Jump to content

User talk:Phoenix7777/Archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.

Hello, Phoenix7777, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! Oda Mari (talk) 05:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Username change request at Japanese Wikipedia

Hello, Phoenix7777! I am ja:User:Kanjy, one of the Bureaucrats of Japanese Wikipedia. At Japanese Wikipedia, I saw a request for renaming User:Phoenix7777J to User:Phoenix7777. Is it from you? Excuse me if wrong. --Kanjy (talk) 11:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your cooperation. --Kanjy (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Your edit to Daikon

You have never edited the article, but you appeared to edit the article right after I edited it. Anyway, the article is not about Japanese thing, but about a subspecies eaten in East and central Asia. For your information, any term that become English is treated with the same way. The term becomes an English word, not Japanese in "English speaking world". So there is no need to insert Japanese spelling in the intro. Please follow existent guidance for such plant articles. Regards.--Caspian blue 01:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Instead of initiating a discussion, you have chosen edit warring, so that is regretful. And you have not clarified your suspicious appearance tracking of my edit. Since you have been insisting on your own POV, I've invited native English speakers who have been familiar with East Asian subjects and plants for the matter. Regards.--Caspian blue 01:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Red bean paste, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.Caspian blue 10:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Enokitake, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.--Caspian blue 10:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

What is your purpose for intentionally engaging WP:Edit war and violating WP:Point with the WP:Blanking? Your deliberate blanking of properly cited IPA info and references on entries that have Red bean paste are nothing but disruptive. You also have followed my footstep to edit to revert. You've also deleted only Korean-related entries from articles with reason of "uncited info" among the butch of uncited information. That does not add up to explain your repeated insertion of uncited information and blanking of cited info over and over. Since you're a newbie, I think you need to read the warnings and follow the instruction. Regards.--Caspian blue 10:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for explanations on your selective blanking from Tofu

Your explanations for you blanking of properly cited information (again) would be highly appreciated at Talk:Tofu. I also left a note to the original editor, Sjschen (talk · contribs) who cited the info with the Japanese book (ISBN 978-4104719013) as a courtesy. Thanks.--Caspian blue 05:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Tofu, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. UltraMagnus (talk) 07:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

3RR waring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tofu. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --Caspian blue 23:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Daikanyama

I see you removed the paragraph about the embassies. But, aren't you mixing up Daikanyama-cho (the administrative name) and Daikanyama (the area name)? Sarugagucho is in Daikanyama, so the embassies are in Daikanyama. Here is a map:[1]. Best regards,--Mycomp (talk) 06:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the article Daikanyama is about "the area name" but "the administrative name". The lead says "Daikanyamachō" and postal code is 150-0034 which indicates Daikanyamachō.[2]. And the "Daikanyama 代官山" in your map is not "the area name" but a station name. Please see next station "Nakameguro 中目黒" or zoom in appropriately.[3] I don't know what "the area name" Daikanyama means. Could you provide any information about "the area name" Daikanyama? I think it is probably a very vague name that no one can define explicitly. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
You are right about the writing "Daikanyama" (it was the Toyoko line station). Mea culpa. But look at this: it is 代官山エリアガイド (Daikanyama area guide):[4] The Danish Embassy is listed as one of the embassies in Daikanyama. But, it's ok, if you think the embassies should not be mentioned in the Daikanyama article we can keep them out of it. I go to Daikanyama regularly, and "everybody" calls the area where the embassies are Daikanyama (yes, I know that is not an acceptable reference for Wiki :). Have a nice day.--Mycomp (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Trikemike (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)trikemikeTrikemike (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)I think if it is to be claimed that a connection remains undemonstrated between Japonic languages and others, a citation is certainly called for! Thanks!

Takamikura, 1917

Timely contributions

Thank you for your thoughtful contributions to the thread at Talk:Order of Culture#Requested Move. In this context, perhaps it will be perceived as welcoming to point out the gilded figure atop the canopy structure used in Imperial enthronement ceremonies? Perhaps this 1917 image of a phoenix is new to you?--Tenmei (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the honorable picture. I am proud of my user name which derived from the picture. I put it to my user page ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

New message...

Hi Phoenix! Actually, those coordinates are for Shinjuku, the capital of the prefecture, Tokyo, which is different from the Greater Tokyo Area.
 —  Paine's Climax  03:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops! you are right, Phoenix, I double checked and the correct coordinates for Shijuku are 35°42′2″N 139°42′54″E / 35.70056°N 139.71500°E / 35.70056; 139.71500. I was a degree off on the latitude. My bad. The latd has been corrected.
 —  Paine's Climax  04:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

Took me lots of time collecting infos. Please discuss before reverting a whole set. All teas are from what I find and what I've bought in stores. aracha sencha japanese might be 煎茶の荒茶 rather than 荒茶煎茶 aracha gyokuro

Koicha / Usucha 抹茶

konacha

Then you can't reasonably place genmatcha as a type of tea, as this isn't a tea but a mix. Same thoughts with aracha (raw), and houjicha (roasted sencha with can also be bancha).

Might need some more cleanup on this article, as most the the tea names are just different processings of gyokuro, sencha, bancha... Might need to sub-categorize.

FCartegnie (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(Copied above discussion to Talk:Green tea#Reverts in order to catch the attention of more editors. Subsequent discussion should be made there not here.) ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Japanese ?

It is very important whether you are native Japanese or not, demoiselle.--Giapponese (talk) 05:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Special Forces and Ninjas

Please read the following article from Dean Rostar, Croatian Police Special Forces and 15 dan Blackbelt, Bujinkan Ninjutsu:

http://www.specwog.bujinkan.hr/tekst-en.php?subaction=showfull&id=1084266135&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1& —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.222.236.154 (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The banned user

Look, please read WP:BAN. Banned user's contribution is usually wholly blanked out, struck or deleted per the rule regardless of whether their contribution is good or not. However, the "discussion" was whole harassment campaign by Azukimonaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) against me. Moreover, the thread titles were named by "me", and I let the harassment campaign stay instead of blanking. Archived discussions' titles were fixed by editors in some occasions. In addition, you're no right to falsely accuse me of doing vandalism for that. That is a personal attack. Even if the banned user appears to claim his authorship, the sockpuppeter has no right whatsoever edit Wikipedia because at the time the "discussions" occurred while the troll was already banned by persistently block-evading. There is no honor for you to defend the banned user's dignity. --Caspian blue 14:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Phoenix7777. You have new messages at NeilN's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Daifuku

Hi. I restored the text you deleted, and added a {{fact}} tag. Unless the tag is there, readers and contributors are unlikely to know a reliable source is needed, and for the tag to be there the text has to be there too. --Una Smith (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Una, thank you for informing me of your revert. However if it is left with {{cn}}, no one will never add a reference as with many other {{cn}. So I will bring it to the talk page, however probably no one will respond to my post either because no one can prove the description is true. Even if it is proved to be true, I am sure it is too rare case to describe it as a variation of daifuku.
I am concerned so many false descriptions are left with/without {{cn}}. Actually I removed dubious descriptions in Shumai recently.[5] In this case, I am not so confident as Daifuku, I brought it to talk page and Phillipine project.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
If you delete the text, even fewer readers will even know a source is needed. So put the tag on, or better yet find a source. --Una Smith (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
What is the rationale you removed tag[6] without adding a reference? ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Already given on Talk:Daifuku. If it is not clear, please say so there. --Una Smith (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

WQA

Hello, Phoenix7777. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --NeilN talk to me 05:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing for "Geisha"

Thank you for starting an effort to source "Geisha" honestly. Yes, I realize it was somebody unrelated who decided to employ fiction for this purpose; but anyway see Talk:Geisha for an attempt at an explanation. -- Hoary (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

KFC claim in Christianity in Japan

It occured to me I didn't know if you were watching Aphaia's talk page or not; anyway, I have replied there: User talk:Aphaia. Perhaps we should be having this conversation in Talk:Christianity in Japan? -- Joren (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

After getting the support from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard please do so. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 06:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Phoenix, thank you for your reply. I don't believe RSN is intended to be a place where all sources must be vetted before being used; if you read the noticeboard, you will find that RSN is more of a place to go if you have doubts about a source that has already been used in an article and want it checked out. However, I appreciate the intent. WP:V and WP:RS are better places to direct people if you want to convey what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source.
I've been Googling and what I've found (filtering out blogs of course) are rather unsatisfactorily mostly news articles with bits of journal and encyclopedia sprinkled in here and there.
Voice of America - Japan and Fried Chicken: A New Christmas Tradition? - Seems to give a good overview but would prefer something other than VOA.
Reuters - It's Christmas! Have a little more bat meat! - This one is usable perhaps.... At least they had reporters in Tokyo.
Reuters - In Japan, $850 Christmas chicken defies recession - This one references the tradition, but only does so as a side note.
KFC Christmas (BBC, et al) - Kind of short, not terribly thorough; seems to rely mostly on KFC's own version of events
On my next library visit I'll search their journal database and see what they have. Who knows, might discover something on my bookshelf too :O -- Joren (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I apologize if I offended you by reverting your edit. Yes, you may be able to find a reliable source supporting KFC, however you may also be able to find a reliable source supporting McDonald's sells special chicken menus during the Christmas season. What is clear is that chicken is very popular in Japan during the Christmas season regardless of fried chicken, roast chicken, chicken burger or chicken nugget. So if you mention only KFC, it is against NPOV. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, no. I didn't state I was looking for a kind of source that talks about it being on sale. I'd be looking for a secondary source that authoritatively states that it is a tradition. But anyway... no offense taken, just, we seem to be miscommunicating. You seem to believe that "what is clear" to you is clear to me as well. It is not.
  • You might want to keep this in mind before saying things are POV or NPOV; after all, unless you cite evidence to back up "what is clear", it just seems like someone's POV and you make as little sense to me as I made to you :P From what was "clear to me", there was a KFC tradition, anecdotal, news media, and article evidence seemed to confirm it, so I was not aware of any bias, and your calling it POV wouldn't have made much sense to me if I hadn't read Aphaia's reply before reading yours. However, Aphaia has actually explained her understanding in a way that makes sense, so I'm willing to go with that. In the future, instead of just asserting "what is clear", you might want to explain and back it up, as Aphaia has done, and we can avoid further miscommunication. Thank you,
-- Joren (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ady Gil article, Peter Bethune's detention and arrest

Hello, You removed the referenced video showing Peter Bethune delivering his bill to the captain of the Shonan Maru 2. This video is important because another editor inserted the word "ostensibly" into the Ady Gil article, regarding the purpose of Bethune's visit to the Captain of the Shonan Maru 2. But the supporting news story which is referenced states that as a fact, and the video of Bethune knocking on the door of the bridge of the Shonan Maru 2 with a piece of paper in his hand also supports this. He was not attempting to sabotage or blow up the ship, for example. I'm going to revert your recent change based on this information. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, this is not a self-published source. Bethune did not take a video of himself on another ship or post it. It is evidence that he was there to contact the ship's captain. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


tenno title

1; there is no word in japanese for the latin word Imperator, or emperor in english or emperador in spanish, 2;the meaning of the title which belongs to Japanese monarch, shown in this publication is incorrect, there is no literal translation of the word emperor of origin in the Latin language,to the Japanese language,

3; As I explain here, is obvious and need no sources this 天 means, heaven or heavenly or celestial , and this 皇 NOT means "Emperor" or "king", this 王 means "king"...., this 皇 means some type of "sovereign" rather than king {王}, 天子 this means son of heaven, from 天 {Heaven} and 子 son or prince, that is why 天皇 {tennō} means "heavenly sovereign" Thats is why.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.129.106.213 (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss at Talk:Emperor of Japan#exactly meaning of the title tennō, not here. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Kofun Haniwa soldier

What can I say? I do agree with you Phoenix7777 about the caption being too detailed for a picture. Yet I still think the caption is far too laconic as it is. If you pay attention to my edits you will find out that I had actually started trimming down and redistributing the information to the more suitable Chokutō page. The Haniwa soldier holds a Chokutō indeed, additionally showing a slight though obvious inward curvature.

