User talk:Nihonjoe/Archive 22

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

Louis C. Tiffany Teienbijutsukanmae Station

There is something funky going on at Louis C. Tiffany Teienbijutsukanmae Station. The log shows it was moved to Louis C. Tiffany Garden Museum Mae Station by you in March; but, there is no article at Louis C. Tiffany Garden Museum Mae Station. Its log shows it was deleted on May 23, due to a broken redirect. Can you invoke your admin powers and see what's up? Neier 13:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

All fixed. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 14:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

GameTZ dispute / bad faith?

You suggested, on more than one ocassion, that I nominated the GameTZ article out of bad faith. I figured this was just a rude suggestion, but if you actually do feel that I've nominated it out of bad faith, then I'd like to clear this up. First, I have no dispute with you. In fact, I don't think we've ever crossed paths on Wikipedia prior to my nominating the GameTZ article for deletion. I looked over the article's history to see if I could identify any conflicts which might suggest this possibility, but everything seems fine. In fact, I don't know if you've had any civil disputes.

Please don't take my contributions in the wrong context. Furthermore, please don't make false ssuggestions because you strongly disagree with a user. This should remain a dispute of article notability -- nothing more. Thanks for your understanding. 74.242.99.62 00:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a false suggestion. It was nominated and the nomination failed less than a week before you nominated it this time. That's absolutely bad faith. You obviously know what you are doing with the way you "talk", so my guess is that you're just someone too afraid to use your real username to nominate an article which obviously meets the WP:N requirements within a week of another AfD failing. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 15:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Re-nomination was necessary per lack of consensus. (more like lack of traffic) My decision not to provide a username is necessary to prevent disurption of various other articles to illustrate a point, as I mentioned in the past. This has occured quite frequently.

As for the accusation of bad faith, you really have no basis for suggesting this. In fact, I feel the suggestion itself was made out of bad faith. As I already mentioned several times, there seems to be a strong case of article ownership here. I've dealt with it in the past, and it's never easy. Rest assured, I can't make any exceptions for this case. Please go over Wikipedia guidelines more carefully, and try to be more constructive about resolving the issue. There's just no point in this. 74.242.102.16 15:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you listed the article for deletion correctly, perhaps you could actually get enough people there. As it is DumbBot had to do that for you. I agree, though, that there's no point in this. The article has more than enough sources to pass any application of WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. This is clearly a bad faith nomination by someone with a vendetta. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 15:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandetta? Against what...?

Please, familiarize yourself with WP:OWN before further contributing to the GameTZ article. If you keep this up, I will regrettably have no choice but to persue administrative intervention. 74.242.102.16 15:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I can contribute to any article on Wikipedia, and so can everyone else. I'm not keeping people from editing the article, which is what WP:OWN is all about. The only beef I have is people trying to delete a sourced article for no reason other than that they don't like it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't think anything of this article, other than that it is poorly (desperately) sourced. If you want to accuse me of having a vendetta, then you need to further elaborate why / how rather than constantly pointing your finger at me. No offense intended, but as an administrator, you really should know better than this. First off, vehemently defending a poorly sourced article just because you happen to be a fan / user of the site. (WP:OWN) Secondly, making baseless accusations about editors who point out the lack of notability of the subject article. The whole point of AfD discussions are to reach a consensus about the subject in question, which we've been unable to do so far between the flame-wars initiated by yourself or Dstumme. My only request is that you try to be more constructive in this discussion. (I really shouldn't have to plea on this issue, as I'm sure you're more than familiar with Wiki policy)

If you like the article in question and wish for it to remain -- that's good. But you need to detail why the nomination does not meet criteria, and how the article manages to stand on its own merits. So far, all you've done is claim bad faith and ignore the issue of notability entirely. Simply stating "the article is clearly notable, and that's that" is not objective enough, and brings nothing of interest to the discussion. Bearing in mind, votes aren't simply tallied and counted. If you can't bring any point of interest to the table, then you may as well not bother.

Contributors other than myself (check the first nom, particularly) have brought up several points about how these references fail the notability guidelines. After the article was originally deleted as a result, you turned right around and had it restored under the (unchallenged) consensus that you would have more time to reference it. Frankly, this was luck, as I'm sure no one expected the deletion to be challenged. (by yourself, an avid fan of the site?) You've been given more than enough time find more references, and yet here we are a third time, still debating the same ones.

