since your IP could change again, I'm going to reply here. If you are only reading Wikipedia, just ignore the message totally, since it won't affect you at all. If you are planning to edit, I strongly encourage you to register an account, see Why create an account?, since registering your account will avoid confusion with other users on the same IP. If you want the diff for the edit made on the IP, it is here, the edit itself is quite old actually. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 15:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP reverting t he edits to my IPs talk page! 68.198.48.71 16:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

about the block and protect of talkpage for IP 67.83.28.41
why did you protect and block this user? I see that there last block just expired and now they are blocked for a much longer period of time? this does not make sence.--Bruttafemmina 17:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a returning vandal, he vandalised right after the block expired. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 17:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

how did he vandalise?--Bruttafemmina 17:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * judging from your contribution history, I think you know what vandalism is. Just look at the contribution history of that user. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 17:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

yes there is some vandalism which this account had made, but now this account is not vandalising. I see that IP's edit history but it makes me wonder why you did not give them a warning notice. Atleast you should have done that and why did you protect their page? Everyone is entitled to having an unblock on their page. Also, the edit to French Cuisine does not deserve a Six Month expiry time.--Bruttafemmina 17:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * his history of previous blocks justifies for a longer block. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 17:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

i disagree. the whole point of giving an expiry time is to allow for a fresh start, or some sort of new start. One vandalism edit does not count for six month block without warning. I think you should give this IP the right to atleast make an account. atleast let the IP have the right to create new accounts. --Bruttafemmina 17:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Use of English by Japanese
I figured you might be able to help me with this. I notice that in all Japanese media that the words used for an upcoming product say "Now Printing" instead of "Coming Soon"

I get what they mean by that, but Coming Soon doesn't always mean the product is in the process of being printed/manufactured or whatever.

So basically, what is the history behind it, and would the use of "Now Printing" be considiered Engrish? Ashura96 17:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about this topic myself, but I'm might have an idea, the word to print is translated from 印刷 insatsu, and the word itself also means publication in press. 印刷中 insatsuchuu, has the meaning "be at the press". Maybe they got it off from translating that word to print? This is only a guess, I don't know this too well. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 18:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting, that bit of info helps too. Ashura96 18:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hi. I seen you've been leaving edit summaries of "blocked user!" when leaving a block notice. I think it's inappropriate to have the exclamation point. You're supposed to be telling the user he's blocked, not rubbing it in his face with the !. -- (Review Me) R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 18:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I see, it's the default edit summary from a script that I obtained long time ago before I was an admin. I guess I'll change it. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 18:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I changed my script, next time the summary should read "Blocked". Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 18:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk page protection
Can you please protect User talk:82.2.163.131? He is abusing it after being blocked. Momusufan 23:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing unblock
Hey, just saw this edit and wanted to let you know that typically it's a good idea to let a second admin review unblock requests, even when they're silly. No big deal really, but there's no reason to risk getting yourself accused of anything. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the caution. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 02:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I saw you created uw-aiv2. Just so you know, I've renamed it to uw-notaiv for the reason listed at the last section here. Also, it's usually good to suggest the templates to gain consensus before creating them. This can be done at either WP:UW or WP:UTM. -- (Review Me) R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I used aiv2 because I couldn't come up with a better name for the template. I agree with the renaming. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 02:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

bad behavior possible here
I am sure you know that Obama (Fukui) is a city that is much older than Mr. Barack Obama. Mr. Obama is also not well known outside the USA. You may not know that the Obama (Fukui) article is about 1 year older than the Mr. Obama article.

If you look up Clinton, you see the disambiguation page, not the Mr. Clinton or Mrs. Clinton article. There are several small towns named Clinton, but all are much smaller than Obama. Yet, Clinton has a disambiguation page and the Obama page is redirected to Mr. Obama. This is wrong.