I have been researching this particular ancient sword and its roughly 5 different pommel based sub-varieties. I have personally visited the largest collections of Kofun Period material including Kofun period swords, and engaged in discussions with resident experts and archaeologist versed in this topic. One particularly important reference is one publication by the Chikatsu Atsuka Museum (Osaka prefecture) which documented the most ample collection of Kofun period swords from various museums across Japan. I will soon enough provide this reference, amongst other equally valuable references published by the Tenri University Museum which I also visited. I have pictures, which they allowed me to take, of two exquisitely well preserved Chokutō (one Kantou-tachi and one Kentou-tachi), which I would like to add to the Wikipedia Chokutō page, though I have never done it, tried once but failed for some reason. Can you help me do it?--Luxgratia (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Japanese Buddhist architecture

Hi, Phoenix7777. Thanks for the changes you are making to the article and for the message. I am dropping a line just to say that I am receptive to more suggestions about this or other articles, and that I will learn how to use properly the Harvnb template. Frank (Urashima Tarō) (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Taro. I hope the readers will find it useful. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Ken Hirai

Hello. In February you added a citation to a book from the "Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" series published by Icon Group International to this article. Unfortunately, Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this, see e.g. [7]). I've only removed the reference, not the text it was referencing. I'm removing a lot of similar references as they are circular references; many other editors have also been duped by these sources. Despite giving an appearance of reliability, the name "Webster's" has been public domain since the late 19th century. Another publisher to be wary of as they reuse Wikipedia articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences&Windows 17:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks....

... for your contribution to the article Nureongi! Chrisrus (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

... for your contribution to the article Nureongi! Chrisrus (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Does Prof. Morris have anything more to say about them? Chrisrus (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry I didn't notice your post above. I am not sure what you are expecting me, but the book says quite similar things like here. The book can be quite easily accessed at your local library.[8]. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Tributaries of Imperial China

As you can see, I supplemented and slightly modified the inline citation at List of tributaries of Imperial China which was restored by JamesBWatson here.

The actual copy of the book you used must have Pratt listed as first author; but OCLC lists Hoare as first author. I used the version which was online verifiable. Under the circumstances, I wondered if there might be a need for me to explain this?

I do not have a copy of this book, but I was able to verify the accuracy of the citation using Google in a non-obvious way:

  • re: Goryo (173 tribute missions)
using "173 tribute missions" as search topic in Google books yields several "hits", including this one — http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=173+tribute+missions&btnG=Search+Books
  • re: Baekje (45 tribute missions)
using "45 tribute missions" ... yields ... — http://books.google.com/books?id=e7pyBEWioLsC&pg=PA482&dq=45+tribute+missions&hl=en&ei=_4ViTLTYBYS8lQeF_7jTCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBA
using "63 tribute missions in 8th century" ... yields ... — http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=1&tbs=bks%3A1&q=63+tribute+missions+in+8th+century&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

I hope this mitigates a "problem" which was never really a problem. --Tenmei (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Tenmei. I am not sure the intent of your edit. I rearranged the refs.
  1. Why did you discard my template {{cite book}} of "Korea: a historical and cultural dictionary"?
    1. Why did you remove the Google book link to "Korea: a historical and cultural dictionary"?
    2. "Why did you change the author's name from "Pratt, Keith L.; Rutt, Richard; Hoare, James (1999)" to "Hoare, James et al."?
  2. Why did you concatenate the refs like "Hoare, p. 482; Korea Herald. (2004) Korea now, p. 31; excerpt, "The Chinese also insist that even though Goguryeo was part of Chinese domain, Silla and Baekje were states subjected to China's tributary system.""? I think this is not a standard practice.
―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to assume that your question was rhetorical. There is nothing wrong with your edit, nor is there anything wrong with your citation format. Any point I may have been trying to make is not very important. --Tenmei (talk) 02:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Whale meat

Hello folks, as expected, the POV tag on whale meat is preventing it from hitting the front page as DYK. I would really like it to make it. As you know, DYKs get thousands of hits. A whale meat DYK might get 5 thousand or more.

This would be very good for the article, as editors would improve it, and neutrality issues would certainly be resolved. Also, if you feel strongly about whale meat consumption, this is a good way for it to get exposure.

So, please, could we remove the tag? Or, if there are issues, could we remove the contentious text for the time being. After DYK, other editors will restore it or leave it out, based on consensus. I hope this seems fair. Time is short, so please act quickly.

I also sent this message to User talk:Malick78. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

See also DYK nom. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If you think it's POV, please remove the offending text. Then, in your eyes, it will be neutral, yes? Then please remove the tag. Then, we can let the new eyes decide. Does that seem fair? If not, what do you suggest? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


I think it is now too late for the article to get DYK exposure. Now there will probably be a POV tag and extended dispute over content. A real shame. I am wondering why you didn't take the time to respond. You objected to removing the tag. I offered a solution. You didn't reply. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Re-visiting a proposal

Please give some thought to my arguments in support of Elmor's proposal to rename Eulsa Treaty -- see here. Do I need to explain any part of this using different words?

Do you have any questions or suggestions? --Tenmei (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Tenmei. I responded to Talk:Eulsa Treaty#Requested move. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Phoenix7777 -- You may not have noticed that I relisted the projected move of Eulsa Treaty at WP:Requested moves#Current discussions/August 31. It is only prudent for me to alert all contributors in our discussion about changing the name of this article.

Please consider Talk:Eulsa Treaty#Relisting at WP:Requested moves. On one hand, this can be construed as an unnecessary delay. On the other hand, this ensures the possibility of wider community input which may bring out any points-of-view which remain unstated or glossed over. --Tenmei (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ping. I sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Ping. I sent a follow-up e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Void

I understood you well enough, but I questioned one word in the following context:

"An opposition without a valid refutation is void."

In my opinion, "void" is provocative without suggesting a way out of the dispute which may ensue. Another way to say the same thing might be:

"An opposition without a valid refutation is counterfactual thinking."

What do you think? --Tenmei (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

I sought assistance here — Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-10-04/Eulsa Treaty. I do not know what happens next. --Tenmei (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Summarizing the so-called discussion which began at Talk:Eulsa Treaty in early August here:
A. In an attempt to help us start discussion, options were proposed here and refined here.
  1. Leave it at its current name?
  2. To Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty?
  3. To Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905?
  4. To 1905 Protectorate Treaty?
  5. Or what?; see the second paragraph of page Eulsa Treaty.
B. Valentim presented the results of a Lexis/Nexis search here. This supplements several Google searches.
In the many weeks of so-called discussion thread development, those opposing the move have either been unwilling or unable to present refutation or counterargument; and therefore, I propose we delay no longer.

In other words, I suggest that there is a consensus to act now on the basis of the Lexis-Nexis search outcome. The time has come for this article to be renamed Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905. --Tenmei (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Phoenix7777. You have new messages at Qwyrxian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Move edit warring on Senkaku Islands

Please do not engage in move edit warring on Senkaku Islands. The proper way to take care of the issue would have been to raise your concerns first on Talk:Senkaku Islands, let everyone come to a consensus, and then request that the article be moved according to that consensus. Further POV-pushing by moving the article without any discussion may result in an escalation of consequences. Thank you for your cooperation. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are talking about. I posted a comment to Talk page immediately after the move. If you were a neutral admin, you should have revert the move to the long standing stable name and suggested the new comer to review the past discussion and to read Naming convention. The result is you encouraged the user to insist a POV because of your action. "An admin (nihonjoe) and I have moved the page...."[9] ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix7777, your move of neutral Pinnacle Islands to Japanese Senkaku Islands seems to be based on a flawed google search with a careful choice of keywords. Correct me if i'm wrong. Anyway, Wikipedia is not a place for nationalists to claim sovereignty and it's hardly productive to stir up a move warring between the use of "senkaku" or "diaoyu" as we can see in Liancourt Rocks and Sea of Japan which become an unproductive gala for Korean and Japanese nationalists but left nothing to the community. --Winstonlighter (talk) 05:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Phoenix7777. You have new messages at Benlisquare's talk page.
Message added 11:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fénix

As you may know, en:Phoenix (mythology) = es:Fénix.

Did you notice that "Fénix 2" was the name of the rescue capsule used in the 2010 Copiapó mining accident? --Tenmei (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

I'm not sure how long you've been working on Wikipedia, so please don't feel like I'm being patronizing, but I do think you want to re-read WP:VANDAL. The edits you marked as Vandalism (the one's you're talking about over on User Talk:Magog the Ogre, weren't vandalism--they were content disagreements. By definition, vandalism primarily involves things that the editor thinks will make Wikipedia worse. While you or I may not agree with Winstonlighter and other's edits, they certainly aren't making them with the intent of harming the encyclopedia, or defacing it, or spamming it. Even if they added things Senkaku Islands with "These islands obviously belong to China, anyone can see that, because Chinese are just superior," that wouldn't even be vandalism (although might possibly rise to that level if they removed major chunks of sourced info). It would be an extreme POV, it would violate WP:NPOV and WP:OR and WP:V, but it still probably wouldn't be vandalism. In other words, you reverting them was okay (as long as you weren't going so far as to edit war), but you probably shouldn't label their edits vandalism. You may want to consider retracting your claims of vandalism, and just saying that you weren't aware of the exact definition. Note that I say this even though I think their edits and plans for the article are quite often wrong, but I still think that what they're doing isn't vandalism. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for enlighten me with your explanation above. Actually I haven't read the policy before. Although I rarely used "identified as vandalism" in my edit summary except for an unexplained removal of a citation or a cited material which I believed as a vandalism, I will follow the policy from now on. Thanks again for your input. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
This seems like a relevant read for you. I reckon that it can help newcomers understand Wikipedia more. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Senkaku Islands dispute. Thank you. —Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Tolstoy

In part, this is a follow-up to the problems you are helping to resolve at Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute.

I wonder if you have previously stumbled across this quote?

The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him. -- Leo Tolstoy, 1994

For me, this concept has resonance in a variety of Wikipedia settings. These sentences were introduced to me by someone interested in Metonymy and WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion ≠ WP:Straw poll. Although I still haven't resolved what I think about the context, I do come back again and again to Tolstoy's words.

Perhaps these words might be usefully stored in the back of your mind? --Tenmei (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC Senkaku Islands

The RfC provides an opportunity for additional comment by other interested editors. Can you frame a constructive response to Bobthefish2 pivotal question: Even if the policy does not recommend the use of Senkaku/Diaoyu-style dual names, is our situation exceptional enough to make it a good solution?

In this RfC context, please consider an overview here? --Tenmei (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Locked article

I'm very sorry that Senkaku Islands dispute was locked -- not because of a short-term problem with the current version of the article, but because of the unintended consequences.

Even if this action does succeed in mitigating some kind of short-term dispute, I anticipate longer-term problems as a result of Nihonjoe's decision. I tried to explain at User talk:Nihonjoe#Locking of Senkaku Islands dispute; but the effort was not well received:

  • diff . . User talk:Nihonjoe‎; 04:07 . . (-33,990) . . Nihonjoe (talk | contribs) (Reverted to revision 411729997 by Nihonjoe; rv edit war spllover from Senkaku Islands, please keep your discussion on THAT talk page, not here.)