As a last point of interest, part of the reason why I brought this discussion to your talk page is to avoid the mess ocurring in the AfD discussion. I think we can clear-up this misunderstanding better through one-on-one discussion, if that's not a problem. 74.242.102.16 20:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Degas and Klimt

I do not consider your edits to Klimt and Degas legitimate; you are linking to an article you just created, of an artist who is not a recognized master; I could just as easliy link my own work there, and there will be no end to contemporary self-promotion. In the case of Klimt, a legitmate 'influence' would be Schiele, in the case of Degas, Sickert. If you think otherwise, please seek another opinion from an administrtaor or arts editor. Thanks, JNW 20:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The field in the infobox is for listing artists who were influenced by that artist. The article on Kevin Wasden lists sourced information that Klimt and Degas influenced him. How is that not legitimate? And it doesn't matter if the article was just created by me or by someone else. The whole point of the Wiki is to have links going between articles so people can find them more easily. And I don't need to contact an admin because I am one. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Must go now, but as an administrator I am certain you can understand the concern I am raising. Thank you, JNW 21:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. This isn't just going to go away. You can not force your opinion on everyone else simply because you disagree with others. You are abusing the rollback feature, and edit warring. You refusal to even discuss this is very telling. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Arigatou. JNW 20:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 04:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Please remain civil - Degas/Klimt and Kevin Wasden.

Dear Nihonjoe, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from fear mongering in order to lead people into believing that expressing their private opinions is a crime. I did not edit any article you wrote, nor did I publicly criticise anything. I am, however, entitled to my opinion and as a scholar of art history I believe your linking of the great masters Klimt and Degas to Kevin Wasden is, frankly, ridiculous. I apologise for initially calling you ridiculous (I must have simply been upset for Klimt and Degas and your reduction of their art to popular fantasy/science fiction artwork. To my credit I did realise my mistake right away and edited that out) but I stand by my words - linking an artist like Kevin Wasden to a great master like Degas is misleading and simply not a truthful connection to put to the public. Please do not take that personally (although the fact that you have suggests that you added Kevin Wasden into the Klimt/Degas pages for some sort of self-promotional or personal reason). If you indeed, as you claim, made the edit in "good faith" (presumably you are not an expert on the subject and are therefore open-minded) then it is not a huge affair and I'd urge you not to blow this out of proportion, simply allow me to correct you: Kevin Wasden is not an artist of any great consequence or relevance to the history of art, or indeed to the mainstream of contemporary art. Therefore his inclusion on the pages of Klimt/Degas is not helpful to the general public, nor is it legitimate. Wikipedia is about adding useful links to other pages for the general public to read. A legitimate influence for Degas would be the post-Impressionists, e.g. van Gogh, who developed the techniques of the Impressionists. Not Wasden. I find myself inspired by the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi and amongst others the Dalai Lama - I am not about to include my name in their entries on Wikipedia. Please don't take this personally; we all make mistakes, we are all just humble students. If your edit was in good faith that is appreciated, nevertheless it is the duty of editors like myself who happen to have more knowledge on this particular subject (art history) to correct you. Sincerely, --Mahboubian 15:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If you aren't meaning to be an art snob, I apologize, but your entire comment is extremely arrogant and rude. I never claimed that Kevin Wasden was on the same level as Klimt and Degas (though from what I've seen of Klimt's work, I'd certainly call his work more skillful and much more pleasing to the eye). All I did was add Wasden as an artist influenced by them. There is no requirement anywhere that says that an artist influenced by another has to be at least as good as the artist who influenced them. And it's arrogance to claim that science fiction and fantasy art is somehow beneath—it's just plain absurd. There are many science fiction and fantasy artists that are much more skillful than Klimt, IMHO. I'm sure you'll disagree, though, based on your comment above.

Be that as it may, the main point of my comment to you was that calling me ridiculous (even with editing your comment to call my good faith edit ridiculous) is a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. All I'm asking is that you not treat like insignificant bugs other editors who may disagree with you. If you can't remain civil in your actions here, and if you can't assume good faith on the part of other editors, you will not be able to work very well here. You can disagree with me all you want, but please keep it polite. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm going to drop a thought or two here, seeing as how, at least peripherally, some of this involved my edits.

