User talk:JoshuSasori/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, JoshuSasori, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Ken Utsui, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Starting an article
• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Sabeel Hussain  ^talk 14:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Ken Utsui requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.  Sabeel Hussain  ^talk 14:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The article Ken Utsui has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article. The nominator also raised the following concern:

All biographies of living people created after March 18, 2010, must have references.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kei Sato is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kei Sato until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi! First, I want to thank you for trying to fill some big holes by starting articles on Kiga Kaikyo, Ken Utsui, Kei Sato, or Taiyo ni hoero! They were holes I had noticed before and had been meaning to fix myself, but had never gotten around to it. I saw your request to move Kiga Kaikyo and I have done that (you should be able to do that yourself: depending on the skin you use there should be a tab or a menu at the top that says "Move"--see WP:MOVE).

I appreciate your enthusiastic efforts to start pages that were sorely missing. I have, when I could, corrected some of them to wikify them and bring them into line with the manual of style, but I hope you can pick up the corrections I am making and use them in any new articles you make or in old ones you've already created. If you have not already, please read the general guidelines to creating pages WP:CREATE, as well as some of the specific style guides for film-related articles: MOS:FILM WP:MJ and WP:ACTOR. I want to stress that it is important to provide at least one inline citation for any article you create, especially for living people, primarily to provide proof the subject exists and is notable (see WP:N). The lack of such a citation is the reason why Kei Sato ended up being proposed for deletion, even though he is very famous in Japan. If you have to work on articles in stages, try creating your own sandbox: Help:Sandbox.

Have fun editing! Michitaro (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on A Homansu, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article that does not provide sufficient context to identify its subject. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Yasht101 (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The article Hidemi Aoki has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Michitaro (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I've put a bit of information on the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hidemi_Aoki I looked at the Japanese wikipedia but there are no references there, probably because she is so well known nobody thought it would be necessary. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Kyōko Kishida, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jigoku, Rikyu and Karin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I noticed alot of your articles are non-notable and are in the process of being deleted or redirected. Please make sure the article you are creating pass Wikipedia:Notability. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I notice you added this just after making a redirect out of the A Homansu page. However, that article is about a Japanese film, so redirecting it to an article about a Japanese comic artist is an error. If you think that an article is not notable, at least bring that up on the talk page before redirecting to the wrong place. Otherwise there will be links from the page about the film's director or actors going to an article about a comic artist, which doesn't make sense. A Homansu is notable for being the first film starring Ryo Ishibashi as well as Yusaku Matsuda's only directed film. It would be sad to delete that kind of cultural information about Japanese cinema from Wikipedia. JoshuSasori (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Cinema of Japan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Toei (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I looked over your edits and was aware that you did not have a good knowledge of the film nor of military lore. I am revising the article over the next days, and will make corrections. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC).

Don't make corrections unless you have some verifiable and authoritative reference sources. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC).

Thanks for caring and thank you for taking an interest in my edits. However, your comment seems mildly ironic to me, since you are adding statements to Tora! Tora! Tora! which either contradict themselves, or contradict the very references that you have supplied. Specifically, you've twice reverted out a spelling correction of a film critic's name, after you provided a reference for the correct version yourself, and you have contradicted the already-supplied reference in the article which clearly states "Domestic Box Office" for the film. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You revert once more more on this article and you'll see your arse at 3RR. It's OK to take the piss on video games articles or other pop culture crap, but not on mass murders. Malleus Fatuorum 21:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to report you and the other person for removing a POV tag from an article, threatening me, and personal attacks. JoshuSasori (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead. I can only assume that you feel lucky. Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Changing the subject, why do you want to present Myra Hindley in a sympathetic light, anyway? JoshuSasori (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't. Unlike you I just want to see a balanced account of the events. Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing this issue is one which has been brought up before, since you seem to have your ducks lined up. JoshuSasori (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