IMO, this is a problem which didn't need to be a problem. I do not know how to be a force for good in this context, but I will think about it over the next few days. --Tenmei (talk) 08:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Your opinions

This is not a site for your opinions. Your bias is impeding the proper reporting of history. Just because you believe something is fictional doesn't make it so. If you find facts contrary to what has been said, please site your sources. Your own stubbornness should not influence this site. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popeyeatucb (talk • contribs) 18:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment - the templated warning was entirely inappropriate. I've already asked you to assume good faith and to stop referring to other editor's changes as vandalism. You had no idea if this editor was doing so on purpose or not; in this case, he was not. So let me state this point blank: if you continue to bite our newcomers and other editors with false accusations of vandalism, I will block you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
If I may chime in as a talk page lurker, I believe that the problem was the use of the vandalism template. The new user's edit was incorrect, because it asserted something to be certainly true when it is merely the opinion of a single historian (at least, according to the reference given). As such, I went and changed the article statement to read properly. However, Popeyeatucb's edits don't qualify as vandalism, because they were done with good intentions. Vandalism, by Wikipedia's definition, is always something done to harm the encyclopedia. While Popeyeatucb violated WP:NPOV (by asserting an opinion as a verified fact), I suspect that's more a problem of not understanding how we work here (i.e., how to properly attribute opinions). You could have gone ahead and reverted, just not called it vandalism, and instead made a more clear comment to Popeyeatucb (which I'm going to do now, actually).Qwyrxian (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I made a mistake again. I used a wrong template. What I originally intended to use was an unsourced template instead. I corrected the user's talk page. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh OK well then thank you. It sounds like an error on your part, so no need to get worked up; apologies if I was forceful, but I was under the opinion that you were doing so carelessly. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Good step in process of collaborative editing

Please take note of my apology to Historiographer for delay in responding to his edits of January 24 -- please read Talk:List of tributaries of Imperial China#Good step in process of collaborative editing. --Tenmei (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Attributing the Remin Ribao statement on Senkaku Islands dispute

Currently, 4 editors have been able to come to a compromise wording on the sentence in Senkaku Islands dispute about the Remin Ribao article. We've agreed (Tenmei still disagrees) that we should change the sentence to say "The Japanese government and U.S. researchers have claimed that a 1953 article in The People's Daily, a daily newspaper which is the organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), stated that the Senkaku Islands were a part of the Rykuyu Islands, and that this further implied that the Senkaku Islands were a part of Japanese territory." I believe that you have objected to this wording in the past, on the grounds that since this is already the Japanese section, it's obvious that this is a one-sided claim. However, I think that since this is obviously a highly contentious article, and the subtlety here is that this is an interpretation of a translation, it is beneficial for readers to understand clearly that this not "literally" what the original article says, but specifically an interpretation. In other words, it does no harm to clearly attribute this opinion, but that not attributing it may be confusing. I'm hoping that since this opinion was arrived at in part through the comments by two previously uninvolved editors (Nlu and Ohconfucius), you might be persuaded to see that this version will make the article better. If you do agree, I think we can show a very solid consensus to make an edit request and have that line changed. I sincerely appreciate you providing your input on this; it would feel really great to know that we were actually able to move forward through a consensus decision. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Your unanswered questions

You mention an important concept when you use the word "refutation" here.

In one important paragraph, you make two related points:

¶-Part A. The attribution doesn't help improve NPOV in this case because trying to make the Japanese POV claim to NPOV is nonsense. What we should do is to represent the sources accurately not to represent the editor's "POV"/"NPOV" interpretation.

Your point is simple, transparent, obvious to me; however, it seems to be ignored. I don't know why.

¶-Part B. In this case, NPOV can be easily attained by adding the refutation from China to "Arguments from PRC and ROC" section as is done in Chinese article. I cannot understand why pro-Chinese editors won't add the refutation ....

I am persuaded that Qwyrxian does not recognize the importance of this underlined sentence; and I do not know how to re-direct attention to the pivotal point you make.

In other words, Qwyrxian and others ignore it; however, you put your finger on the central problem with this so-called "compromise" sentence.

We need to figure out why your words are not understood to be significant. --Tenmei (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I was going to answer here, but I realized I should do it on the article's talk page...but the short version is that the sentence as written now is wrong--it states a falsehood, something which is not true. Phoenix's points about me misattributing are good, but the sentence just has to change somehow.Qwyrxian (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Qwyrxian repeats a characteristic mistake. Instead of investigating a specific question with research (WP:V + WP:RS), the focus of attention shifts to something else. This is a kind of con game or confidence trick in which misdirection is a key factor; but in this scam, Qwyrxian is a victim.

Qwyrxian is a person who has been deceived. This is not a personal attack. Rather it is a simple restatement. It is an accurate assessment of a what has been going on in this thread since Qwyrxian began to participate and things have gone horribly wrong.

In the diff above, Qwyrxian functions as a shill for the Bobthefish2 game of Cups and balls which has been evolving slowly for months.

The so-called "compromise" Qwyrxian sentence is not valid. It is incorrect. It is unsupported by WP:V + WP:RS. It is only a factoid. This word is defined by the Compact Oxford English Dictionary as "an item of unreliable information that is repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact".[Remin 1]

Qwyrxian has read Bobthefish2's use of the word "fraudulent" so many times that factoid and fact are indistinguishable. --Tenmei (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ Simpson JA & Weiner ESC, ed. (2008). The Compact Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition. Clarendon Press. ISBN 0-19-861258-3.

Phoenix7777 -- Your question is the key. Your question is implied: "I cannot understand why pro-Chinese editors won't add the refutation."

The word "refutation" is key to why Qwyrxian's sentence is unworkable, not because I say so, but because the premises of the sentence are not supported by WP:V + WP:RS.

There is no refutation added because there is nothing to refute. This is only smoke and mirrors; and Qwyrxian has been seduced by the fraud.

In the context of the above, please review the following from the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. There is no evidence to support a belief that Qwyrxian has looked at anything outside the ambit of the talk page threads; and this means that not even the the MOFA website has been examined superficially In other words, if Qwyrxian looks at the following, it will be for the first time here on your talk page.


Counterargument/Japan Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA)

Responding to Question 4: Some examples which contradict the PRC's post-1970s allegations include:

Summary conclusion. The often repeated lie that the translation of the first sentence of the article was "fraudulent" is a fantasy -- it is now shown that this lie is part of a bigger fraud. It is a scam.

It is demonstrated that this fraud was constructed by Bobthefish2 and not supported by WP:V + WP:RS. Nevertheless, Qwyrxian continues to be unable to distinguish fantasy from reality, factoid from fact, verified from unverified, etc.

The so-called "compromise" sentence is fatally flawed.

Do you understand what I have written. If not, please ask questions. Let me try to explain again in different words.

Can you suggest any part of this which could have been left out? Can you point to any sentences which would have been deleted? Can you help me see how this could have been shorter?

This is not simple. --Tenmei (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You are kindly requested to stop guessing my motives and/or reasoning; none of this is relevant. However, I must sincerely thank you for your listing of the info above; while I had read the MOFA cite before I hadn't realized how badly we had misinterpreted it. I'll bring this to the article page. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the interpretation of the MOTA site is not that important to this stage of the discussion. While the attribution part of your proposed compromise is not necessarily 100% accurate, I believe we've also explicitly made it known that whatever you proposed is just a basic idea or a draft. If we want to make the attribution 100% appropriate (which we probably do), then it's only a simple matter of opening up another small discussion on how to make it right. But for now, I think we are at the stage of debating whether or not there should be any attribution at all (which, according to the discussions in the talk page, seems quite necessary for WP:NPOV).
By the way, railing against the imperfections of a draft does not help the overall editorial process especially if no constructive input is given. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Nevermind, it appears User:Qwyrxian was not referring to the issue of attribution after all, but something else. Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's block bobthefish2

Hello User:Phoenix7777, how's it going? It appears that User:John Smith's has filed a complaint of misbehaviour on User:Bobthefish2. Since I am under the impression that you have much to complain about this pesky Chinese editor as well, your opinion on this is going to be very helpful to our friend User:John Smith's cause. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Table

Table deleted from Foreign Relations of Japan#Disputed territories

Please review the table I have re-created here at Counterargument#Counterexample.

  • Do you have suggestions about improving specific cells in this matrix?
  • Are you willing to make suggestions about how the information in the table can be more effectively explained for those who are unfamiliar with this subject?

In the coming weeks, perhaps we can locate and upload additional images which verify this counter-argument to irredentism in a way that words alone can not convey. --Tenmei 23:43, 24 February 2011

I have uploaded File:Atlas 1960 Senkaku.jpg and it is added to this table. --Tenmei 02:19, 25 February 2011 --Tenmei (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

RFC/U on Tenmei

As an editor who has interacted with User:Tenmei on the Senkaku Islands pages, I would like to inform you that I have filed a Request for comment on user conduct of Tenmei. You may read that RFC/U at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei, and are welcome to comment on it as explained at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance2 once it has been certified. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

WQA

Hello, Phoenix7777. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for my belated reply. The thread was already archived to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive99#User:Phoenix7777. I checked the thread, but there is no comment by reviewers. I haven't seen such an unanswered thread in WP:WQA before. Was there any problem with your thread?
By the way, I noticed that you haven't replied to User:Diannaa's talk page where you requested for comment yet. I think it is a courtesy to show your appreciation to the response you requested to User:Diannaa. Diannaa replied "Many of your comments towards other users are inflammatory and are leading to an un-collegiate atmosphere on the talk pages you choose to edit. Perhaps a relative newcomer such as yourself might be better off starting out editing less contentious articles at first and then coming back to this work later in your Wikipedia career." ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Woo... this has been a while. Wikipedia is a place anyone with any qualification can participate. Since there is close to zero quality control in this place, I wouldn't place such a high regard to the consensuses established or the feedback from admins or other individuals.
With that said, I've offered you a non-combative response and I think we can leave it at that.

Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Bridge used by everyone

"I would rather be a bridge used by everyone than be a statue." -- Nobushige Hozumi

Phoenix7777 -- Have you encountered this Nikkei (日系人, Nikkeijin) poet?

With new hope.
We build new lives.
Why complain when it rains?
This is what it means to be free.
-- Lawson Inada

When you try to be a bridge to the future, it's not easy or simple; but it is a good investment. --Tenmei (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

Formal mediation of the dispute relating to Senkaku Islands has been requested. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. For an explanation of what formal mediation is, see Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy. Please now review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then, in the "party agreement" section, indicate whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page.

Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 04:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Please consider what I have written at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands#Additional issues.
  • Would adding these corollary issues make you more willing to agree to mediation?
  • Would you recommend re-writing any part of this draft text?
What are your thoughts? --Tenmei (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Please could you review the above request and the newly specified issues to be mediated, and then indicate whether you would agree or disagree to participate in mediation? Thank you. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Japanese people in China

I've reverted your edit in good faith: it doesn't make sense to compare a 2010 figure from one source and associate it with a separate variable elsewhere from 2009. It would be similar to comparing 2007 Toyota car sales in Manhattan, New York, as reported by the Washington Post, with 2006 Toyota car sales in New York, as reported by the Chicago Post. Such a comparison would also be WP:OR in itself.

As for the discrepancy in figures, I've replied to your post on my talk page; I've thought of a few possible situations, but nothing can absolutely explain the mismatch with absolute certainty. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I just wanted to clarify the difference between 127,282 and 66,159 is not presumed to be a figure for Hong Kong and Macau. How about adding "(including 21,518 in Hong Kong and Macau)" immediately after "127,282"? Then we can easily tell there is a considerable discrepancy between the two census. The figure 21,518 in 香港総領事館(p.36) includes the figure in both Hong Kong and Macau.(p.64) ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that seems fine. Though, doesn't Japanese people in Hong Kong already mention the figure quite clearly? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. However as I explained above, I myself misunderstood the figure for Hong Kong. I will also add "nearly a half of the Japanese statistics." to the last sentence in order to indicate the discrepancy between the two stats. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand your desire to delete the association of horse meat with Dog meat

The meats I have listed are viewed in similar/logical consequence here in American culture, and in readership of English Wikipedia, namely American people(and closest international constituents) typically find consumption of the following meats: cat, dog, horse among various others as unusual or even immoral. I understand your need to maintain a certain level of white pride and Asian cultural-secessionism: disassociating certain European and close western-ally Asian taboo meat culture/nations with others and make an outright disconnect in these taboo meat articles relative to dog meat, which have their largest proportion of consumers in such places as China, Korea and Vietnam: whereas cat and horse meat the partiality toward the eastern/central Asians and that of non-Asians is far less. But this is nothing to do with proper presentation of white people's eating habits, or the eating habits of American's closest ally nations should be seen. The inclusion of horse meat in the See Also section constitutes a consistent American reader-observation of relevant facts and comparative study to the culture of eating these animals to which American and other "democratized" people should objectively examine, and not feel humiliated, like how the editors and Dog meat article-controllers here are doing here by omitting direct reader-access to these relevant articles for comparative examination. Of course, as difficult as it may be for some of you to accept, the link to horse meat and other relevant "taboo meats" will be included in the See Also section. 99.130.8.150 (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

This message is to inform you that a request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Senkaku Islands, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. Mediation of this dispute will begin within two weeks (once a mediator has been assigned to the case), so please add the case page to your watchlist.

The entirety of the above two pages (the MedCom policy and the guide to formal mediation) are also important reading for editors who are new to formal mediation. If you have any questions, please post them onto the case talk page, or contact the MedCom mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 15:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Ridiculous -- yes

At Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute#"Simply being of the opinion", I repeat the words of John Smith's as if they were my own: It's ridiculous to keep proposing name changes until people come up with the "right" answer. Last October, John Smith's arrow hit the mark. I get it.

