I am always very busy, and I can't edit as often as I'd like. However, I do check Wikipedia from time to time. If you leave a message here, I will notice it eventually.
I try to accept criticism of my edits and responsibility for my comments, and we should be able to resolve any editing disputes amicably. Feel free to express your opinion or ask for my help.
I have an archive of older topics from this page. It can be accessed here.

Hey, please don't delete a redirect just because a RM closed as move. If that was the result, the redirect should be moved, including all incoming links. As it stands you not only deleted a redirect, but left incorrect incomings link that are meant for the Arrow TV version of the character. Gonnym (talk) 10:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Gonnym. When a move like this occurs, it is not necessarily the case that all of the incoming links to the redirect are intended for the previous target of the redirect. In fact, the consensus to move to the base title is often an indication that many of the old links to the redirect may have been intended for the other article. I understand that it was not true in this case because you seem to have cleaned up the links in the past, but moving the redirect in every case would require each closer to determine a valid alternative redirect to the previous target article, and then wait for all of the double redirects to be shifted to the new target before completing the move. Unless something has changed recently, all that is usually required is instead to check to be sure there is not substantial edit history on the target page. I will be careful not to unnecessarily break links and to check the links to the target; in fact, when I first started editing Wikipedia I mainly worked on fixing ambiguous or incorrect links. Best, Dekimasuよ! 10:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe I have fixed all of the links to the character. Dekimasuよ! 10:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I was the one who created the redirect in the first place it seems (as it was on my watch list, but you could probably see in the history). If that is the case, every link that was there was a valid one as I was the one that made those connections. I did not vote in that discussion as I really could not care if the page moved or not, however, that was not a RfD discussion, which if it was I would have voted oppose for its deletion. Additionally, your fix to the incoming links is also incorrect. Arrowverse (and other similar topics, like MCU redirects), do not link to the comic book article but to a specific redirect. Please restore the previous redirect with its history to Jake Simmons (Arrowverse) so I can correctly fix those links. I do not remember by heart what the target was and what categories that redirect had which is why I'm requesting its restoration. Gonnym (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The target of Jake Simmons had been a direct link to Deathbolt (i.e. simply "#REDIRECT [[Deathbolt]]") since October 2021, so the links I fixed had been redirecting directly to Deathbolt already, and overwriting redirects as part of a move discussion does not require a separate RfD. As a matter of process, it would be impossible to expect those moving a page to guess that there might have been preexisting objections to the stable target of a redirect. However, I think the link you want is List of supporting Arrow characters#Jake Simmons / Deathbolt and I will restore the redirect history there given that it seems you would have objected to the stable redirect. Best, Dekimasuよ! 11:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello...I appreciate your quick attention to my addition of the "Triangle Daruma" section on the "Daruma Doll" page. Rather than make a separate page for this folk art form, I added it to the main page for "Daruma Doll." I would like to have the section return to the page, and respectfully ask that you reconsider.

I get over one million results when I search Google for "三角だるま" or "三角達磨" and over two million when I search for "三角ダルマ". There are over 3,000 English results for "sankaku daruma," but only 200 for "triangle daruma." If you prefer that I list and identify it as "sankaku daruma," I certainly would be glad to edit the section to reflect that header.

Also, I am very willing to add more information and attributions from deeper sources, as I had done in adding the Nikkei.com newspaper article. The source from 2004 did assert that Imai's son was the only maker of these figures at the time, but since 2018 they are crafted by a contingent of women in Agano City, where they are listed as a cultural property. This is from Japanese Wikipedia, where these dolls have their own page: 三角達磨

These figures are an historic folk art form in Japan, which I believe is evidenced by their extensive presence in online articles found through native Google searches. I feel they are significant cultural adaptations of the Daruma doll phenomenon and a relevant folk art form in their own right.

