User talk:Takahiro4/Archive 1

September 2015

Hello, I'm MusikAnimal. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to X Japan— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

:They played very rough performance and fight against audience and so on.Bars around livehouse Prohibited them entering.--Takahiro4 (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Hello, I'm DAJF. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Péter Frankl, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! DAJF (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I have many books about him.--Takahiro4 (talk) 05:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Do not trust Takahiro4! He is blocked indefinitely in jawp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Padgearusta (talk • contribs) 07:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Péter Frankl article edits

Hi. While it's great that you are interested in editing English Wikipedia articles and especially the Péter Frankl article, unfortunately your recent additions to the article did not improve its clarity or quality, and were, frankly, incomprehensible. If, as it appears, you are not proficient in English, I would recommend that you refrain from making major changes to articles on this project, and instead consider working on the Japanese Wikipedia project, where you may be able to make a more constructive contribution. I hope you can take on this suggestion. --DAJF (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think so.I have read your history. Why you concern about my edit?--Takahiro4 (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Takahiro4. You have new messages at DAJF's talk page.
Message added 05:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DAJF (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Péter Frankl. Thank you. DAJF (talk) 08:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

DAJF,You don't read sources of that article.[1]--Takahiro4 (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't. But unfortunately YouTube clips (especially copyright violations) cannot be used as reliable reference sources in Wikipedia articles, so you will need to find robust sources to support biographical details as per WP:BLP. --DAJF (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Explain that your perfume source.--Takahiro4 (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but what's a "perfume source"? --DAJF (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

"As the article explains, it is a casual (slang) corruption. Maybe you weren't familiar with the Perfume track "Daijobanai" (see [1]), but please be be careful about removing details just because you don't know about them. --DAJF (talk) 05:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC) " This comment. --Takahiro4 (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Was a YouTube link used as a reference source in the article at that time? I don't think so. --DAJF (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Why did you bring that source? If it is correct,I think that paragraph was no source.I think I could remove that paragraph of no source. --Takahiro4 (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still not sure what you are trying to say, but if you have reliable sources to back up biographical details, please feel free to add them. --DAJF (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

You always say that you don't know yourself or what you say.You have never answered to my question.And your warning message needs a phrase "If I am wrong,please tell me".So you are often wrong.[2]part of (2015.10.26).--Takahiro4 (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi again. I'm still not sure what your question is (or was), which is why it is difficult to offer a helpful response. All I can say is just make sure that you are familiar with the relevant guidelines and requirements for reliable sources (WP:RS) and for sourcing biographical articles about living persons (WP:BLP), and if you have reliable sources (i.e. not YouTube clips), add them to the article to support the relevant details. The link to Peter Frankl's website you mention above looks sound enough. --DAJF (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I understood that you have only some memories.One of my question is why you remove ron graham.The person who remove that should return.--Takahiro4 (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi again. I presume you are referring to this edit? (It would save time if you can include diffs for specific edits in future.) The citation provided does not appear to support the statement that Frankl and Graham were friends. Am I missing something? If you can point out exactly where in the source it says this, I will be happy to restore the statement myself. --DAJF (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Read above 10 lines from here.--Takahiro4 (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

You mean this link? It wasn't (and still isn't) used as a source in the article at the time. Having now read the link, does it specifically say that they were friends? As far as I can see, it just says that they met and that Graham was Frankl's mentor. As such, I think the current article wording seems most accurate. We need to be careful about adding subjective interpretation to articles, so I would suggest you also take the time to read through the relevant guidelines at WP:NOR. --DAJF (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Well,you should write "Graham is Frankl's mentor".So you didn't write so,you are bad. --Takahiro4 (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

My first edit was "familiar with ron graham" second "influenced" third "frined".I have already said influence of ron graham many times.--Takahiro4 (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Keikyū Main Line. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. DAJF (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Keikyū Main Line. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. DAJF (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

There was a source--Takahiro4 (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The claimed existence of "Fast Limited Express" services first added in this edit and then re-added in this edit is unsourced and contradicted by the official Keikyu reference cited. --DAJF (talk) 06:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Natural translation of　快特(快速特急) is fast limited express.And distinction--Takahiro4 (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

Hello. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Pi without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. JumpiMaus (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Instantly I explained.--Takahiro4 (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I apologize, but you removed a large section from that article with edit summaries that did not make much sense. What is that section a duplicate of? What do you mean by "If we wrote that edit at this article,we could everything about pi."? JumpiMaus (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The apparent tit-for-tat edit-warring seems very WP:POINTy to me. If you want to insert a disruptive template, in the midst of the lead paragraph, in flagrant contradiction of the Manual of Style, the appropriate way to build consensus for it is to start a discussion at the talk page. It is not to disruptively vandalize the article. Such behavior will certainly result in a block for disruption if it persists. Sławomir
Biały 18:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I apologize, is this directed towards me? JumpiMaus (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

No, it's directed at Takahiro4. Sławomir
Biały 18:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Does that template need discussion? It is stupid. I don't care,does slawekb fight with me? In Talk:pi which you say,there are many opinions of almost you ,aren't you? And isn't your revert a result in a block?Instead of that pi's history is almost you.And your comment is lack of manner.That caused this.It is shameful.Just I removed your wrong consensus which you say. --Takahiro4 (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not here to "fight with you". If you make good edits, those edits will stand. If you make bad edits, they are reverted. If you disagree, you should explain why you believe the edit is good, on the discussion page of the article (but I can more or less guarantee you won't get consensus for adding a link in that way). That is how Wikipedia works. Please see the editing policy. Sławomir
Biały 20:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Just I am surprized about your no understanding.You only say "I am correct but you are not." Slawekb does not know that you failed making consensus rather than me.I don't think that I follow your edit or activity on pi.--Takahiro4 (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

You are persistently replacing coherent English with garble. This is vandalism; not I think because you intend to vandalise, but simply because you do not have a sufficient grasp of English to make useful edits. Please therefore stop contributing to en:WP, except by making comments on talk pages. Thank you. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I reject your format, revert and your suggestion.--Takahiro4 (talk) 08:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Takahiro4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Although recent my edits about pi were not collapased article of pi at all.If I am blocked,already David eppstein would block me.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. HighInBC 18:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Just a comment: I have no intention of blocking you or taking any other direct administrative action against you. See WP:INVOLVED for why. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks before making another request. HighInBC 18:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

There are some articles and some chances that you are not concerned about me.I know that rule,I didn't think that you follow that rule.Actually,in japan I was blocked by administrator instead of involving me.I thought I may be blocked any time for a half of year.Finally and unfortunately, it is same that you blocked me.--Takahiro4 (talk) 05:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

It looks like there is an entire case page at the Japanese Wikipedia, in which it is agreed that you should be blocked indefinitely, for much of the same behavior you have initiated here. That is most illuminating. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

So,that was involving administrater groups.Like you ,instantly say "should block,block,block". --Takahiro4 (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

And actually when I was blocked,math administrator and powerful editor stopped editing by themselves at that time.--Takahiro4 (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)