Repeating the invitations which are explicit here and here, I asked Qwyrxian to consider addressing issues and questions in the diffs posted by John Smith's and by you. Continuing failure to engage directly and meaningfully is not good. --Tenmei (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

My signature

Thank you very much for pointing that out. I guess I don't click on my signature much... CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 11:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Please self revert on Senkaku Islands dispute

The tag was placed in good faith. There is a clear dispute here, based in policy. I believe that, once we work our way through mediation, it will become abundantly clear that policy supports the current name. But there is a dispute, and those disputants are not just asserting an opinion--they are legitimately interpreting data and policy differently than you and I. Please, there is no harm in the tag being there while mediation is under way (presumably it will start once the Mediator comes back to editing). Qwyrxian (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

In order to answer your post on the talk page, I would have to make their argument for them. I would prefer not to do so. But they do have a policy based argument--several, in fact. In that very section, STSC advances a policy-based argument. Previous discussions also were based on policy, based on how exactly we interpret the search results. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
This is smoke and mirrors. The so-called arguments which Qwyrxian proposes are best compared to hot air balloons which are untethered to the ground. Despite all the time and words invested in "hot air" arguments, no fact-based data which are inconsistent with Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute have been shown. In other words, the current name is supported by verifiable sources; and the complaints are unsupported by anything except the intensity of preference of those who argue for anything and everything except "Senkaku Islands". --Tenmei (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Need your input regarding the new editor on Dog Meat

I just opened up a thread at User Talk:Anna Frodesiak#Personal attack? regarding comments by the new editor on Talk:Dog meat, and would like your input there if you don't mind. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Getting the most out of mediation

Hi Phoenix7777. I've noticed that your edits to Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands have been quite aggressive of late and that you've taken quite a combative stance with the mediator. That's your choice, but I'm not sure it's going to allow you to get the most out of the process. As a mediator, Feezo will be looking to find compromises acceptable to all parties - that's going to mean everyone being at least a little unhappy with the option, but maybe willing to give it a go to try and solve the dispute. Sometime it may also mean bending the rules a little - Wikipedia is meant to be a pretty flexible place and guidelines can be tailored to individual articles where individual consensus requires it. Feezo's task here is to try and find a consensus among editors who haven't been able to reach one by themselves. If everyone doesn't give way a bit, then there's no real chance of solving the dispute.

I suggest you engage with Feezo - and the other participants in the mediation - a little more calmly and consider whether you are willing to compromise at all. If the only solution you're willing to accept is 100% the one you want, I'm not sure why you agreed to mediation in the first place.

I really believe you'll get a lot more out of the process if you engage with it less aggressively. Don't edit war with the mediator - if you want to be part of the process, you need to work with them - not against them. All the best, WJBscribe (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Management by objectives?
Perhaps it would have been better if two sentences were underscored at User talk:Feezo#Archiving Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands:
For the time being, all side issues are considered to be off topic. Once we resolve the core issue, we may proceed to deal with them.
I construe "for the time being" to suggest that we may not need to understand or accept or refuse anything. I may be wrong; and I am uncertain about the rationale which informs Feezo's mediation plan. I do grasp that waiting -- simply waiting -- is what seems to matter most for today and for the near future. --Tenmei (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Please recall my observation here -- referencing Qwyrxian's argument from February that a mediator like Feezo "can help us by structuring the discussions. Why wouldn't you want to do that?" --Tenmei (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Search data

Sorry about that, sure I'll explain it. STSC (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

SPI

Since you've been involved with these editors before, you might wish to review the evidence and participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KoreanSentry. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sub-headings

If you set up sub-headings, other editors can reply by clicking the "edit" function under the sub-heading. I suggest you sign your comments within any sub-heading so that the replies do not appear as inserting into your whole comment. STSC (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I removed sub-hedings. Thank you for your advice. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

(S vs D vs D vs T vs T) vs (S vs (D or D or T or T))

I know that my answer to your question in the JSTO section is probably still a little confusing; that's mainly because it depends (I think) on the input we get from WT:NCGN. When I was typing out my answer to you, I realized that it sounds unfair to put Senkaku up against 4 other names combined; but transliteration makes this a weird issue. I think you actually have more experience with this issue than I do (I think I've seen your name come up in some of the interminable discussions about Japanese transliteration at Wikiproject Japan and other places). My intuition tells me that we should be able to compare them all separately, but I can't develop a logical proposition to support that point. Note, too, that no matter what gets decided on this one tiny point, there's so many other points (the questionable reliability of search results, the debate about where our cut-off for "recent" usage is, the encyclopedia and almanac data, etc.) all add up to a huge knot that is, understandably, difficult and/or impossible to unravel. I so wish we could just say "Look, whose military ships patrol the coastal waters of the islands"? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The four Chinese names are transliteration of two different native name 钓鱼 (Diaoyu or Tiaoyu) and 釣魚台 (Diaoyutai or Tiaoyutai). Then if we even accept different transliteration be collectively dealt with, we should compare three different names "Senkaku", "Diaoyu or Tiaoyu" and "Diaoyutai or Tiaoyutai". " "Diaoyu State Guesthouse" doesn't make sense. Please compare with "Diaoyutai State Guesthouse" 钓鱼 and 釣魚台 are quite popular name in China and there are many other places in China. See BGN and click "search" then enter "Diaoyu" (without quote). I am afraid you are too much emphasis on JSTOR. It is one of the many supplementary tests. Moreover its hit count are very limited. We should not determine a widely accepted name only by such a limited search. Basically the guideline recommend Google Book, and HathiTrust is another large database with 8.8million of repository. We should determine the widely accepted English name by overall evidences. I don't understand your recent comment "they are nearly equal". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I said nearly equal only in JSTOR. JSTOR is just one part of the discussion, one part of the puzzle. Specifically, JSTOR looks at a certain type of academic source, which is useful, but not definitive. I just wanted to do a complete search on it so that we could be certain what the JSTOR data says. In fact, none of the searches we can do are definitive. However, if you are saying that some of the false hits we are getting, in general, from Diaoyu are not referring to the islands, then that is a definite problem. However, places like that almost certainly won't show up in JSTOR--I sincerely doubt an academic is writing about the Diaoyu State Guesthouse. Also, a scan of the titles/abstracts indicates that those articles are likely about the islands. But, again, I'm not saying this means that the names are equal--I'm only saying that the names are approximately equal in JSTOR. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The search results from Google Books, WorldCat, and JSTOR can be easily manually verified. I've looked through them in the past and I have never seen any book talking about a Diaoyu Zhen. Diaoyutai State Guesthouse was also explicitly accounted for. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
It appears you don't take kindly to disagreements. I am a programmer and I do not work in the medical field. Hopefully, that answers some of your questions about my hours. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Posting Pointless Templates

I understand you love posting all sorts of templates on other people's talk pages, but you should try not to do that in an unnecessary manner. Just a friendly advice. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Cognitive bias

Perhaps you may have read ja:認知バイアス. At Note2 in that article, please consider this very small point:

一部の認知バイアスは主体の「動機づけ」を反映している[2]

The concept is treated superficially in a stub article Motivated reasoning. Over the next couple of weeks, I will try to improve the quality of the writing.

I know that this is outside your normal editing area, but it may have a practical use.

Please watchlist this article. Do you have any suggestions to offer? --Tenmei (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Statistical analysis

Please give some thought to my edit here.

FACT: These are the identified participants in this thread, with the total number of edits and the percentage of edits which are in articles.

  • Phead128 -- 260 edits ... 27.03%.
  • Lvhis -- 329 edits ... 41.85%
This is a single-purpose account since Feb 2011
Compare, e.g., diff 04:28, 22 February 2011 Talk:Senkaku Islands ‎ (→The title of this article sounds quite POV: new section)
  • STSC -- 548 edits ... 23.72%
This is not a single-purpose account since Sept 2010
Compare, e.g., diff 02:17, 24 September 2010 Talk:Senkaku Islands ‎ (→This article is now completely hijacked by the pro-Japanese contributors: new section)
This is a single-purpose account since Oct 2010
Compare, e.g., diff 21:38, 4 October 2010 Senkaku Islands ‎ (I find the neutrality of this page to be in dispute)
  • Phoenix7777 -- 2,888 edits ... 60.06%
  • John Smith's -- 13,114 edits ... 49.24%
  • Kusunose -- 13,417 edits ... 82.29%
  • Benlisquare -- 21,609 ... 45.56%
  • Oda Mari -- 24,104 edits ... 53.58%
  • Qwyrxian -- 24,384 edits ... 50.13%
  • Tenmei -- 54,839 edits ... 73.92%

I have sorted this list in ascending order based on total edits, but the percentages are also revealing.

The edit history of Bobthefish2 shows only 5% of his total edits are invested in articles. In contrast, 60% of your edits are related to enhancing the quality of our articles. --Tenmei (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy#Groups of disputants, factions in mediation are recognized; and they are identified as "a group".

For example, we are able discern a number of common factors in the contribution histories of Lvhis, STSC and Bobthefish2.

  • Stepping back, we notice that The edit histories of the group are characterised by a small number of total edits.
  • We also notice that the statistical analysis is married with There is a fine-focus attention to Senkaku Islands only.
Also, the fact that we can discern a factional group does not diminish the There are noteworthy differences among the "disputants" in this group. It becomes evident that The contributions of Bobthefish2 present an anomaly in this narrowed context.

I bring these facts to your attention in hopes that it helps you to better appreciate These are some of the differences between your edit history and the contributions of others who are actively participating in our mediation exercise. --Tenmei (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Good work

Confounding factor (交絡因子)-- Construing Senkaku Islands dispute as a variant Onin no ran

汝（なれ）や知る都は野辺の夕雲雀 あがるを見ても落ちる涙は

Now the city that you know
Has become an empty field,
From which the skylark rises
And your tears fall.

In a difficult situation, you have done well.

Sometimes I followed your lead because the rationale was congruent with your edits at List of tributaries of Imperial China. In other words, your strategy was consistent with WP:V, i.e.,

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

This cannot be repeated too often -- especially in contexts which seem to value "spin" rather than the specifics of a permanent edit history. --Tenmei (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Japan Old Province

Thank you for helping me to parse and evaluate a trivial problem. --Tenmei (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Stop harassing me

I don't know what your problem is, but I've been here on wikipedia for one month and you are already harassing me and following my every step like an obsessive person with a personal vendetta. And seriously, "thank you" for wanting to start a possible edit war with my edits (I really have no desire in participating, I noticed it on my watch page). Also, reasons:

  • V-1_flying_bomb#Japanese_versions - "Ume" is a Japanese term and "plum" is the English term. Thus I replaced "ume" with "plum" in the translation in this English wiki.
  • Fireworks - I've added basic information that you removed for being "unsourced" like that, but now I have provided a reference in detail.
  • Vinegar#Fruit - I removed info of the byproduct Umezu (sour plum liquid) not being a true vinegar in an article about vinegar, trivial info as stated in the edit summary and there is no mention of it being considered a vinegar-ish product to warrant the info being in a vinegar article. Also it is unsourced, which I find ironic since you give anyone a hard time about basic info being unsourced (and remove it) while this is added back by you unquestioned too. Though this wasn't even a reason for me to remove it. Might as well make a list of what is not vinegar there.

Either report me for whatever you are accusing me or let me be. I'm dead serious, report me or let me be. Caca7 (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Pro-Wikipedia

I propose a strategy to combat the contrived appearance of an WP:edit war by using words like this in all future edit summaries at Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute:

This is a "PRO-WIKIPEDIA" edit. This edit is explained in detail and in advance on talk page

Please consider this pair of edits at Senkaku Islands dispute:

  1. diff 17:35, 19 July 2011 Tenmei (talk | contribs) (58,318 bytes) (Undid revision 440335859 by Lvhis pro-Wikipedia -- This revert explained in detail and in advance on talk page)
  2. diff 16:55, 19 July 2011 Lvhis (talk | contribs) (58,346 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Oda Mari (talk): This is a POV title. rv Japanese POV pushing. (TW))

The edit summary of Lvhis is an example of Framing (social science). We need to reject the false dilemma. Do you understand the meaning of the logical fallacy in a "false dilemma"?

Lvhis sets up a misleading pro vs con schema.

A better strategy is to emphasize a "pro-Wikipedia" foundation -- that is, to underscore that our edits are not

In point of fact, an extensive edit history informs my belief that Oda Mari's interests are demonstrably "pro-Wikipedia" ....

For us, the first and foremost question is: What is best for the long-term prospects of our collaborative editing project?