One problem is, Joshu, that this has been reviewed as a "Featured Article". The editors who have spent most time on it (in a littlle edit club, I am thinking) are reluctant for any other to change it. This often seem to happen with FAs. But the other problem is that this particular editor just likes to be rude for the sake of it. because he knows best all the time. The way you have been talked to on that Talk Page is nothig short of offensive. Please don't take it personally. He is like that with every time. Even his edit summary offensive: e.g. "removing piss take". 20.133.0.13 (talk) 09:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I often noticed odd things in W. articles for years before I made this account, and I remember noticing the oddity of that article years ago. As for this editor, I think it's like a dog, the smaller the dog, the more it barks. JoshuSasori (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a merge discussion in which you may wish to participate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a debate on Template Talk on the topic of merging Infobox Korean Film into the generic Infobox Film category. While it is specifically about Korean cinema, debate on the Japanese and Chinese templates have been brought in as well but currently there are no Japanese or Chinese film editors in the debate. As you are someone from the Japanese cinema task force I would appreciate it if you would take it a look and contribute your thoughts. Thank you. ₪RicknAsia₪ 04:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You have added many tags (6) to the Perl Data Language article, but have left no comments on the article talk page as to what specifically are the problems with the article, and hardly anything in the history comments. Would you please elaborate? Dododerek (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I reviewed the tags on the page. Each tag has a link to the relevant policy, which makes it self-explanatory. I don't see why elaboration on the talk page is required. Perhaps you are not familiar with Wikipedia's neutrality policy or requirement for reliable references? To save time having to point everything out on each talk page of each article tagged, there is a link from each tag to the relevant policy. If you are concerned about these tags, please read the links on the tags, and rewrite the article according to Wikipedia policies. For example, Wikipedia requires multiple third-party sourcing to reliable sources to establish notability. Incidentally, I was able to find some sources for the article by Google searching, otherwise I would have nominated it for deletion. If you can't understand the policy documents, which are quite long and confusing, then I will try to help explain them, if you leave a message here. If you don't want to do that, at least please leave the tags on the page so that it will be findable for other Wikipedia volunteers who do this kind of filling-in work. Thanks again for your message, and please let me know if you need any help understanding the linked Wikipedia policy documents. JoshuSasori (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

oh, I can read and understand English just fine (though you are correct those policy documents are rather long and boring). I was just hoping for more than a drive-by tagging. I think the main issue is one that probably confronts a lot of WP articles--the people who know the most about a topic aren't considered unbiased sources, and even if a "reputable" source did write about it, their one or two sources would be the same as the sources that could contribute to the WP article directly. So it's a bit tricky. I'll see what improvements can be made. It looks like the NumPy article is more well-sourced, so that should provide some good guidance. Dododerek (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Article tagging is one of two activities I do on Wikipedia. As I read the articles, I tag them when I see problems. I usually don't attempt to fix the problems on articles outside my range of knowledge. Depending on the type of tag, other people may come and fix the problems. For example, a linkrot tag is usually fixed within 24 hours. Incidentally when I tagged that article, I easily found what look like reliable sources for the article using Google search and Google book search. Google Scholar might turn up more references. It should be relatively easy to prove notability of Perl Data Language. (There are quite a lot of free software projects which don't meet these guidelines, which get sent to articles for deletion.) The advertisement tag can be dealt with by removing hyperbole or by adding citations for the comparisons and claims made. In any case, please think of these tags as a way to improve the article, not as a kind of punishment. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm finishing up an essay, but are you interested in working on Coursera with me this weekend so we can get rid of the tags? These sources should provide some important information. Ryan Vesey 23:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I am really sorry but I am pressed for time. It's OK to remove the tags once you are satisfied the concerns are addressed. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello JS. Thanks for your note. I trust you have seen my last edit summary where I tried to deescalate the situation and am stepping away. I am glad that you have the page on your watchlist. I hope that you get to see the film again sometime soon. It is one of the best adventure films made in any language. Cheers and have a good weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 03:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the editor Rdmcelligott apologized at Talk:The Hidden Fortress#Let's discuss the plot. Based on this, do you agree that the 3RR report can now be closed with no admin action? If you have an opinion, please respond at the noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, OK, it looks like the user is discussing on the talk page rather than editing (although the version is the user's version now). JoshuSasori (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, i have added different sources for the claims, please let me know if they are sufficient, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ophuls20393 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The PhD thesis looks good but the ferdyonfilms reference looks like an unreliable source to me. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

... to your proposal and action here. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office ^connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

		The Sarcastic Contributor Barnstar
		For your efforts to improve bottle keep.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Last September you commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Bond (film character). Please now see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Bond (film character) (2nd nomination). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Joshua, I just wanted to thank you for your words of encouragement on the UKA Press 'deletion' page. There are plenty of third party references out there (notably by the BFI, amongst others), but I'm afraid it will now take too long to present them, and it looks as if we are set for deletion. We publish the works of the UK's (possibly the worlds) leading film historian, television documentary-maker, author, and Academy Award recipient, so it seems pretty odd that we are not considered 'notable' enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, but that's life I suppose. Thanks anyway, your words were appreciated.AndreaUKA (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be. That's the problem. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's Greetings, JoshuSasori! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD | Talk 18:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Also best wishes for your 2013 and happy editing whenever possible :-) MarnetteD | Talk 18:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, same to you. JoshuSasori (talk) 09:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

No, this was not discussed on the talk pages, but whether or not "A Taxing Woman 2" exists was. I had said both titles are completely irrelevant because there was no proper release of either film. Unfortunately, you win this time, as there are cheap shovelware imports for both films with these titles, the publishers of which are all too happy to just toss in some subs and be done with it.