Can you lock the Obama page so that people will not change it to redirect to Mr. Obama.SRMach5B 03:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Page protection is used as a method to cool down edit disputes, it is not a measure used to prevent other users to edit the page to enforce a point of view. I think you need to use the proper dispute resolution, use the talk page or talk to the user whom you are in dispute with, please see WP:DISPUTE. If you really think the page needs page protection, place a request on WP:RFPP. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that I did not know all about locking a page. What do you think about the Obama page being a disambiguation. This way it does not favor Mr. Obama or the city, just like the Clinton page?SRMach5B 03:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, please try to use proper terminology, it's "page protection" not "locking a page", just to avoid confusion in the future in case if you talk to another newbie. About the disambig issue, I do not have an opinion or stance on it because I rarely edit articles myself, as I mostly administrate, so I can't really help you much there. I would strongly suggest you start a discussion regarding this on the article talk page, or ask at New contributors' help page for assistance. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandal report
Thanks for your message on my talk page re: my AIV report. What exactly constitutes "recent vandalism" or an "active vandal?" The editor I reported vandalized four hours ago, and I was offline when it happened (I've been following his/her vandalism because it's an article I've watchlisted). The user has vandalized the same article repeatedly and already been warned three times. How soon after vandalism must a user be reported? 15 minutes? An hour? It seems rather arbitrary to say that 4 hours is too long, and 20 minutes is not. It's almost as though if someone did not catch the vandal right then and report them for it, then it essentially did not happen and they cannot get in trouble for it. If this person vandalizes again and I miss it and no one else reports it then they'll be in the clear. Seems odd to me. I'm no stranger to rv'ing vandals and to AIV reports, but if you could clarify the policy on "active vandals" I would appreciate it. You can reply here or on my talk page. Thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What I meant by active, to my standards, has at the most vandalised within the last 10 minutes. Blocks are meant to prevent disprution to Wikipedia. The vandal you reported is inactive, and blocking the vandal serves no purpose. Remember, blocks are NOT punishments, it is used to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand what blocks are for (i.e. they are not punitive), but that way of dealing with vandals seems completely bizarre and unhelpful to me (it suggests that if the vandal only disrupts Wikipedia sporadically and does not get caught right away, then it's not disruptive enough to warrant a block). Ten minutes?  You might only revert a vandal edit 8 minutes after it happened and by the time you're done checking their vandalism history and filling out the AIV report we could not block the person if they happened to go offline and stopped vandalizing at that moment.  You're saying they could come back online one hour later and do it all over again ad infinitum so long as they were not reported in that 10 minute window?  I've never heard of that before, and such a policy would not help prevent disruption to WP which is, as you say, the whole point of a block.


 * The vandal I reported vandalized four times on June 16th, and before that many times on June 1st. You say they are "inactive" but by that same token I was "inactive" for the last few hours until I got back online.  I really don't think this is a very rational approach, and I'm wondering if this is your interpretation of it (i.e. 10 minutes) or an official policy all admins follow.  In the meantime I guess I'll just have to hope I'm not offline the next time this person vandalizes (yet again) after their last warning.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 04:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The 10 minute thing is just a rule I use for myself, and of course, it's just a number, usually I just apply common sense. The vandal is not causing any immediate damage as of now, so there is no reason to block him for that right now. However, if the user continues on this trend, then I would consider a block, but so far the user made 1 edit after he received his last warning, and there has been no edit since then. Block serves no purpose because we do not know if the vandal will vandalise again or not, in this case it's very questionable. If there is a solid proof that the user is a persistant vandal, and when it comes unquestionable that there has been previous records of vandalism and the user is not stopping, then it would be approperiate to block without giving a warning. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Had I reported him right after his last vandal edit (which was after his last warning) would you have blocked him? Sorry for beating a dead horse but I'm really trying to understand this.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 04:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Assume if you actually reported him "on time", then yes it will probably get blocked. However, there is another factor which plays in if we make this assumption. If you have caught him eailier, and he was online at the time, he would of caught that his edit has been reverted. If he did not continue after the revert, he "may" be blocked, but if this is the case, the block itself really has no other meaning than enforcing a period for the vandal to cool down. If he goes on and continues to vandalise dispite you reverted his vandalism, then he "passes" the line which a block to prevent disruption would be needed. In either case the vandal is blocked. However, in this case, we do not know if the vandal will stop or continue, that's why I did not block. But as I said, if the vandal later on starts to show clear evidence of not stopping, then that is when I will block. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that does explain it better, though I'm still not sure I agree with this way of looking at. But no matter, I'll leave it there, except to add a thank your for all your work dealing with vandals.  Best.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 04:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Substitution of templates
Thanks for the note. I normally work with articles on townships in Ohio, instead of patrolling recentchanges, so I don't normally need to use these templates :-) I've never quite understood what — if anything — I was supposed to do with subst-ing, so thanks for your help!  Nyttend 05:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