What do you think? --Tenmei (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

Thank you for your support
Thank you for your question and support at my RfA. While, yes, we have had our differences, I hope that they are always resolved in a way that best benefits the encyclopedia. There's still lots of work to be done on SI, and I am always glad for your interaction there, even in cases where we disagree. I hope to live up to your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Warning

My article on South Korean stance on Kuril Islands dispute is NEUTRAL and supported with various sources. There is nothing in the article that is not true. Obviously South Korea supports Russia on Kuril Islands dispute and 3 members of the National Assembly did visit Kuril Islands on May 2011. It comes to my attention that you are blatantly erasing my article, which I have putted my efforts on, just because of your right-wing political stance. I suggest you to keep in mind that 'Wikipedia' is a place where everyone edits neutrally, not with any pre-bias or perception. Also, you mentioned that the article is not supported by sources. However, if you take a closer look at sources, it actually does. Can you even understand Korean, or are you using Google Translate to verify sources? It is almost pathetic how you are trying to erase the article, but as a matter of fact you are only trying to stop the general public knowing 'truth'. I believe all Wikipedia readers deserve their rights to know what other country's stance is, on Kuril Islands dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hangyun (talk • contribs) 10:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC) This is a warning: If you disrupt peace in Wikipedia by erasing my article again, and edit articles with political motive, as you did at Kuril Islands dispute, you may be banned from Wikipedia without further notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hangyun (talk • contribs) 10:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Hangyun, I strongly suggest you stop threatening editors when you don't know what you're talking about. Even if Phoenix7777 is wrong (and note that I am not implying that xe is), what xe has done isn't even worthy of a block, much less a ban. Please calm down, and discuss the issue at the article talk page. Right now, Phoenix is saying that what you wrote does not match what the article says. For those of us who don't read Korean, we may need an actual translation of the article to proceed. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Unryu Suganuma

Please take a look at a stub article about an associate professor of geography at Oberlin University in Toyko. Perhaps you may have suggestions or comments? --Tenmei (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands dispute

I am withdrawing from active participation in this subject.

Is it possible that my contributions are somehow "feeding" conflict?

One way to test the hypothesis is by simply stepping back for a while. --Tenmei (talk)

Arbitration on Senkaku Islands

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Senkaku Islands and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Qwyrxian (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Untimely deletion

There were some things worth salvaging from mediation -- for example, your diffs and mine.

The deletion of all diffs from our mediation is summed up in an idiomatic expression -- throw out the baby with the bath water.

Look up snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

The few, small successes of collaborative editing are thrown away carelessly.

The deletion of the mediation threads was unexpected. For me, the surprise was also untimely.

I asked Feezo to restore the missing diffs. There was no response. I asked for Nihonjoe's help. He suggested here that I may need to ask an arbitrator to do this. Elen of the Road explained here that it is standard practice when a failed mediation results in an arbcom case for the mediators to delete the files - it's part of MEDCOM's ground rules for mediation that it cannot subsequently be used as evidence against any of the parties.

I have no interest in "evidence against any of the parties." For me, that is quite beside the point, tangential, unimportant.

I read nothing that would have reasonably warned me that deletion of all diffs would be a direct consequence of Qwyrxian's request for arbitration. Did you?

The fact of the matter is that your very few diffs were useful and constructive and I do not see any good reason for us to throw them away like smelly garbage. --Tenmei (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the deletion is quite an extreme challenge to Wikipedia. This should be corrected by the community's discussion. However, I have all these deleted copies of discussions, if you require the contents, I will email the contents to you. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification of arbitration case opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 31, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification of arbitration case opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 31, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Phoenix7777. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 15:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WP:RfArb/Senkaku

According to Elen of the roads, "A useful thing that the parties can do is help Arbcom with ... what it is that [WP:RfArb/Senkaku] is all about...."

It would help me -- and perhaps it would be perceived as helpful by others -- if you were willing to give your answer to Elen's question.

A summary re-statement of what you think this case is all about would appear reasonable here in the context of the analysis of the evidence others have presented. --Tenmei (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The time for presenting or resummarising the case has long passed. Please read what Newyorkbrad, one of the drafting arbitrators, says four days ago. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Phoenix7777. You have new messages at Oda Mari's talk page.
Message added 10:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Oda Mari (talk) 10:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Signpost

Please consider my comments about you here. --Tenmei (talk) 06:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Make tea, not war

Dear Phoenix7777, I'm not your enemy on WiKi. Could you please just keep our edit conflict within the "Senkaku Islands"? Thank you. STSC (talk) 11:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you to explain your edit discussed at WP:ANI first. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Disabling Twinkle specifically

Considering that my edit summary got chewed up by Twinkle: It is now no longer possible to revoke access to Twinkle separately from editing access. The capability was removed during the rewrite of Twinkle earlier this year because the consensus at that time was that it was too easy to circumvent, it was too easy to break Twinkle entirely when modifying the block list, and that the admins that joined in the discussion said that they would be more likely to block a person outright than to remove Twinkle access. So the troublesome feature was done away with (and good riddance to it). SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

...and I will specifically warn you about edit-warring and the WP:3RR rules. Please do not continue down that path, or you could be blocked. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands closed

An arbitration case regarding Senkaku Islands has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. User:Tenmei is indefinitely topic banned from the subject of Senkaku Islands, widely construed. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace.
  2. Tenmei is advised that his unusual style of communication has not been conducive to resolving this dispute. Accordingly, Tenmei is urged to develop a different style of communication, which is more similar to that used by experienced Wikipedia editors. Until this happens, Tenmei is advised not to engage in topics which are the subject of a dispute.
  3. Tenmei is banned for one year.
  4. User:Bobthefish2 is topic banned from the subject of Senkaku Islands, widely construed, for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and user space.
  5. User:STSC is warned to avoid any sexualisation of discussions, especially during disputes.
  6. The parties are reminded that attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground may result in the summary imposition of additional sanctions, up to and including a ban from the project.
  7. The topic covered by the article currently located at Senkaku Islands, interpreted broadly, is placed under standard discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
  8. An uninvolved administrator may, after a warning given a month prior, place any set of pages relating to a territorial dispute of islands in East Asia, broadly interpreted, under standard discretionary sanctions for six months if the editing community is unable to reach consensus on the proper names to be used to refer to the disputed islands.

    While a territorial dispute is subject to discretionary sanctions due to this remedy, any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in these topical areas, after an initial warning.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Phoenix7777. You have new messages at Talk:Sea of Japan.
Message added 09:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Oda Mari (talk) 09:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Graphics Lab

The following discussion was moved to Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop. Subsequent comments should be made there.


Thanks so much for creating the map File:Revenue map for Bollywood films.svg. I'm really sorry, but I stupidly missed out a crucial country - Pakistan, in blue. Could you please update that too? I really appreciate it. Thanks in advance, and cheers! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, could you add an inset specifying the color scheme for the map? It goes like this :-
Red - Main country
Blue - Important and consistent revenue earners
Green - Erratic revenue earners
Thanks again! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Never mind. It’s one minute work. I updated the map. As for the legend, I will work later. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Whoopsies :( . I asked a few more editors to take a look at the map, and I seem to have forgotten a few more countries :D. Here they are :- Germany (blue), Malaysia (green). Thanks for the update. One minute work? Ooh, I thought making maps was a tough and highly specialized kind of job :). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Btw, Pakistan should be in blue - I stupidly missed out a crucial country - Pakistan, in blue. Thanks. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I corrected Pakistan. Malaysia need to be split from Thailand. So I will work later. Please be patient. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
There's no hurry at all, please take your time. I was just telling :D. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Drupe_fruit_diagram-cs.svg

Thanks for the fix, here's one on me :) Murúg (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

A animal distribution map

I saw some of your work and liked it. Is it possible you make a map for the distribution of the black mamba using this File:Africa map political.svg map? You can use the current map File:D.polylepis range.png as a source map. Just read the black mamba section on "Distribution" too to get a better idea. RedGKS (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you post your request to either Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop or Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop? I may take the request if I am available. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
User is indef-blocked; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VeronicaPR. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Wasabi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Iwate, Shizuoka, Oita and Yamaguchi

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Frank

Hello Phoenix. You ask elsewhere:

Hoary, please explain why User:Viva Frank Zappata was blocked for Disruptive editing? I am not sure the reason for your block. The user never did disruptive editing by these four edits. If the user is a sockpuppet of someone, the reason should be described so.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Because of trolling, pretty obvious to me in itself and made blazingly obvious in this fifth edit of his. (He made no other edits anywhere.)

In blocking him, I left the unblock template on his talk page. He's free to use that, to persuade another admin that he is a constructive contributor. But if you think that requiring him to plead innocence is unfair, you're welcome to bring up the matter at WP:AN/I. -- Hoary (talk) 13:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Phoenix7777. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Heron image done

I rotated and cropped the same as you did. I think it turned out okay. Thanks again for your help.

Here is another I did but had the camera a little straighter.

--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Taxobox please

If you have time, can you please add the taxobox to Reikou like you did for kiyomi? I don't understand the taxobox so I would like you to help. Thanks. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but I just copied the taxobox of the Japanese article Kiyomi. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, there is no Japanese one for this case. Thanks JoshuSasori (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This is for you

The Eraser Barnstar
The words "image" and "your name" remind me of what you did on the maps of Sea of Japan. Belatedly, thank you for the works. Sorry for my forgetfulness. Oda Mari (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding File:East Seas in East Asia.png

Regarding this image you created, in Chinese, the character for 海 is slightly different to the variant character used in Japanese, which is 海. In the case for Chinese, which uses the Kangxi Dictionary form, the 母 within 海 has 5 strokes, making the total number of strokes 10; in the case for Japanese, which uses a different shinjitai vulgar variant, the 毋 within 海 has 4 strokes, making the total number of strokes 9. Not a serious issue, but you may want to fix up the image. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing it out. I will fix the image as soon as possible. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I fixed the image. It took me a bit of work because the both characters are assigned to the same Unicode character (U+6D77) i.e. CJK Unified Ideographs. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Kumdo

Thanks for reverting to a stable version of the article, Kumdo. I didn't know that was a stable version before I revert new edits, and sorry that my reverting have been disruptive. Anyway, many thanks for your arbitration, --- PBJT (talk) 09:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Comfort women". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 17 July 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Comfort women, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

‎Signature vectorization

Could you look at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop‎#‎Signature vectorization?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.

Hey thanks for speaking out for me about my editing of the page "Liancourt Rocks" and its editing block. Actually the block was just expired and I can edit now, although this made me doubt on the trustworthiness of this encyclopedia... Anyway, thanks a lot.Wfumie (talk) 03:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back, Wfumie. We are here to improve the trustworthiness of Wikipedia. Without being discouraged by this unfortunate incident, please continue to edit Wikipedia. It is useful for you to enable your E-mail function by setting your preference so that we can communicate offline. I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia. Cheers. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Moved SI AN to ANI

Just an FYI, I moved the report you made at WP:AN to WP:ANI. For an incident requiring immediate action by an admin, WP:ANI is a better choice--it's more actively watched and commented on. WP:AN is better for either slower moving issues (like a ban discussion), or for comments/questions to admins in general when a specific action isn't requested. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. It's my mistake. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Article you requested per fair use

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B86iegI5pG5TdTBYbXdOb1JVaE0

Please let me know when you are done. Churn and change (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much Churn and change. I downloaded the article.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: your email

Thanks for the note, but location isn't an issue: this is owned by an archive, and the photo was taken in the archive. Thanks, too, for the SVG (I'll use it instead), but would you also be willing to do the crop and rotate? Nyttend (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I understand.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! Nyttend (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your words here. Your gesture is appreciated. --Ansei (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Please notice the reasons for a username change here. A simple name change was done here --Enkyo2 16:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Bottle keep

Thank you very much for adding to the "Bottle keep" entry! Not only does that photo speak a thousand words, you also added two great references! Say, do you know anyone who could write a Japanese Wikipedia article for it? A ボトルキープ doesn't seem to exist, not at the moment (2012-11-25 00h GMT)— but there's some occurrences of "ボトルキープ" in the (ja-)encyclopedia which link (redlink) to it. And: presumably whoever could make a "ボトルキープ" stub there could throw a [[Category:飲酒文化]] into it ...along with whatever else that my near-nil command of Japanese has missed. —sburke@cpan.org (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Also: I've posted some random questions to Talk:Bottle_keep that somebody might know answers/references for. They're just food/booze for thought. Thank you! —sburke@cpan.org (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sburke. There is a requested articles page in Japanese Wikipedia, ja:Wikipedia:執筆依頼. However it doesn't seem to be active. Another option is to place a request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan. This may be the minimum description for the Japanese article.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your efforts to improve bottle keep. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Translation

Hi! If you are not too busy, will you please take a look at my en-to-ja translation? Please feel free to correct ja. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not good at translating formal documents. However, having a quick look at the translation, it seems to be excellent.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

United States Forces Korea

Hello. I'm not sure why you blanked several sections of the recent post that I made, but would appreciate an explanation. None of the content was removed, just added to. Jackson1950Korea (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

FYI

You know well about the conversation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military. Same nightmare occurs, what do you think about Talk:Rape during the liberation of France and related articles.--Syngmung (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I apologize

Sorry for posting the POV-push translation in Talk:Liancourt Rocks; I was trying to show what the POV-pusher thought, without agreeing with him/her, but I guess I was being very reckless at putting such POV in the talk page of a very controversial topic. I thought about this yesterday night for about an hour, and I now believe that I did a mistake so I should apologize. Thanks.--Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 02:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC) (also, I am not a POV-pusher. I am a a content creator. I also apologize to myself for tarnishing my reputation on Wikipedia.)