Irrelevant, but... all of the policies and websites in the world cannot get in the way of an official release, and even official releases can never get in the way of the whatever the original title might be, something Wikipedia should always be adhering to, no matter the language of origin; you certainly can't be a Japanophile to appreciate that. Despatche (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Please read MOS:FILM, MOS:JAPAN for guidance on naming of films. The policy is to use the English-language title. Please also discuss on the talk page of the article if possible. If you want to discuss the naming, then please go to the talk page of that article and state your case. I appreciate your input and value your opinions. JoshuSasori (talk) 09:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heat Wave Island, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inland Sea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Just verifying that the edit to the Plot section on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Django_Unchained is accurate (or at least more accurate than what was there before). Happy New Year! Porpoiseman (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The same to you sir. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You should ease back on imposing wiki-notices so easily, and focus more on editing. It would save time if you do this because not many pay attention to those notices, especially when they don't specifically outline what's wrong in the first place. A generic "not in accordance with MOS" notice is basically unhelpful. Having numerous wiki-notices in Wikipedia pages isn't good, because they are putting a dent in readers' faith and confidence in Wikipedia. You don't like how an amendment appears? Edit it yourself, or raise the issue in the entry's Talk page or user's Talk page. In short, please use wiki-notices a lot more sparingly. Thanks. 0zero9nine (talk) 08:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't find a single example of a tag like that. You'll have to be much more specific. What wikinotices are you complaining about? "MOSLOW"? "citation needed"? If you don't agree with the notices, I suggest you remove them yourself. Do you see anywhere that I state that I have the intention of increasing people's faith and confidence in Wikipedia? Why do you think I want to do that? Given a free hand I would gladly delete about half of the articles I read. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Also your comment is very rude, I do a huge amount of editing here. I don't have time or expertise to edit every article, so I tag so that people can find problems. You ought to be more respectful to other editors. JoshuSasori (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I concur with 0zero9nine. I don't talk much as your characteristic is aggressive. Please use a template sparingly, unless you cannot improve the article by yourself. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

No, you both should tag problems up so they can be fixed. If you put a tag on the article or section, then volunteers from various groups come to fix the problems. It's also important so that people who aren't aware of the policies can be made aware of them. I'm not aggressive at all, why do you think so? It's very rude. JoshuSasori (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Here are just some of my edits from today and yesterday:

1. Complete cleanup of Nagisa Oshima, including references: [1] (also cleanup of talk page).
2. Partial cleanup of Keiko Kishi filmography: [2].
3. Multiple editing (new material, edit requests, plot tidy) on Django Unchained: [3]
4. Add a completely new section and fill out most of filmography as actor to Juzo Itami and clean up article: [4]
5. Remove vandalism on article.
6. Answer a talk page request on Toru Iwatani which went unanswered for TWO YEARS until today.
7. Propose an article move for Soka Gakkai in line with the organization's own name.

I'm extremely offended by someone saying I should edit articles more. JoshuSasori (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for appearing rude earlier, which wasn't my intention. I wasn't talking about your editing other pages; nor was I complaining about the notices/tags. I wasn't even talking about you lagging on editing (sorry for not being clear on that). What I meant is, when you see a new edit that doesn't meet the standards, edit it if minor or leave a note at editor's Talk page if major. If the editor doesn't return to edit for at least a month or whenever, tag it.

Basically, I was concerned that you seem to impose a notice so shortly after a new edit/amendment is made. Don't you think it's better to leave a new edit alone, for at least a week, in case the editor will return to make further changes? If one continues putting notices/tags on new edits so quickly, it could antagonise editors into either quitting editing or fighting with you. You don't need that hassle, do you?

I feel it'd be more productive to leave notices/tags in neglected and badly done pages, e.g. no one has edited those pages for more than six months. This could attract editors' attention and hopefully motivate them into editing those neglected pages.

