User talk:Nihonjoe/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74

hentai page

File:1000000eme.jpg

Yet another sysop rolls off the conveyor belt, thanks you for your help, and excuses himself for a few days while he practices his new abilities. Back in action soon! -- Hoary 10:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC) PS 自分が変体と思わないけどこのタイトルならなんとなく楽しい…
No problem. I expect great things from you. (^_^) --日本穣 Nihonjoe 16:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

i can undewrstand your point of view, buuut iof you are really insitant, why not bring it up with other people? so far everyone reverts you there. besides, who said wiki NEEDS censoring?Karaveks voice 00:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, very few people revert me there (or anywhere else, for that matter). Wikipedia is not and should not be a porn site, and having those images there is not necessary in order to convey the meaning of Hentai. This has nothing to do with censorship; This is about whether the images are appropriate or not. I don't believe they add anything useful or explanatory to the article. --日本穣 01:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

i beleive in honesty, so tempering any images to distort the truth doesnt seem corect, no matter what the subject.Karaveks voice 01:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

ha, what on Earth does that have to do with honesty?-- Ned Scott 06:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

also , so far everyone who edits the images on that artiles been reverting your change. " not often" seems, well inaccurateKaraveks voice 01:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much the only people who have edited the article to change or remove the images have been vandals. If you read Talk:Hentai, you'll see that those images were accepted by all the contributing editors who cared to comment. --日本穣 01:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

to bad they're either brand new members or anonymous users -- Ned Scott 06:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

sorry, its looking like people keep changing your edits, not thatyou keep resoring nadals, just how itlooks, mind youKaraveks voice 01:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC) `

Frankly, I think you did a very good job arguing your case with regard to the hentai pictures, and I appreciate the reminder that somebody was trying to reintroduce lewd images that really are not needed to improve the article whatsoever. Seriously, pornography isn't that hard to find on the internet, you don't need to put it on a widely-used encyclopedia. Good job! And as a side note, if you could tell me how you did the interest boxes on your user page, that would be cool. I'm awful with coding.--Offkilter 07:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the userboxes also! Now I just have to work on my coding. :D--Offkilter 09:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 09:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and one last question

Thanks for your help with the bridge pictures. I posted one last question, which perhaps you did not see. Was User:Kazupie the photographer of This image, or does he/she still need to be contacted? If so, could possibly ask on his/her talk page? Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 09:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Rodovid.org

As far I am aware, you have not replied to my comment, so I am posting it again. If you did reply in some way, let me know. If you do reply, please post to my talk page, as I will check that more often than other pages.

Hi, I found you from the category of Wikipedian genealogists. I wonder if you have heard of/been involved in any of the previous attempts at starting a genealogy wiki under the foundation. Seeing as you were in the category, I thought you may be interested in the new project proposal, Rodovid. This project is currently running at rodovid.org. I would greatly appreciate it if you could visit the site and give me your opinion of it. Any input at all will be useful. Thanks.--Bjwebb (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Naming boys

Are we actually going to try and come to a resolution for the moment here? It feels like whenever I reply to what you're saying, you just stop editing that talk page (apart from to leave {{anime}} tags around), and go off somewhere else. I don't want to force something just by scaring you off, I'd prefer if we can come to some kind of sensible agreement. We both agree that wikip needs an all-uses-of-shōnen page, and one talking about manga and anime, right? Do you have any objection to the kind of thing I did for shōjo for the latter? Is it more important that the format for shōnen/shōjo/seinen/josei is the same, or that people land up somewhere sensible from searches? Anything else? --zippedmartin 23:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm still trying to come up with a good reply since everything I suggest you shoot down. It's not a discussion if all you say is that anything I suggest isn't a good idea. I'm trying to be flexible and work with you, but you haven't given even a little bit. You don't like Shōnen anime and manga, Shōnen (genre) or Shōnen (style). The only thing you've even considered in the tiniest bit is Shōnen (media). How about Shōnen (demographic)? I really think it's best that the correct base usage is at Shōnen, with it pointing to all the possible uses. An encyclopedia is supposed to teach people things they don't know, and English-speaking anime and manga fans can certainly use some enlightenment. (^_-) --日本穣 Nihonjoe 00:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You see why I'm against it being called a genre or style, though? It's certainly thought of as such by some (maybe most) western fans, but they're really in need of enlightenment. Any of _ manga and anime, _ (media), or _ (demographic) are at least options, as they're not misnomers. And you'd be happy with something for the manga/anime side along the lines of (but hopefully better) than my shōjo rewrite? Anyway, then it's just a case of deciding between prescriptive titles (do it like the Japanese use it) or descriptive ones (follow how the words are used in English), both of which have their benefits. --zippedmartin 01:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer Shōnen anime and manga out of all of them as that's the most accurate description of the content of the article. The same goes for Shōjo anime and manga, Josei anime and manga and Seinen anime and manga. Those are all much better titles that more accurately describe the content of the articles. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 05:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