As accomplished as he is, I suspect that Mr. Wasden would probably be loath to rate himself with Klimt, who was one of the great draftsmen and designers of his era. Whatever may be your personal opinion, he is considered a master--his place in art history is solid for a number of reasons, and he continues to be influential with many artists, myself included--I'd be delighted to discuss this further, with no intent to try to change your mind.

I think what is happening here is endemic not only to Wikipedia, but to academia: we each are knowledgeable, and we each wish to be acknowledged for this (how exhausting). Just as you are correct to desire respect, so to, do artists and art historians (who sometimes barely get along with one another) wish to have their expertise respected. I studied drawing and painting for over five years, and have practiced independently for the last twenty-five. Now I teach drawing and painting in a college, and in workshops. But in this alone I am not special; there are thousands of painters and teachers with similar histories.

Anyway, thanks for letting me go on. For me this is an extension of a long-standing discussion. I grew up surrounded by fine art, illustration, and cartoons, and am aware of the differences between these genres, as well as their overlaps. My father, a cartoonist, collects the work of great illustrators, and as a boy I used to argue the merits or lack thereof of Norman Rockwell and company. Best regards, JNW 18:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this has anything to do with recognition, and it doesn't really matter whether Wasden considers himself on the same level as Klimt since he's not the one writing the article. I'm not an artist myself, and this has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with assuming good faith and not calling other editors ridiculous. That is my main point. I know there are many people who consider Klimt's work to be masterful, and I strongly disagree with them. I'm used to that, because I generally tend to disagree with academics when it comes to what is considered a masterpiece or at least masterful work (I find Moby Dick to be dreck, for example). However, as I keep saying (or writing, I guess), this has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with civility and assuming good faith. Mahboubian should not have done what he did, and that's why I made a polite request on his page to please refrain from that in the future. I wasn't looking to discuss the merits of one or another artist's work as that had nothing to do with my request. I would have done the same thing had we been discussing an edit on the McDonald's talk page. I hope all that makes sense. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Would you mind deleting my previous post here? It contains personal information, and seems to be perceived as irrelevant. JNW 22:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Nihonjoe, I thought I was being polite. I did not accuse you of claiming that Wasden was on the same level as Klimt/Degas (that would be absurd for he is certainly not), I was merely saying that to mention him in an article on either of those two artists is extremely misleading for the general public to read for it would imply that he has gained a recognised place in the history of art, which he has not. There are many recognised, seminal artists who have been influenced by Degas and Klimt, and to mention them would be appropriate, but not an artist on Wasden's level (comic book artist). This is not what is referred to internationally as "fine art"; it is popular art, illustration.
Furthermore, please understand that skill is not the only criteria for a place in the history of art. Degas and Klimt were pioneers of their respective styles. They are internationally recognised as such, have been published on extensively, are represented in hundreds of national museums worldwide, and their work commands millions of pounds/dollars in international art markets. Wasden maybe a talented and skillful artist, but we should try to keep Wikipedia articles factual, sincere, truthful and therefore academic, not misleading, and you would never in your wildest dreams find a reference to an artist on Wasden's level in an academic study or article, or any book at all, on Degas or Klimt. I am not being an "art snob" but art history is my field of expertise and I feel compelled to edit art-historical Wikipedia entries in an honest way that reflects the academic art-historical education that I've received at university. Therefore, had it been I who read your edits on the pages of Degas and Klimt, I'm sorry to say that I would have done the exact same thing as the user JNW. Please do not take it personally, this is the nature of Wikipedia. As editors we are obliged to edit out information that we deem useless to the general public. Forgive me if I'm wrong but it seems likely that you have some personal connection to Wasden (?). Let me remind you, since you are so keen to remind other editors of Wikipedia's policies, that "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" and that it is NOT for "Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic" (please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). It is not for self-promotion or the pursuit of personal gains. You may well find Wasden's work "much more pleasing to the eye" than Degas or Klimt, that is your right and I do not challenge it, but it is ultimately nothing more than your personal opinion and universal scholarly opinion does not recognise the influence of Degas or Klimt on Kevin Wasden. Please accept this and let's put an end to this somewhat silly bickering. Sincerely, --Mahboubian 18:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, I have no personal connection to Wasden. I've met him exactly once, long enough to take a picture of him at a convention. That's it. Before that, while I'd heard of him, I was completely unfamiliar with his work. I've only become familiar with his work because of the research done to write the article on him. The article is well sourced, if small, so you calling it "original work" is absurd. Regardless of that, this still has nothing to do with my original comment to you on your talk page. You keep trying to make this about something else when it is not. The only thing my comment has to do with was how you made your comments. The topic of your comments is irrelevant. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I have already apologised for initially calling you ridiculous. To my credit, I deleted that comment without you having said anything because I immediately realised that it was wrong. You only saw it because you checked the history of my post, but I removed that comment almost immediately and I doubt that anyone else would have seen it had you not mentioned it. If you are still hurt over it, let me apologise again - I am sorry. I know it is wrong to call another user ridiculous and I WILL, as you wish, refrain from doing so in future. However, this does not change any of the things I have said about Klimt/Degas and your linking them with Kevin Wasden. It is still not a sincere connection to present to the readers of Wikipedia. Thank you. --Mahboubian 18:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not hurt by it as I don't know you and your opinion of me doesn't really matter to me. The only concern I had was your apparently rude attitude toward me and my good faith edits. As you have indicated you will refrain from being rude in that manner in the future, that's all I was looking for. Again, the topic of the comments is irrelevant to my concern. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not call your article on Wasden "original work", what are you talking about? I said that your comment to me about finding Wasden's work "much more pleasing to the eye" than that of Degas or Klimt was your personal opinion, and I quoted Wikipedia: "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought". --Mahboubian 18:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