PS. I would like it if you could find a photo of a Japanese sea lion near the rocks. I don't have the time to do so.

Merge discussion for Air Defense Identification Zone (East China Sea)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Air Defense Identification Zone (East China Sea), has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Ansett (talk) 04:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you please stop being such a drama queen?

Are you not able to accept that people might not agree with the way you're bloating up the discussion page? I don't see you think you have the right to be a complete drama queen and threaten other people of bans, and how he has the nerve to move out his own clutter and not everyone else's. In words you can understand more easily: "お前は何様？" The section was hatted because it was clutter - we don't need someone to repeat a bunch of policies here. For those of us who have been here for quite some time we know what the policies are, you don't need to point out quotes for us. It takes up a huge chunk of space within this page, and to be honest, it's an eyesore when I'm trying to navigate the page to see what the hell is going on. If you want to make an argument, mentioning the policy is sufficient enough. Rewriting whole chunks of policy within this page is unnecessary clutter, which is the reason why I collapsed everybody's policy quotes, and not just yours; I'm not "unfairly targeting you" or "intentionally hiding things that aren't convenient for me", Phoenix7777, or whatever persecution complex excuse you can come up with. Stop this annoying rubbish, and realise that there's more to this planet than you. You're getting on my nerves, and it is really pissing me off. --benlisquareT•C•E 05:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess my previous comment wasn't clear enough. Stop this shit. If you want to debate, do it properly without being a "if you don't do what I like I'll get you back~~!" kind of person. It's annoying as fuck, and I've had it with you. You're being intentionally disruptive. You have zero right to threaten other people like what you just did. --benlisquareT•C•E 12:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
That's some wonderful language you are using Benlisquare. Way to get yourself into trouble. I'd have imagined you to know what not to do as someone who'd spent years in Wikipedia. 174.89.163.195 (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Editing Pepero

Hello, and thanks for your contributions on the page Pepero. In your last edit, I noticed that you put the information about Glico's considerations against Pepero. Is this information necessary in the introduction? How about starting a section called Controversy on the page? Please reply here or the Pepero talk page. Thanks! Kkj11210 (talk) 09:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kkj11210. Thank you for your constructive suggestion. I agree with you on moving the descriptions to Controversy section.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, then, I'll move it to the section then. Cheers! Kkj11210 (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice

I believe you have misbehaved in the ongoing RM/CM and I have raised the issue at WP:AE.--Lvhis (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

initiated at 18:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC) by User:Lvhis,
closed at 10:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC) as no consensus.
initiated at 23:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC) by User:Lvhis,
closed at 02:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC) as WP:BOOMERANG.
initiated at 19:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC) by User:STSC,
closed at 03:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC) as no evidence.
initiated at 01:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC) by User:Lvhis,
closed at 13:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC) as Closure endorsed.
―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I hope you guys enjoyed spending that Christmas holiday/weekend doing this. 174.89.163.195 (talk) 05:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Check the timezones. People usually have Christmas lunch at noon. Plus, Christmas should be a solemn occasion, you're not actually supposed to light up and take shots like on NYE, you know. --benlisquareT•C•E 02:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pepero, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Copycat (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) 09:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Korean sword, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chinese, Japanese and Mongolian (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) 13:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

STAP cells

Hello, a story on STAP cells is currently pending at ITN. The ITN regulars (mostly non-medical people) are having a bit of trouble deciding on a blurb. Since you worked on the article, I thought maybe you could take a look at it and give some input? Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandalization of an article

Hello, Phoenix7777. If possible, could you check the article, "Ttongsul"? It was vandalized after your edit, but I cannot figure out how to undo it. Thank you very much! 71.192.247.104 (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I reverted the edits. You can do it by yourself. See Help:Reverting#Manual reverting.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Merkel's map

Hi, it seems like that the map you've just added was a bit different with the one shown in your second source? --lssrn45 | talk 14:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Nouvel atlas de la Chine, de la Tartarie chinoise, et du Thibet La Haye 1737. Carte générale d'assemblage.
I replaced the map with the one more resembling the present.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Cherry blossom

I've provided a valid citation, you shouldn't deny this information because it's against your personal preference. And that claim is right within the same page and is accepted to be valid. "Cherry trees naturally grow in the middle northern or southern part of China, the area nearby the sea." Tingchiyu (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tingchiyu. Thank you for responding to my request. Then your addition is redundant and unnecessary. By the way, you should provide a page number and a quote of the source you provided when your claim is disputed. Please note that "Cherry trees naturally grow in the middle northern or southern part of China, the area nearby the sea." is unsourced. So I can remove it unless you provide a reliable source. Cheers.
P.S. I am concerned that every years around this cherry blossom season, some editors claim the cherry blossom was originated in their native countries, especially Korea and China.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Because cherry trees naturally grow in these three areas during the ancient time, I can assume that cherry trees were originated from China, Korea and Japan before any of the corresponding civilizations were created. Tingchiyu (talk) 04:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hachikō

Fair enough, my friend. But, I hear they had pre-show soft drinks. Plus, the local high school principal was there on opening night. The whole town was abuzz. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the event is notable enough to deserve mentioning in the city's home page. :) Cheers.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
A revert initiated by you became an edit warring.[10][11] Wikipedia became a place to report a local news like Fremantle Herald.[12]―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
This is pretty small potatoes, certainly nothing worth warring over. If anyone feels really strongly, why not ask at article talk for the views of others? We're all friends here. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for correcting my error re Sewol! 
Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Sinking of the MV Seohae

Do you think you can add about 125 more words? This would double the article and make it legible for T:TDYK (I can help you with the nomination process). If you reply here, please WP:ECHO me). Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Ttongsul

Of course you are pro Japanese~ Explains why you are undoing changes to that Ttongsul fiction. I hope you notice it is close to racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryohka (talk • contribs) 22:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Japan–Korea Treaty of 1910". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 11:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Japan–Korea Treaty of 1910

Hi, I have to log off now, but deletions are being made to the above article and I saw that you previously reverted the same deletions. If you have time could you check the new edits. Thanks Denisarona (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Japan–Korea Treaty of 1910

You need to stop adding material back into this article without a clear consensus. While no one has reverted 4 times in 24 hours, it is still an edit war and you seem to be the most persistent in adding it back. WP:BURDEN states that it is up to you to demonstrate the utility and get the consensus. WP:BRD also makes it clear that once you've been reverted out, you don't revert back in. You stopped the DRN discussion, but perhaps that was a mistake. It doesn't matter what a professor says in an email, we are an encyclopedia and we require 3rd party verification from reliable sources, which that wouldn't fall under. Use the talk page, use WP:DRN, but stop just reverting back or you will force sanctions upon yourself. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks, mate, I really appreciate it. Sorry for not saying something sooner! John Smith's (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Korean POV-pushers regarding Sea of Japan

Hello, I noticed that you've been reverting some POV-pushers too, and I was wondering if something should be done like page protections or blocks? Here are the main offenders for your convenience:

Cheers~ ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I reported 108.205.50.99 to WP:AIV[13] and the IP was blocked.[14] However the IP edited again[15] because the block was 24 hour Autoblock. Page protection may be useful but the related pages are too many. The best solution for now is to revert the edits and report the IPs to WP:AIV.―― Phoenix7777 (talk)

Mongol invasions of Korea

Could I ask what your reasoning is behind the reversion of my edits? "Capitulation" sounds incredibly vague and would be better replaced with specific phrasing referring to the exact outcome of the invasions. 2601:D:8800:423:863:D3E4:22AF:C92D (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems like you reverted my edit on the Mongol Empire article as well, linking to a map that is incredibly inaccurate. The Mongol relict states were definitely not spread all over the vast majority of Asia in 1500. 2601:D:8800:423:863:D3E4:22AF:C92D (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Japanese war crimes

Hello, Phoenix7777. You have new messages at Michitaro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Shuji Nakamura may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • |language=Japanese |quote=２００５、６年ごろに（米国市民権を）取ったんですよ [aquired (U.S. citizenship) in 2005 or 2006}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Phoenix7777. You have new messages at WP:RX.
Message added 21:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- NQ (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Report No. 49

You uploaded Report No. 49, the report was US Army secret report during WW2. The report is not the US Army war crimes, but only their report about their enemy and comfort girls. But STSC (talk) argued the report is used by the revisionists or topic banned.[16] The report and the photo women with US service men should not be deleted by single One user. This report and photo never accuse US servicemen, no relation to topic banned US servicemen rapes. What do you think? Or are you revisionist? Syngmung (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tsutomu Nishioka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Takashi Uemura. 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) 09:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Murder of Ryota Uemura ‎

i add this is Murder of Ryota Uemura ‎ when 13 year old boy was bullied after joined the gang and murdered by gang leader by --Sunuraju (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 11 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Asan Institute for Policy Studies

The article Asan Institute for Policy Studies has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no parent evidence for notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Not 'blatant'

I've taken it to WP:Articles for deletion/New Romanization of Korean instead. The speedy criterion is for things that are really obvious, like a four year old having a PhD from Cambridge, or Donald Trump moving to North Korea. Peridon (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Koreana Quarterly pdf

Hi, I can send you a pdf of:

to fulfill your request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#Koreana Quarterly. Please use Special:EmailUser to email me so that I can reply with the pdf as an attachment. Regards, Worldbruce (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Worldbruce: Thank you. Sent an email.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


Please update the graph of mers in Korea

Please...

Interested in doing graphs

I'm interested in doing graphs of outbreaks if you need help. I like to generate graphs using ggplot2 in R. Can do SVG files. juanTamad 11:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtamad (talk • contribs)

July 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Diary of a Japanese Military Brothel Manager. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Diary of a Japanese Military Brothel Manager shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Binksternet (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

At Senkaku Islands dispute, please do not link to images that are under copyright by the owners. As well, the images fail WP:RS because they are not subject to editorial oversight. Furthermore, inline URLs are deprecated for article body text. Binksternet (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yamazaki442

Hey Phoenix7777,

My apologies I was not aware of the 3 reverts in a 24 hour period rule. My question though is that while it is true that I have been going back and forth with what appears to be a few people from Mike Honda's camp. The thing that really upsets me though is that this Congressional Ethics Investigation is actually the most widely covered event of Congressman Honda's entire political career. Over 130 credible news sources have picked up the story and it appears to me that there are folks who might be paid to work for the Congressmen who are attempting to white wash his wikipedia page. What should I do to make sure that his wikipedia page is kept up to date, with all of the facts? It appears to me that the Congressman's friends are trying to make his wikipedia page into a self written, self aggrandizing biography page, not an objective source for information. My posts have been well sourced and non partisan regarding language tone. Is there anything that I can do within the guidelines of Wikipedia to make sure that his page is kept honest and up to date and not overly influenced by people who are trying to cover up the ongoing ethics investigation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamazaki442 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Yamazaki442: See WP:BRD. A discussion was initiated by User:GB fan at Talk:Mike Honda#Investigation.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

GA reassessment for History of Japan

History of Japan, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Gimbap

Phoenix, if you can show me what part of the source explicitly says that "Norimaki was the original term for gimbap" or "Gimbap was first called norimaki" or something along those lines, I will concede and leave the content as is. However, from what I've read, that is not mentioned. If you cannot show me what portion of the source justifies your claim, "Gimbap was originally called norimaki (노리마키)", then that passage should either be deleted or amended. It's as simple as that. BlackRanger88 (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss at Talk:Gimbap#Terms norimaki and gimbap.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shimon Sakaguchi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MD. 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) 10:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Trans-Pacific Partnership

What agreement are you talking about? If there is any agreement on the talk page, it is to keep the word controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinkunev (talk • contribs) 11:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm the only one here who wants to engage in a discussion. I find your actions completely inappropriate. Martinkunev (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

User: Gass Gess

Hi, Phoenix,

I noticed that you posted a warning on user Gass Gess's Talk page that s/he would be subject to a ban if further posts in violation of Wikipedia policies were made. Can you elaborate on the basis for that move, and the procedures?