Until now, I had no idea that I can remove those notices. I had assumed a mod or such would be the one to remove them after inspecting old/new edits. I'm willing to bet that I'm not the only one, because there are still so many old notices/tags, dating back to 2007, in spite of recent improvements on some pages since then. Perhaps we should look at those old notices/tags and see if they are still needed. Remove if the page has improved or update the tag if not. Thanks. 0zero9nine (talk) 10:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I created a very big watchlist (everything to do with Japanese cinema except monster, j-horror, and pink) and I check all edits on all pages I watch. It's quite common that when I am checking an edit, I find another unrelated problem with the article and tag it. It's very likely I tagged the article right after someone edited it because I only noticed the unrelated issue when checking their edit. Please check whether the tagging I did is actually related to the edit or not. Regarding the notices, you can remove notices if you think they do not apply. Usually the protocol is to give a reason in the edit summary. JoshuSasori (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

So it's coincidental in most cases? In that case, I apologise for leaping to my conclusion. Having said that, I appreciate your explanation and clarifications. Thanks. 0zero9nine (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Also tagging with "citation needed" on new additions to articles is to encourage people to reference what they say. Especially dubious content. It's important to do this. There is also "or" for original research, but it's important to understand what that would mean. JoshuSasori (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm a huge fan of "citation needed", actually. :D I certainly agree that it's needed for extraordinary or dubious statements. 0zero9nine (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This is why it's useful: [5] JoshuSasori (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

E.g. this [6]. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated. 0zero9nine (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, JoshuSasori. You have new messages at Talk:Nihon Bussan.
Message added 02:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Odie5533 (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Please be a little more careful with deleting material in a Featured Article, particularly material which is properly cited according to wikipedia guidelines, and which has been in the article for over two years with no objections, until now. AFAIK there is nothing wrong with including a brief account of the modern history of historical sites, which helps place them in context. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 09:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I will stick with my opinion, that is going way off the topic. JoshuSasori (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, there are some really awful featured articles. Off the top of my head: Moors Murders, Branded to Kill. Please be more careful when adding inane things to Wikipedia articles. JoshuSasori (talk) 09:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Why does it make any difference if it is cited? If I add irrelevant information to an article, being cited has nothing to do with it. I went to re-read the article again and the two parts I deleted stick out like a sore thumb. Anyone who is competent at writing English prose can see that they break the flow of the text. And why do you come and leave this kind of bossy message on my talk page? This is annoying. JoshuSasori (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm "adding inane things to Wikipedia articles"? Do tell, please point them out and explain their inanity to this poor ign'rant peasant. You have contributed absolutely nothing to the article in the past, so what's wrong with saying what you intend doing on the article's talk page, and possibly reaching a compromise, before wielding the knife? ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 10:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You're also adding inane things to Wikipedia talk pages. JoshuSasori (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sanjuro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yojimbo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

According to all 17 film reference books in my collection, the "U.S. version" was never titled as "Realm of the Senses". For example, both the NYT article Is Senses in the Realm of Pornography? (July 31st, 1977) and An interview with Nagisa Oshima by Ruth McCormick (Cineaste 4, no. 2, 1976-1977) credit the film as In the Realm of the Senses. I also checked to see if any of U.S. editions (theatrical, VHS and DVD, uncut and censored) of the film was released under a different title e.g. Realm of the Senses and couldn't find any reference. A clarification or another source is needed if removing the alleged UK/US claim isn't a good idea. Thanks. 0zero9nine (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm lost. I changed this to tone down the "incorrect" part of the section, because usually film titles of foreign films might be creatively translated or even retitled. I haven't changed anything about what the US version is titled, can you check the edit history again and respond. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I know what you did, which isn't the issue. I found whoever (not you) made that claim odd because there's nothing to back the US/UK claim up. I wasn't sure if I could remove it in case you would object and change it back. Hence, the explanation why I thought the claim should be removed. 0zero9nine (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, OK, sorry, I misunderstood why you put this on my talk page. Sorry about that! JoshuSasori (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries. My fault for jumping in without explaining why I brought it to your attention, anyway. Cheers. 0zero9nine (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, if this is about a specific page, could you put the comments on the talk page for that page? The problem with putting it on my talk page is that other editors cannot see what we are discussing. I think your input above is valuable, so it would be better addressed to all editors, on the talk page of the article, rather than just to me. Thanks. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Fine. 0zero9nine (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I've tagged the article, let's see if anyone provides evidence, or you can just remove the parts of the text if you want to. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