How about we put the options up somewhere, and solicit comments from project japan/project anime & manga etc.? Not a vote, which are pretty much always just a waste of time, but just a request for input. There's no rush after all, there's a lot of rewriting that needs doing before any of these 'articles' are really even acceptable standard. --zippedmartin 12:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This is fine by me, as long as it's presented in such a way as to accurately portray the reasoning behind the suggested move. We have to keep in mind that our English Wikipedia is used by both native speakers, as well as people trying to learn English (including Japanese), so if the article titles more accurately portray the contents, that's better all around. I can put it up, if you want. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 16:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This is fine by me, as long as it's presented in such a way as to accurately portray the reasoning behind the suggested move. We have to keep in mind that our English Wikipedia is used by both native speakers, as well as people trying to learn English (including Japanese), so if the article titles more accurately portray the contents, that's better all around. I can put it up, if you want. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 16:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, go for it, before we get any more indented. Can add to it if we miss anything, this is a wiki after all. Though, best start off clear it's just an article naming thing not a content issue, and *not* a poll. --zippedmartin 03:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Toriyama Sensei

If you have read the Graphic Novels from VIZ, It says that. As well as interviewes with the American Shonen Jump. (Bert 00:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC))

• Arigato, I have to eat dinner and then i will (^_^)

(Bert 00:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC))

Goldfish Warning

Thanks for the changes you made to the page, such as the addition of Japanese text. Bearbear 09:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Japan-related topics notice board/ToDo

osu Nihonjoe,

you have asked for some help in moving the discussion page? I am a sysop and could be of assistance maybe, however I need to know what exactly happened what exactly is your request? Feel free to contact me any time, with kind regards. Gryffindor 19:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. You can see what happened by visiting this page and scrolling down. The edits in question are 2006-04-06 12:05:55 through 2006-04-06 12:08:55. Here's how I originally wanted to do it:

• Wikipedia:Japan-related topics notice board/ToDo → Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/ToDo

I think the easiest fix would be to just undo the five edits in question. That would then allow me to just fix it the way it was supposed to be. Does that make sense? --日本穣 Nihonjoe 19:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, and the consensus for this move has been reached before, where did the vote take place? Gryffindor 19:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...let's see where that page ended up...looks like here. Boy, this is really a mess. (^_^;;; --日本穣 Nihonjoe 19:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so this was a technical glitch? You want to have the Wikipedia:Japan-related topics notice board/ToDo moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/ToDo, correct? Gryffindor 21:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Not so much technical as me just not paying attention. I moved the talk page instead of the main page. Moving Wikipedia:Japan-related topics notice board/ToDo to Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/ToDo is what I intended, so if you just delete the edits I listed above, then I can go in and fix things the way they were supposed to have been fixed in the first place. (^_^) --日本穣 Nihonjoe 21:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Page has been moved. Is the result to your satisfaction? Gryffindor 21:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much. (^_^) --日本穣 Nihonjoe 22:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Doetashimashite (^_^) Gryffindor 22:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me

why you consider the Japan-article incorrectly placed on so many articles? What is the standard for its usage? Chris 23:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Gomen, I read it, I still don't quite understand what makes an article "project-specific". Not to be dense, but I'm dense. Chris 23:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging

Thanks for fixing the copyright info for those images I uploaded. You seem to be everywhere on WP! --Squilibob 07:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

A KISS Rfa Thanks

Thank you, I've been promoted. pschemp | talk 01:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Anime-stub image

Hi, have you read Template talk:Anime-stub? What are your thoughts on how the image affects server load, if at all? --Squilibob 13:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you! Hello Nihonjoe/Archive 4. Thank you for your support in my RfA! It passed with a final tally of 91/3/5. I am quite humbled and pleased by the community's show of confidence in me. If you need help or just want to talk, let me know. Cheers! -- Fang Aili 說嗎?

Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan list on WP:1.0

Thanks! That is what exactly what we need for; a list of articles in good shape. We're also planning on asking for a list of the most important articles under the "jurisdiction" of each WikiProject, so we know what needs to be improved. Some of them look like they overlap with the list with WikiProject Computer and video games, but overall, that's all right. By the way, there was a discussion underway about whether {{GA-Class}} was equivalent to {{A-Class}} at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, so you may want to comment on that. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, the {{B-Class}} articles and other grades are based upon the {{Grading scheme}} adopted by Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry and adopted by the 1.0 Project; however, each WikiProject is welcome to tweak the scale to determine what determines each article class. And yes, the list of A-Class articles is not complete at all; most of the work right now is trying to get the WikiProjects to reply. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for supporting me in my RfA. I really didn't think people appreciate my work here that much, but it's nice to see you do: my Request was closed with 66 supports and 4 opposes. I'll do my best not to turn your confidence down. If in any point in the future you get the feeling I'm doing something wrong, do not hesitate to drop me a line. --Dijxtra 11:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

nihongo template

I'm not sure why you keep changing the formatting on the magipoka page since Smith (スミス, sumisu) and Smith (スミス, sumisu) both do exactly the same thing, so to make an edit simply to change from one to the other seems pointless. I was under the impression that the former was the preferred version, although I'll admit that, thinking about it, I cannot remember where I got that impression. Shiroi Hane 21:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Smith (スミス, sumisu) makes everything look cleaner, and in the case of Smith (スミス, sumisu) and Smith (スミス, sumisu), they do not produce the same results. That's why I changed the magipoka page. The Smith (スミス, sumisu) makes the kanji/kana appear in a pseudo italics that makes it hard to read. Because of this, it's best to always have them inside the template rather than outside. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 00:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I never really use bold/italic, looks like it does something wierd when mixed with the template. Shiroi Hane 00:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the bold/italic is used for titles and such, and I run into it frequently. That's why I think it's important to get people used to putting them inside the template rather than outside: less cleanup work later. (^_^) -日本穣 Nihonjoe 00:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly (or pointlessly.. hard to tell the difference at 3am), if you must have bolditalic you can also use Smith (スミス, sumisu). Shiroi Hane 01:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thing is, the template takes care of the italics for the rōmaji, so the only thing that requires markup is the "English" part. The markup isn't included in the template so that the template can be used for titles as well as in the body of articles. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 02:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

requesting source for Image:CreamLemonMakoSexySymphonyPart1manga.jpg

Another troublesome user is attempting to put inappropriate images on Hentai, most likely a User:SlashDot sockpuppet. This time he's also attacking Image:CreamLemonMakoSexySymphonyPart1manga.jpg. If you could post some form of source info, then that would knock out the last leg he has to stand on. Thanks. -- Ned Scott 05:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair-use

Hey Nihon, I'm not sure if you're familiar with the "Fair-use" branch of copyrighting on Wikipedia. Certain images (game screenshots, artwork and box covers) are tagged as fair-use, allowing editors to use them in relevant articles (for instance a picture of Princess Peach would be appropriate in the article for Super Princess Peach). However, because we are only allowed to these images in relevant articles, they are not allowed in the User namepsace. If you have a GFDL image (or other "free" copyright image) similar to that which you have now, you can replace it for the fair-use one you have at present. Cheers and keep up the great editting, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 17:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The DVD box cover you have on your userpage is breaching copyright! I was trying to be nice but I got screamed at because of it. Please shift them :) Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 17:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between userspace and mainspace. And you can't have fairuse on portals at all. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 17:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:USER for Dos and Don'ts for userpages. Cheers, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 19:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Since when?