Your warning seems to have been effective, in the sense that there have been no Gass Gess posts since, but another user who has been troubled by this individual's "contributions" has reason to believe that he's simply switched to a sock puppet account. In addition, my attempts to revert some of this person's "contributions" to the Eurasian and Interracial Marriage articles have themselves been reverted by a well-meaning editor, who doesn't yet understand this individual's manifest nature and prediclictions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprucegrouse (talk • contribs) 14:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited La Liste, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fürstenau. 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) 09:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

I haven't removed anything. It's a claim made by the author and I've highlighted that. Callingdogsofthunder (talk) 10:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLPEL

Phoenix7777, please could I politely but firmly draw your attention to WP:BLPEL, "when including such links in other articles, make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy … do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy". I have already removed one link, and I'm shocked to see it has been reverted. —Sladen (talk) 08:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't notice you edited my edit per WP:BLPEL. However I don't think the German news site is neither questionable nor self-published sources. Moreover this talk page is not Further reading or External links. It is not necessary to remove the link.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Phoenix7777, we don't name people, and we don't link to content that names people. —Sladen (talk) 08:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry to say but as far as I know, there is no such guideline. If you know such guideline, please provide it to me. If you are referring to WP:BLPNAME, the guideline does not apply to a link to the news in the talk page.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Phoenix7777, I will be happy to work through my own understanding of WP:BLP with you later. I hope in the mean-time that—as per all BLP issues—one can be respectful of the desire to keep material off Wikipedia while discussion takes place and in any instance when in doubt. WP:AN#How to handle a BLP violation? (just hatted by Mjroots) covers the extremely large amount of effort already undertaken in the last few days (across multiple Wikipedia language editions) to clean-up and oversight the previous attempts at associating alleged names with the incident article in question. As I won't be around for several hours, I've added a {{Admin help}} request here, who should be in good position to review the situation from your immediate contribution history and take any action needed. —Sladen (talk) 09:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Phoenix7777. You have new messages at Mjroots's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mjroots (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

cool name

Metro man 27 (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 13 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Philippines v. China

Need your help in talk page. Please see International reactions to Philippines v. China. The article needs to be split for readability. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Korean Nobel laureates, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Korean. 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) 11:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

File:2016_Croydon_tram_derailment.svg arrows

Hey, this is probably trivial but could I ask you to correct something on this diagram? It looks to me like people would get the wrong impression with the arrows and think that trams are right hand running and so with the arrows could you put them on the other side of the diagram. Sorry to bother you. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 10 years 10:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I thought the tram was running on the right-hand track. I corrected the diagram. Thank you for the heads-up.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Korean disease listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Korean disease. Since you had some involvement with the Korean disease redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Phoenix7777. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Just wanted to say I really appreciate the graphics you have added to New Zealand and Italian quake pages with plots such as this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2009_L%27Aquila_earthquake_(magnitude).svg

Fascinating to see how 7 years after the Aquila earthquake there is still elevated activity;


Swfiua (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

File:LaMia_Airlines_Flight_2933_flight_path_15_minutes.svg

First, thank you for adding this file and the effort it took to create it. I think it would add much to the article if you could add a third marker point that indicates when the pilot (PiC) declared an emergency/ transmitted his Mayday call. I don't know if there is currently the information available to do this, however.

Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

If an exact time of the communication is available, I can add the event. It is probably before 2:55:48 when ADS-B signals were lost.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
According to [17], the aircraft declared the emergency at 22:00 (Lima Time/UTC+11), which seems to be 4 minutes after ADB was lost at 02:56Z (21:56L) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
It is probably an approximate time. It is unlikely that the emergency call was made after 02:56Z. From the speed (142 knot) at 02:55:48 and the distance to the crash site (approx. 20km), the time of the crash is around 03:00z.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I didn't think it likely to be the correct time, either. Apologies if that wasn't clear. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I updated the map indicating the FL210 line and added a description to the article.[[18]] This will help to understand the behaviour of the plane.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

about undoing Rising sun flag..

I erased it because I think role of wikipedia is platform for thought, not making thought. it may be something nomative.. if not any mention it, do you mind it'll be reverted to the version? --호로조 (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

No. It is self-evedent. If you wish to remove the flags, you should prove that those flags are not similar to the rising sun flag. Also note that the similar flags have been in the article for more than two years which means listing the flags is a consensus of Wikipedia community.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
See also the following articles:
If you continues to insist the WP:POV edit, you will be blocked from editing.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
thanks --호로조 (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Ooperhooft/Tenmei/Ansei/Enkyo2 was evading his one-year ArbCom-imposed site-ban

好久不見. I know it's super-old, but remember this guy?

It just came to my attention while I was looking for teaching materials on simple.wiki, but Horeki (talk · contribs) was definitely him (Horeki edited pages in Ansei's userspace, and the evidence on Simple English Wikipedia is even stronger). This means that the suspicion that his declared alt account (Ansei) may indicate that he was evading his block was valid, and might mean that after he got blocked indefinitely (almost a day after his last edit) three years ago he immediately started editing again under a new undeclared sock. Have you noticed anything suspicious? Or know anyone who might have?

Also pinging Fut.Perf, who almost certainly doesn't remember closing the block discussion back in 2013.

I've said a few times that I think a standard offer might be in order, but not if he's been evading the block all along.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Korean sword

The reference you mentioned does not mean that samjengdo resembles Japanese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catrin00 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Lee Yong-hoon

There's another Lee Yong-hoon who was 14th Chief Justice of the Republic of Korea, so I don't think it is appropriate to redirect to professor. What do you think? — regards, Revi 20:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The Chief Justice of the Republic of Korea is Lee Yong-hun. I corrected the name in Chief Justice of the Republic of Korea.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Prunus × yedoensis, King cherry

I found the latest information on cherry blossom genetic information. I think it will be helpful for your contribution. 

Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute 1/18/2017

--60.46.246.124 (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I reflected the paper.[19]―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:REX

Hi! In future, please be a bit more careful so as not to delete other users' requests. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 09:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: I am so sorry for my mistake. I replaced your request with mine instead of appending it to yours.09:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
The best way to avoid such problems is to use the automated tool at the top of the article page ("Click here to create a new request"). Cheers, Constantine ✍ 09:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Rising sun flag#Similar flags

I see that you restored the "Similar flags" section that I removed some months ago, but you did not give any reason. In my opinion, the section is just a subjective list that is not based on any sources and therefore constitutes original research. Please see also the discussion at Talk:Flag#RfC about section "Similar flags" and the conclusion there: "the section shall be kept if it is possible to restrict them to rigorously sourced groupings that have some sort of strong logical explanation as to the similarities". Regards! --T*U (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The RFC is surprisingly scarce so it is not appropriate to extend the RFC to other article than Flag. If you wish to remove the section of other article, more extensive discussions are required. Flag of the United States#Similar flags has many flags but there are sources for only three flags. If you successfully removed the unsourced flags of the article, I am willing to consent to removing the section of Rising sun flag. Until then, the section should be stayed there.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Phoenix7777. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Boscaswell talk 17:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

bump fire animation

thanks for the animation, that page really needed that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.120.199 (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Las Vegas diagram

Thanks for your work on that diagram. Because of a recent glitch in the ping facility,[20] I'm not sure you received this ping. It would be great to show the fuel tanks with an arrow! ―Mandruss ☎ 12:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Phoenix7777. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Korean Nobel laureates for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Korean Nobel laureates 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/List of Korean Nobel laureates 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Sam Sailor 18:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Jan Blokhuijsen

I noticed that your edit restored " which he deleted later" in regards to the twitter apology. I can't find that he deleted it in the source, do you have any idea where that is mentioned? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Spacecowboy420:. I didn't restored "which he deleted later".[21] However it is a fact although there isn't a source describing the fact yet. The link to the twitter was removed by an anon.[22] I verified the link was in fact an apology and his most current tweet is Feb 4.[23]―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
"However it is a fact although there isn't a source describing the fact yet." that's enough for me. Twitter is blocked on my company's network, so I couldn't verify if it had been deleted. Thanks Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Map request

Map of earthquakes in Greece and adjacent countries 1900-2017

I saw you made an earthquake map of Italy and I was wondering if you would have time to make one that features Bulgaria in the center. I like how the Italy map has a bit of the neighbors as well, in Bulgaria's case it might be useful with Greece, Turkey and Romania all quite active, and Macedonia to a lesser degree.Skycycle (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Earthquakes in Bulgaria are far less active than Italy, Greece and other neighboring countries. I drew an earthquake map of Bulgaria with the same conditions as Italy, but it is hardly impressive which means people in Bulgaria is happy. I created a map of Greece including Bulgaria. You can create a map of Bulgaria by cropping the map if you wish. I am sorry about not being able to respond to your request.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Allegations of Deception

Don't falsely accuse me of deceiving anyone. I used the translation given through a verified Korean-language translator on Wikipedia.

Translation given in the link: "Rising Sun Flag controversy, which occurs once in a while, starts from excessive nationalism and nationalistic complex. … As always, rising sun flag issue is some sort of ‘complex’ against Japan".
Passage I included: "One opinion cites that the controversies surrounding the Rising Sun Flag, which occur once in a while, begin from excessive nationalism and some sort of ‘complex’ against Japan".

Please explain how that is "deceptive". If you cannot, don't resort to baseless accusations. BlackRanger88 (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

reliable sources saved to Internet Archive

69.181.23.220 (talk) 10:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Florida International University pedestrian bridge collapse.svg

Thank you for making this illustration. It's very good and adds a lot to the Florida International University pedestrian bridge collapse article --William Graham talk 15:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

OSM locator map

Thanks for adding the locator map to the 2018 Democratic Republic of the Congo Ebola virus outbreak article: that's greatly improved the article. -- The Anome (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Orbital Illustrator barnstar

The Space Barnstar
For your outstanding contributions of orbital animations on comets, space probes and assorted SSOs, it is my great honor to award you the Space Barnstar with a grade of Orbital Illustrator Extraordinaire. — JFG talk 08:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Gravity assist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Mercury
MESSENGER (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Mercury

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Kepler orbit?

Animation of Kepler's trajectory from 7 March 2009 to 30 December 2019
  Kepler ·   Earth ·   Sun
Animation of Kepler's trajectory around Earth from 7 March 2009 to 30 December 2019
   Kepler ·   Earth

As the Kepler space telescope is in the news,[24] could you possibly produce an orbit animation for it? Cheers, — JFG talk 16:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi JFG, I searched the trajectory data of Kepler, but could not find in either HORIZONS System or Index of /pub/naif/. Kepler is basically chasing Earth on the Earth's orbit and after 10 years from the launch, it is a sixth way behind Earth. I am not sure an animation of Kepler is impressive to viewers but if I find the data, I will try to produce an animation.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, even if you find the data, it must be hard to represent. Perhaps by zooming in on Earth and moving the "camera" alongside Earth orbit as Kepler loops around and drifts away. — JFG talk 22:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@JFG: Done.[25]―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. The spiral view centered on Earth is certainly an unusual and educating perspective. Just what an encyclopedia needs! — JFG talk 05:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

2018 Japan floods

Hi Phoenix7777. Thanks for adding the very useful death toll map. Unfortunately, the death toll has now risen further. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Puna Geothermal Venture

On 24 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Puna Geothermal Venture, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a unique geological formation, including dacitic magma at approximately 1050°C (1920°F), was encountered at Puna Geothermal Venture in 2005 when drilling a new geothermal energy well? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Puna Geothermal Venture. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Puna Geothermal Venture), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Casliber 00:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

2009 Sumatra earthquakes

Hi again, and let me rephrase that: I think what I want to do is just pass on to you what I have learned about working on earthquake articles. The first thing is that the ISC is considered the premier seismological organization (the USGS often cites them for their own figures), so if if there is an article that cites the ISC-GEM catalog, please just leave that in place. The second thing is about intensity. I had cited the USGS' figure of VII for the mainshock and you replaced it with IX and we both cited the same source.