UW template edits
I generally like the recent changes you made to the uw templates. The only one I didn't like was your addition to uw-v3. If the uw-vandalism templates are used in a full series, the references to constructive/unconstructive edits seems too repetitive. I toyed with changing the wording to "disruptive", but I decided we may not want to give vandals the idea they can disrupt Wikipedia. Plus, I kinda like the simplicity and directness of the previous version. Feel free to tweak or undo if you disagree.

Also, since you seem to be boldly copyediting the templates, I'm curious as to your thoughts on the wording ofuw-v1. I personally find the wording a bit awkward, and previously made a proposal to change it. The wording is a bit better since then, but I still don't completely like it.-- Kubigula (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I do kinda agree that my edits to uw-v3 is unnecessary as well, since I was sort of thinking about reverting that myself, I'm going to leave it as is for now. uw-v1 is probably okay as it is, although maybe we could use a better wording there if anyone could come up with a better idea. I don't know if I will be able to come up with a better wording for that template, but If I do, I'll see what I can do. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 06:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. And as long as I'm here, thank you for seeming to always be around to block problem vandals whenever I report them. Your work is greatly appreciated. Trusilver 06:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice work!
I must say, you've been very quick with the vandals! I've been trying to revert some, but you often beat me to it! Good work!

ChrischTalk 14:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism box`
I think you should possibly consider removing that vandalism box from your page and seeing if it reduces the level of vandalism to your user page. I think it might. --Deskana (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope the fact that your userpage was vandalised five minutes after you removed it didn't put you off me :-p --Deskana (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, one thing for sure, vandalising a vandal reverter's userpage while he/she is online is a good way of asking "can you block me?" Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 15:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * True, I've just always felt that vandal boxes just encourage vandalism, the same as the "this userpage has been vandalised x times" templates. I've seen people vandalise those templates, which kind of proves my point. It's not a big deal, though. --Deskana (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

My User Page
Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my user page, I see he/she has done the same to yours. John Hayes 15:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Maurice27
This user is requesting unblocking. Since you only left a template message, and there doesn't seem to be discussion with the user, could you fill him in on why he was blocked? Mango juice talk 17:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Free Vandalism Space?
You got rid of it? Maybe it was too inviting... 阿修羅96 18:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you notcie?
is a sockpuppet of ? Because I look on your User page and say that say he is 05hepburn. So I going to place sockpuppet on, Just a Notice. Arnon Chaffin ( Talk ) 19:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Helps if it is blocked first (which I just did that). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Your reverts to my User page
I just noticed it, and I wanted to say thank you very much for reverting the vandalism! Sorry I didn't say it sooner! Hanoi Girl → Please sign! 23:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

ALF (programming language)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of ALF (programming language). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. John Vandenberg 06:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You have incorrectly closed that DRV without allowing people to actually discuss it. Please re-open the discussion. As it stands it leaves those of us who still find the subject non-notable outside its tiny niche of linked authors (eg. the google scholars list contains nearly 90% papers/books by its creator, and the rest simply mention it as an example of that type of programming language - which isn't establishing notability). Please allow the DRV to run its full length.-Localzuk(talk) 17:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not the one who closed the DRV debate, nor I have objections with reopening the DRV. I simply interpreted the afd consensus differently reading the afd debate over again. However, I will reopen the DRV debate. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 18:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Punjabi Muslim tribes from Hindu Lineage
What are the specific reasons that made you arrive at the deletion verdict .I couldent find a summary of the reasons ?? Intothefire 07:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The consensus of the discussion was simply to delete, plain and simple. However, since the consensus was a bit weak, and your arguments for keep is valid, I am willing to extend this discussion for another week, do you want me to extend it? Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 16:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object to reopening the afd debate. How can you say the consensus was weak? Their was no weak delete, like their was a weak keep, and most users agreed it was OR, and an unencyclopedic article. also how can you say intothefire's arguments are valid, when most of them were attacking me. For example "However it may be worth the while of editors here also doing a careful cheque of IP198 s earlier edit contributions on wikipedia articles to ascertain if the spirit of wikipedia is not being undermined ,nay threatened by misuse of rules.", and "but you may like to also assess the depth page level simillarly of references provided on articles by those suggesting Delete here". Additionally he accussed me of harassment on the articles talk pg. please do not reopen this. Dilawar (t) 17:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit unsure wether most of his comments were attacking you, he did make arguments about why this article should be kept. I'm not saying that there are some comments which don't relate to the deletion at all, and I do agree with you that those comments have nothing to do with the deletion itself, or it should be even on there. The consensus for deletion is there, just not a very obvious one. I was hoping that if we reopen this debate, we could gain a stronger consensus for deletion, or allow more people to comment against its deletion. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 18:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Fred_Thompson
There is an edit war going on at Fred_Thompson. I have added some information sourced to a major newspaper but Thompson's supporters seem determined to keep it out. I don't know what's the right course of action usually taken under these circumstances but a page lock with the information in might be a good idea. --JGoldwater 18:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You could at least leave me a few scraps! :-)