(another edit conflict) Do you see anywhere in the article itself where I've put that Wasden's work is more pleasing to the eye (or even better) than Klimt? No. Editors are more than welcome to express their original thoughts on talk pages, and that's the only place I've put anything like that. I've been around the block enough times on WIkipedia to know about WP:OR. Therefore, if I'm to assume you knew that original thought could be expressed on talk pages, I'm left with the appearance of you saying that the Kevin Wasden article is original thought. I'm sure you can see how your comment could be taken that way. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore I have acknowledged that your edits were in good faith. They were, nevertheless, misleading and illegitimate. That is the real issue at hand, so please stop making this a question of politeness. I am being civil and shall continue to be. --Mahboubian 18:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's obvious we're never going to agree on anything, so there's no point in continuing this discussion. I'll agree that you're being civil now. As I've said several times now, my concern was with your original comments about which I posted my original request on your talk page. End of story. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

YechielMan's RFA

Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.

Please take a few minutes to read User:YechielMan/Other stuff/RFA review and advise me how to proceed. Best regards. YechielMan 22:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Could you tell me what page you are referring to? I usually don't mark pages as speedy as sure, so can you point out to me which one? If it was the japanese/chinese magazine article, from what I could see it didn't meet the notability criteria, and it was also a lot of non-english which is also against policy (I believe). Matt - TheFearow 23:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a weekly magazine that's been published for years, and that certainly makes it notable. I'm still hunting fown the date of first publication, but I know it's been published for at least 10 years (as it was had been being published for at least a year before I moved to Japan back in 1998). At one issue a week for ten years, that's well over 500 issues. And where is this "non-english" on the page? Anything that wasn't English was either romanized or linked to an explanation, and that's perfectly acceptable according to WP:MOS-JA. In the future, if you aren't sure about an article, please be a little less trigger-happy and perhaps ask someone about it before marking it CSD. Thanks. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks you

Kind regardsTokyo Watcher

No problem. Please let me know if you need any additional help. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sennin Buraku

Do you know of any online places to see even the most tiny clips/pictures??? ?_? Thank you. ^_~ ^_^ [insert more into this post]--71.203.147.175 22:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, sorry. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Fairies