You wrote:

Wikipedia-space categories are not put under article-space categories, for the same reasons we don't talk about WikiProjects in articles. Just put an italicized link in the Shinto category instead

Since when are WikiProjects not listed under their related main namespace categories? I thought the whole point of categories was to help people to find related articles and categories. If so, then it makes absolute sense to include, say, Wikipedia:WikiProject Shinto in the Category:Shinto. If not, why not? I can understand not having an article as part of too many categories, but having a project being a part of 2-3 categories is hardly overkill. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 02:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"I thought the whole point of categories was to help people to find related articles and categories." - It is. And the categories included on Talk pages, User pages, Wikipedia-space pages, Template pages, etc. are for editors, while the categories included on article pages are for readers. As a thought construct, you can imagine, even though they all use the same "Category:" namespace purely out of convenience, that all of the former categories are really "meta-categories", which exist to help in the process of constructing Wikipedia, not to help readers, researchers, etc. find what they're looking for in the encyclopedia itself, while the latter are ordinary categories to help find related encyclopedia articles. It is thus very important to keep the two distinct, especially if Wikipedia is ever to release a standardized, non-editable version "for readers" (e.g. version 1), which would require the inclusion of article-space categories, but not of other types of categories. In other words, if Wikipedia was somehow magically a perfect, complete project from the very start, it would have a Category:Meteorology, but it would not have a Category:WikiProject Meteorology; the latter is a part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic content, while the former is just a means to an end, an editorial utility. This is not to say that WikiProjects aren't important, but you should link to them directly from article-space categories, either on the Talk page or in an italicized message at the top of the category page or something (or both); you shouldn't mix up the articles and the editor utilities so haphazardly by merely putting them in the category. This not only will cause a lot of confusion for our poor little readers, but also makes the WikiProjects themselves a lot harder to find than if you simply linked to them in the category's description text, as well as making the link ambiguous, whereas a line of explanatory text will make it immediately obvious what the page is about to people who aren't already familiar with WikiProjects. -Silence 03:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but if I put a link to a WikiProject at the top of a Category, that would still interfere with your "for readers" version because they would have a link that went nowhere. What's the point of that? Wouldn't that confuse them just as much as having the category itself? --日本穣 Nihonjoe 03:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope, because it's a well-established practice on Wikipedia to include self-referential messages, such as disambiguation notices and, rarely, inter-namespace links (cf. the messages at the top of pages like WP and neutral, and the more unusual one I found and corrected on dab), in italicized and indented text, purely as a convention to consistently distinguish article content from meta-content (though dab notices, at least, are useful to readers, whereas WikiProjects are a further step removed and thus even more important not to mix up with article content). Wikipedia:Avoid self-references makes it clear that we should not mix up different article spaces willy-nilly; it specifically says that, for example, "User pages may be categorized under Category:Wikipedians, but not under Category:People"; that's because Category:People is an article-space category designed to help readers navigate encyclopedic content, whereas Category:Wikipedians is a user-and-Wikipedia-space category designed to assist editors. Furthermore, from a purely practical standpoint, as long as the cross-namespace link is explained so readers aren't completely baffled by its function and placement in the grand scheme of Wikipedia, and is clearly distinguished from the ordinary article-space links, there's no real harm being done if readers occasionally stumble onto a meta-message here and there. It's where the meta-messages aren't clearly and explicitly distinguished from ordinary encyclopedia content that problems occur. -Silence 03:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion over here. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 03:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)