What happened is this: you took the figure from the shakemap, which is a computer generated figure. The algorithm routinely overshoots the intensity, but mostly just by one intensity level. If you look at the "impact" section on the USGS site, you'll sometimes see comments that were left by a reviewing seismologist. They'll even list the intensity in various locations. This is where I obtained the VII figure. Please use this whenever possible (sometimes there is no content in the impact section) as using human generated details is preferable over computer generated. Please only use shakemap figures if there's nothing else available. Thanks, and apologies for the undo. I just figured this was a good opportunity to say hello and pass along these details. Cheers, Dawnseeker2000 07:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Dawnseeker2000: Did you see the current infobox? There are three errors because of parameters deprecated in March 2018. I just fixed them following the instruction described in the Template:Infobox earthquake#New parameters which says "However, please do not simply copy the old values. These should be checked with an authoritative source such as the ANSS or ISC...". I consulted the ISC source[1], but it is not immediately available because a whole catalog must be downloaded by a request. So I followed the instruction and used the ANSS source. Anyway, I don't think you are satisfied by restoring the errors, please fix the errors by yourself.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

BTS

Why are hell are the messing with BTS’ page? You are vandalizing it. Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I will be reporting your for adding fake news to the BTS article. The nazi hat you added was an edit made by antis years ago from a magazine photoshoot Ceci magazine Korea but you are so lazy to do research you can see the scans here. You can literally search the magazine scans and see it's fake. What you are doing citing a biased article by The Guardian without doing the proper research about the liberation day shirt that is used in korea is defamation, South Korea and Japan are going through a tense diplomatic situation and Japanese media are using the group to spread fake news, you can read the Billboard reference about it. Also the accusation about the flag at the concert is fake and the company from the artist Seo Taiji is already consulting to their lawyers to sue for defamation the people accusing the flag being Nazi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiovannaG (talk • contribs) 15:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Your edits have been recorded and will be submitted to BigHit for defamation. You have ties going all the way back to 2010 showing that you are anti-Korean, it's unbelievable that you are allowed an account on this site. Okayes (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Damn give it to them. It was really unprofessional Chocoaddickted (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Not appreciated

The addition to the bts page was not appreciated when wikipedia is supposed to be based on facts and not misinformation and propaganda peddled by right wing japanese people that dont believe in the holocaust Chocoaddickted (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Phoenix7777. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited La Liste, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages New York and Matsukawa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Nature's 10

Hello, Phoenix7777,

Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for creating Nature's 10! I edit here too, under the username Graeme Bartlett}} and it's nice to meet you:-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

The descriptions all appear to be copied, but could be written in your own words, so it is not fair use.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Graeme Bartlett}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: Thank you for reviewing the page. As for the over-quotation, I followed the style of List of Nobel laureates in Physics which quotes rationales from nobelprize.org. Anyway, now that @Duncan.Hull: removed the quotes, the problem was solved. Thank you for pointing it out.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Parker Solar Probe article--proposed additions

I just added something to a topic I brought up a little while ago, on the Talk Page for Parker Solar Probe. You've been very much involved with that page, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention; if you have any thoughts on it one way or another, I'd be very interested in hearing them. Uporządnicki (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello.

I left a message on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Phoenix7777 concerning an image you uploaded. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 00:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Requesting undo of renaming of followed Article: 2018 Japan–South Korea radar lock-on dispute

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The specific link is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Requesting_undo_of_renaming_of_followed_Article:_2018_Japan–South_Korea_radar_lock-on_dispute. Yamla (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

List of countries by suicide rate‎

I have pinged you on the talk page of List of countries by suicide rate‎ regarding your reversal of my edit. I genuinelly do believe the template to have merit and trust you will engage further on the article's talk page. Thanks. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of List of school shootings in the United States by death toll for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of school shootings in the United States by death toll 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/List of school shootings in the United States by death toll until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Parent 1 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Parent 1. Since you had some involvement with the Parent 1 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. DannyS712 (talk) 07:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Parent 2 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Parent 2. Since you had some involvement with the Parent 2 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. DannyS712 (talk) 07:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Greatest U.S. Enemy listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Greatest U.S. Enemy. Since you had some involvement with the Greatest U.S. Enemy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Onel5969 TT me 16:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Sunny Cove listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sunny Cove. Since you had some involvement with the Sunny Cove redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 21:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

"Hinako Shibuno" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hinako Shibuno. Since you had some involvement with the Hinako Shibuno redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Willbb234 (talk) 11:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Voyager initial orbits

Hello. Since you created File:Animation of Voyager 2 trajectory.gif, you obviously had access to the requisite data to answer this question: what were the Voyager 1 and 2 initial aphelia? In other words, how far out could they have gone if Jupiter hadn't been there? Urhixidur (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Urhixidur: I am sorry but I don't understand your question. I plotted the trajectory from data obtained from Horizons. There is no trajectory data "if Jupiter hadn't been there".―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Phoenix7777: Of course there is. I suppose the output can be requested as orbital parameters, which include semi-major axis and eccentricity? This would give you an aphelion somewhere beyond Jupiter. That's what I'm asking: when Voyager 2 left Earth, and until it encountered Jupiter, what was its orbit's aphelion? Urhixidur (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
There, done:
"Voyager 1′s initial orbit had an aphelion of 8.9 AU, just a little shy of Saturn's orbit of 9.5 AU. Voyager 2′s initial orbit had an aphelion of 6.2 AU, well short of Saturn's orbit.[1]"
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Urhixidur (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ HORIZONS, JPL Solar System Dynamics (Ephemeris Type ELEMENTS; Target Body: Voyager n (spacecraft); Center: Sun (body center); Time Span: launch + 1 month to Jupiter encounter - 1 month)

Images input in French Wikipedia

Thanks for the graphics of wind, pressure and motion of tropical cyclones in articles but please:

  1. Put them at the right place, not with the introduction.
  2. Write a legend.

I had to correct all your inputs.

Pierre cb (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Animation of PAS-22 trajectory around Earth.gif

From commons:User_talk:Phoenix7777:
The last part of the trajectory after the second rendezvous with the Moon looks unbelievable. The spacecraft having, as stated, a limited amount of fuel could not make such abrupt change in the direction of motion (as on 1998-06-13 02:38 - 1998-06-14 01:38 frames) and loop (as on 1998-06-15 22:38 frame).--Yellow Horror (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

In Russian Wikipedia there were analogous objections arose. Рlease, indicate the data source for such a path. Klip game (talk) 04:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I want to put your animation in ru:PAS-22, but it's removed because the data source is unknown. Рlease, indicate the data source. Klip game (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for an orbit animation

Hello, if you the have time and interest, there are two articles that should benefit significantly from the addition of an orbit animation: the Lunar Gateway is intended to be placed in a highly elliptical seven-day near-rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO) around the Moon. The orbit is difficult to visualize with words and its name is not self-explanatory. I could only explain that is called a halo orbit because from Earth it will look like a halo around the Moon, so an animation would be best. No other spacecraft has flown in this kind of orbit, so the planned CAPSTONE (spacecraft) will first test this orbit to verify what the orbital models suggest for the Lunar Gateway station.

I do not have the detailed orbital parameters, other than it has a 7-day orbital period; polar orbit; 3,000 km (1,900 mi) of the north pole surface at closest approach and as far away as 70,000 km (43,000 mi) over the south pole.[1][2]

This is an animation example published by NASA (made by Advanced Space) of the orbit chosen for both spacecraft: [3] Thank you. -Rowan Forest (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rowan Forest, I checked the Horizons but the orbital information is not available yet. If it becomes available, I will try to create animations.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Angelic halo orbit chosen for humankind's first lunar outpost. European Space Agency, Published by PhysOrg. 19 July 2019.
  2. ^ Halo orbit selected for Gateway space station. David Szondy, New Atlas. 18 July 2019.
  3. ^ NASA Funds CubeSat Pathfinder Mission to Unique Lunar Orbit. NASA press release 19-073. 13 September 2019.

Thank you

Thank you so much for checking the edit I made to the Lee Young-hoon page. I really appreciate people holding me accountable and wanting everything on Wikipedia to be as correct as possible. Have a wonderful day and thank you for all the work you have done to make Wikipedia a better website. ₪RicknAsia₪ 05:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rickinasia: Thank you for adding the source to the article. I don't know much about Kyung-Ahm Prize.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

GNU/Linux

Although this is not the most common name, this should be the proper name of the so called "Linux distributions". See https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html for details.

I made some edits (Linux to GNU/Linux), but they were all reverted. Since (according to the original authors)people mistakenly the operating system Linux, should not we use the proper (but uncommon) name so that people gradually start using it? Android -D 13:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apandada1 (talk • contribs)

@Apandada1: Please read Talk:Linux "Useful info from archives". It says Can we rename this page to GNU/Linux? No, the vast majority of people and companies call it Linux, and we already mention the alternate name in the lead and its own subsection. (See Talk:Linux/Name and Talk:Linux/Archive 41 § Page move: GNU/Linux). If you are not satisfied, open a discussion on the talk page.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

You wait days for a nationalist editor ...

and then two come along at the same time. Thanks! Shenme (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

"Ban-jiha" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ban-jiha. Since you had some involvement with the Ban-jiha redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 22:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk page length

This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. Geolodus (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

"Laurent Simons" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Laurent Simons. Since you had some involvement with the Laurent Simons redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 19:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

"Amazon effect" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Amazon effect. Since you had some involvement with the Amazon effect redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 18:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2020 Icheon fire

On 30 April 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2020 Icheon fire, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 14:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

COVID Diagram

Dear Phoenix7777,

Could you please double check this diagram.

I am concerned that you might have used the wrong value for the “Rest of the World” section. I also think you may have overdone the “Americas” section. I would like to insist that the diagram is corrected to show the actual values that are being recorded.

I thank you in advance, please could you inform me of the exact nature of the problem and could you also fix the diagram? Thank you. Pablothepenguin (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pablothepenguin: According to the WHO Situation Report on 19 May 2020, new cases by WHO Region are:
  • Globally 112,637
  • Americas 65,134
  • Europe 19,125 and China 6
So, new cases other than Americas, Europe and China are 28,372. The graph reflected these figures faithfully. By the way, Americas is the American continent not the United States. There is a similar graph in the Situation Report on page 3. Please compare the two graphs.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

EKS (satellite system)

I added EKS 4, but it doesn't appear on your diagrams, why? Your help would be welcome. CRS-20 (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@CRS-20: The orbital data of Cosmos 2546 is not yet available in the Satellite Catalog. If the data become available, I will try to add it to the animations.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. CRS-20 (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@CRS-20: Added.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I only see three satellites (Lime is not displayed). Cordially. CRS-20 (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@CRS-20: See Wikipedia:Bypass your cache.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I see Kosmos 2546, but I only see three orbits. CRS-20 (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Congratulations. Well done. You succeeded. CRS-20 (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

HaiYang-1D

HaiYang-1D launched (10 June 2020). Cordially. CRS-20 (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@CRS-20: Added. Be sure to clear your local cache by holding the Ctrl key and pressing the F5 key.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you change the title of the article HY (satellite) to HaiYang (satellite)? Cordially. CRS-20 (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@CRS-20: You can do it by yourself. See WP:MOVE#How to move a page. If you cannot move the article for technical reasons. file a technical move request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Beidou-3 G3

Launched CRS-20 (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@CRS-20: Added. The Geostationary transfer orbit of the G3 took 2 weeks.―― Phoenix7777 (talk)

"Beijing bikini" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Beijing bikini. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 15#Beijing bikini until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of U.S. News & World Report Best Countries Rankings

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on U.S. News & World Report Best Countries Rankings requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.usnews.com/media/best-countries/overall-rankings-2020.pdf and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Text_2. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Fram (talk) 10:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:TOP100, we are not allowed to include such copyrighted lists on Wikipedia (only strictly factual ones, like a list of countries by poulation: but not a subjective one like here). Fram (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Phoenix7777/Archive1&oldid=1252054878"