Namaste. I notice that you are a WikiFairy, and we are looking for artistic opinion on what to do about the Kushan Empire article, which contains a great many images. The problem is that there are so many images the layout of text on the page is becoming an issue. Would you be willing to look at the article and at least comment about it on the talk page there? If you are not able to help with this, can you recommend another WikiFairy who has a good track record of working with complex articles? Thanks in advance for your help. Buddhipriya 04:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I can look at it. I'll leave comments over there, and I'll be happy to help work out something to reign in the images in that article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful! I have no particular concern about which images stay, but I do think that the number and size of them need to be cut back substantially so the text is the main issue. I will look forward to your contributions there. Buddhipriya 04:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Japanese administrators

Is there an administrator from Japan? You are interested in Japan so this is good. Some people who like Mr. Barack Obama have redirected Obama to Mr. Obama's article instead of the fair thing, which is redirecting the Obama page to Obama (disambiguation). The city of Obama (Fukui) is much older than Mr. Obama. The wikipedia article is also about 1 year older than Mr. Obama.

The Clinton article is the disambiguation page. It does not redirect to Mr. or Mrs. Clinton even though both are more known than Mr. Obama and the small towns called Clinton are all smaller than Obama, Japan. This shows that my suggestion is the correct suggestion (Obama to Obama (disambiguation), not Mr. Obama).SRMach5B 03:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I just merged Obama and Obama (disambiguation) as there's no point in having Obama redirect to Obama (disambiguation). Having Obama be a disambiguation is good. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Administrative assistance

Hello Nihonjoe, I find myself in somewhat of a predicament and could use the help of a level-headed administrator. Not sure whether its in my place to bother you with this, since I've already messaged another admin (see User talk:GTBacchus for the details), but should you be available and willing to intervene, you'd certainly make my day. Take care - Cyrus XIII / 87.122.22.193 06:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like things have settled down. Sorry for the delay in replying. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Japanese companies

Hi Nihonjoe,

I am done with my revision of this article (for now). After we finished adding kanji & romaji, I did the following:

1. I deleted some companies that didn't seem notable. Please re-add them if they are notable. I may have made some mistakes during this process.
2. I added the TSE column, because over half of these companies are listed in TSE. And these Bloomberg links surely help during the verification of notability, correct company name, etc.
3. I added all companies mentioned in the most recent Forbes Global 2000 list, filtered by Japan. (I may have missed a couple, especially if the main company and the holding company were separate entities.)

Please look over it if you see anything wrong, and make your changes. Thank you for your efforts in improving this article.

I sincerely hope that people realize the importance of this list, especially for WP:JA users. I can see how a comparable list for the United States may seem "redundant", but this list is special, especially because it has links to JA-wiki now.--Endroit 16:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I think the changes made since it was nominated have greatly improved the usefulness of the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just created a new template Template:Tyo1 to make the TSE/Bloomberg link more elegant. And I'm doing one more pass starting from A this time, to apply that template. After that, I should be done for real.--Endroit 21:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. You've done a lot of good work on this article. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Barnsensu

Thank you for the award. --Farix (Talk) 02:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Even though I don't always agree with you or your methods, you've done a lot of good work. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Paul Lowry

You have wrongfully deleted a footballer who was supported by the WikiProject on Irish Football. This will not be tolerated. Ryannus 10:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I've deleted many articles. Could be a bit more specific about how this won't be tolerated? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 10:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the deleted article, I can tell you it was deleted because it "[did] not assert the importance or significance of the subject" (see CSD#A7). There was nothing in the article that indicated Lowry was any more significant than tens (perhaps hundreds) of thousands of semi-pro footballers across the world. According the article, he's won no special recognition, awards, or acclaim for anything he's done. All articles must meet notability requirements. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 10:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I believe that the aforementioned article was supported by the Wiki-Project on Irish Football, a sub section within the Wiki-Project on Football. The article was a biographical article and the Wiki-Project on Irish Football states that there should be articles on all footballers in Ireland. This whole debate was raised a while back and it concluded with the foundation of the Wiki-Project on Irish Football. Therefore, as he was indeed a notable Irish Footballer, you have wrongfully deleted the article. Ryannus 23:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to take the discussion to Deletion review if you wish. However, I still do not believe this particular footballer is notable based on the information present in the article at the time it was deleted. I stand by my decision. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)