OK I tagged the article, did you want to do anything about this? I'm not really sure what is going on here. You said that you wanted to remove it and you were worried I would restore it. I'm not really sure why I would restore that or why you think I would restore that, but I told you I didn't and even went and tagged up the article for you, and you haven't yet done anything about this article. I'm not really sure what this discussion is about. I even put a notice on the talk page for you to respond under, and you didn't. It's a bit strange for me, what am I supposed to do here? Why did you ask me about on my talk page? I feel like a fool for tagging that page now. JoshuSasori (talk) 09:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey JS. Regarding our current dispute on some Japanese cinema articles, I posted a dispute resolution request at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Ugetsu, Sansho the Bailiff, Taboo (1999 film). Please get involved in the dispute resolution. Thanks! elvenscout742 (talk) 03:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Ugetsu, Sansho the Bailiff, Taboo (1999 film)".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 03:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Disambiguation link notification for January 19 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kenji Mizoguchi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hometown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Re:My contributions to Ugetsu Hey, JoshuSasori, I'm curious as to why you think I have not made substantial edits[7] to this article, or why you think Ribbet32 has contributed significantly more to the article than I have.[8] It seems to me that the latter arrived on the article about 2 weeks before me, and has done little but make (good-faith) contributions to your battle to keep me off the article 4 times, and make 9 other, more-or-less minor edits, mostly improving the references. How is this any greater than my adding the only reference in the article to the film's release on home media in its native country, or my finding several references for unverified statements, or removing anachronisms from the article?? And, while I am at it, why did you reintroduce[9] one of those anachronisms and give a minor grammatical error I had accidentally introduced as the reason, even though it would have been easier for you to just fix the error? elvenscout742 (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Ribbet32 added some information here and referencing here. Deoliveirafan contributed here and prior to that here via anon editing (self identified). JoshuSasori (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC) January 2013 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  v/r - TP 17:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC) You have been blocked for veiled threats meant to intimidate other editors, disruptive accusations of personal attacks, and for your own actual personal attacks in diffs: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. You're failure to substantiate your claims of being hounded at all and insistence that others dig up the evidence for you were not very effective arguments at WP:ANI or WP:DRN.--v/r - TP 17:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC) As I told you, and as you can find from checking the rules on the DRM page, participants are not supposed to comment on other users' behaviour at DRM. I don't understand why you think I should break that rule. Anyway, I presented you with evidence, and you ignored it, so there is not much more I can do. Bye. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Josh, you've misunderstood. DRN is meant for content, not user behavior, true. However, ANI is about user behavior, and not content. The discussion on ANI required you to substantiate your claims, which you were told several times. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC) I explained to the above administrator that the WP:DRM rules require me not to discuss user behaviour. I bent over backwards to follow that rule and not point out that Elvenscout742 had been carrying out a month-long campaign of harassment against me. Yet TParis has repeated that claim above. TParis should apologize to me for impuning my character like that, and for not knowing the rules of DRM, as he perhaps should do if he is an administrator. I also explained on the ANI talk page that the user had initialized the hounding of me by moving pages, and further disruptively editing pages by adding original research claims then creating huge arguments on talk pages. I did indeed give appropriate links at the ANI. The admin above did not respond when I gave details of how the harassment by Elvenscout742 started, despite giving links to the moved pages. Since he twice demonstrated unwillingness to listen, what response am I supposed to make? JoshuSasori (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC) JoshuSasori, why are you continuing to make bogus accusations of original research against me? I already pointed out the specifics of the Kuroneko case on ANI: I wanted to include a tidbit about the Japanese title, and I cited two sources. You didn't like my sources, so I went and found another one, which you had to accept. I then later added Wikilinks to the names of one historical personage and two historical locations featured in the film, and you took this as "original research" (giving no specific reason), even when I pointed out the existence of FA-level film articles that do the same thing. I have also pointed out numerous times in probably well over a dozen locations that I am not harassing you. If I was only pretending to be interested in editing articles on Japanese cinema in order to annoy you, how do explain the dozens of edits I made to these articles before you registered on Wikipedia? The fact is that the past month has been marked by me attempting to edit a number of articles that you just happened to have made one or two minor edits to several months earlier, and you immediately following me to those articles and making numerous edits that block my edits from view. You have never provided evidence of my "harassing" you because none exists; I on the other hand have provided an abundance of evidence that you have been reverting me in bad faith and should remain blocked until you have demonstrated a willingness to collaborate with your fellow Wikipedians. I hope any admin that sees the above as a request to be unblocked takes into account that your request shows a complete unwillingness to admit any wrongdoing, and a readiness to return to the same kind of behaviour as before. I'm sure it's not a good idea if you are seeking to be unblocked to essentially say "I won't apologize; the administrator who blocked me should apologize." elvenscout742 (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Josh, you did not provide any evidence. Linking moved pages is not evidence of a harassment campaign. The fact that you both edit & discuss similar subjects is not evidence of hounding. And you still don't seem to understand: the rules about not discussing behavior at DRN only applies to posts at DRN. Once you got to ANI, you had to discuss user behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)