 * Thanks, I just happen to be able to view all the reports when I went online, plus I utilise tabs and scripts to block vandals faster, because the blocking speed for RC patroller admins are important, **points at vandalbots**. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 22:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, what scripts/tabs are you currently using? Hús  ö  nd  23:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm using a script which I obtained a while ago before I was even an admin. I kind of modified it so when I click on the block tab, it automatically fills in the "block period" and the reason with "vandalism". All I have to do is click "block" and then I'm done. At the same time, I have the vandal's talk page on another browser tab, which I just place the block template, which is also pre-filled by my tab script. It is pretty essential if you do RC patrolling, since RC moves pretty fast and you want to catch many vandalism as possible. There is only one that matters for RC patroller weather your an admin or not, SPEED. Minimizing the time needed to fill out forms, placing templates, etc. all contribs to good RC patrolling. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 23:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Btw, you are welcome to check my monobook.js if you wish, it's pretty messey and old, but it works for me. I don't know what your daily admin tasks are, so not sure if it's really suitable for you. But it works for me because I RC patrol often. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 23:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I used to fight a lot more vandalism than I do nowadays, mainly due to lower speed. In the times of Vandalproof 2, I could revert and block at the speed of light, but since VP2 is no longer functional I have to resort to other (much) slower stone-age scripts. I might have a look at your monobook later. Might prove useful indeed. Keep up the good work! Best regards, Hús  ö  nd  23:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way Ichiro, are you really Japanese or is it just your nick? Hús  ö  nd  23:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't live in Japan right now, I'm considered as a nikkeijin. Although I havn't really written articles or edited anything about Japan because I don't have a huge interest on it. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 23:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. But do you speak Japanese? If so, could you please have a look at this image? I was thinking of using it on my user-blocked templates. Do you find those kanji adequate? Regards, Hús  ö  nd  23:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess for the context of the template it would work. Although on the Japanese Wikipedia, blocks are usually refered as ブロック burokku. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 23:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll go for the kanji then, they look so much better than the katakana-written neologism. Thanks! Regards, Hús  ö  nd  00:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

List of passwords used in fiction deletion
Hello...I'm not here to argue the deletion at all. I don't really agree that the reasons for deletion that people listed were entirely valid, but that's debatable (and it was debated). I was just wondering though, what swung the decision the way it went, just so I am clear on any future pages I create. Best regards, Kickstart70 - T - C 03:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, while I can't help you much about why the page was deleted in a great detail, as I only interpret the consensus and act on it. But I can see the points the people who wanted the pages deleted trying to make. Basically, in layman's terms, argument for deletion is basically "the artcle is useless as an encyclopedia article, WP:NOT.". I do find all the deletion votes valid myself, and it does make sense. Although a lot of votes were WP:NOT, the article fits perfectly with the description. If you don't want your articles to be deleted in the future, simply use common sense and ask yourself, "is anyone going to look this up on an encyclopedia?" before creating the article. By common sense, I think anyone would agree that no way in hell someone is going to look this up. Sorry if I didn't answer your question very well, I'm not specialized in deletion. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)