Thank you so much for your consideration... DDDnfl (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for bringing the conversation to my talk page. I think you may not be putting your search terms in quotation marks when using Google. I get 80 hits for "三角達磨" in quotes, 95 for "三角だるま", and 90 for "三角ダルマ". Some of these are false positives, and most are selling the figures online. These are all what you call native Google searches, I suppose. "Sankaku daruma" in quotes yields 35 hits, and "triangle daruma" under 20. The best source I can find on them in English is Mingei: Japan's Enduring Folk Arts by Amaury Saint-Gilles, which has one page of description, although the author is not a specialist. I think it might make sense to have a sentence in the article about these (probably under the "Shape" subsection of "Physical features and symbolism") but am not convinced that they should take up over 10% of the article or have a separate section. Best, Dekimasuよ! 16:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your reply! I will add a sentence in the shape section as you recommend. Many thanks. DDDnfl (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Dekimasu, I'm writing you regarding the discussion on the page Talk:Kharkiv Collegium. I've been very busy the last three days and haven't had time to reply. I have more arguments and I would like to have the opportunity to continue the discussion. I didn't know that in three days it would be closed. Can you please reopen the discussion or should I start a new one below? Ушкуйник (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ушкуйник, thank you for your message. Move requests are usually closed after one week of discussion, and this discussion was open for two weeks. I believe it would be better to start a new discussion than to reopen the previous one. The older discussion needed to be reset in order to establish a status quo and prevent edit warring. (Please take to heart the comments I made about establishing consensus before making additional changes related to the title or its spelling in the article.) However, you may find that some editors would also object to creating a new move request immediately after the previous close. Rather than starting a new official move request, it might be better to build consensus through normal talk page discussion first, and then move on to a move request if necessary once the general direction of that discussion becomes clearer. Best, Dekimasuよ! 07:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Dekimasu, the problem is that it would be important to hear the opinions of other colleagues who are specialists in Slavic Studies. Just for that reason I would prefer to be able to post my answer within the discussion that already exists. Would it be technically possible for you to reopen the discussion or is it difficult? Ушкуйник (talk) 07:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If your concern is citing something specific in the previous discussion in order to reply to it, I would suggest adding a new talk section in which you quote it or refer to a diff. The contents are readily available on the same page, so this should not cause too much trouble for readers and editors. It should not be necessary to reopen the move request; continuing the conversation does not require any change to the close of the previous discussion. (Technically, there is a review process available at Wikipedia:Move review if you think I have done something incorrect, but I do not believe that is the case.) Finally, when you say that you would like to hear the opinions of other specialists, while notifying WikiProjects of discussions is generally fine, please be sure not to engage in canvassing. Dekimasuよ! 07:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am raising a concern there that your closure there was a pile-on supervote; the opposers operate entirely on the basis of rejecting definite articles as a good enough small detail, but I believe that is against our consistency policy due to longstanding precedent supporting the definite article as sufficient disambiguation. Much evidence that this is the case is cited this other RM I closed. Consideration of policy outweighs headcounts; doing otherwise is like failing to delete articles on blatantly non-notable things just because a majority voted to keep. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Mellohi. Actually, I left you a message about relisting a while ago; not sure if you have seen it. First, I had no preference in this discussion, nor do I have any objection whatsoever to WP:SMALLDETAILS. Usually it is better to say less in a close; my comment below does not indicate that I had any particular motivation for the close at the time, but since you have asked me to look at the close again, I will try to reevaluate it objectively here.

WP:SMALLDETAILS is not absolute ("small details are usually sufficient"), which means that arguments by editors that titles that differ only slightly are ambiguous cannot be rejected out of hand. Those editors did not state that they reject disambiguation by definite article in general, but that they objected to disambiguation by the definite article in this particular case. Of course it is best for us to reach consistency in our titling over time—which is one of the reasons I help at WP:RM—but the stable title is the current one because the previous move took place in 2020, and it was clear that the discussion, which had been open for ten days, was not going to lead to consensus in favor of a change. Leaving open such a discussion when the final outcome is clear is not constructive.

I looked at your close at Talk:The Blacklist since you mentioned it here, and while I do not have particular objections to it, as closers we are tasked with weighing how requests coincide with guidelines and policy, and with evaluating consensus interpretations of existing policy. I would not write that "many of [the opposing arguments] are rooted in refusing to accept that definite articles are sufficient WP:SMALLDETAILS to discount blacklisting from consideration" because this ventures into analysis of the motivations of the editors, who are likely to be editing in good faith and using their own interpretation of the policy, rather than taking a stand against it or being oblivious to it. (Their argument appears to rely on the idea that use of the phrase "the B/blacklist" to refer to one particular blacklist has become basically idiomatic, whereas presumably they would not make the same argument in distinguishing a work from a word in the case of nonidiomatic use of the definite article, e.g. distinguishing The Godfather and Godfather or The Joshua Tree and Joshua Tree.) Likewise, personally I wouldn't write "other weak arguments relied on by the opposers include..." because it's likely to antagonize the participants whereas the close should ideally return everyone to productive editing in other areas.

Of course, closes do not need to follow headcounts. I closed an RM with one support and one oppose as consensus to move just a few hours after the close you are pointing out, because the "opposer" supplied no prima facie argument: Talk:Porte de Clichy. That is a particularly straightforward case, but at any rate I do not simply count the number of editors in favor of a position. Best, Dekimasuよ! 02:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand your methodology and how you view SMALLDETAILS differently than I do (you believing in a case-by-case approach and me under a precedent approach). Thank you for your thoughts. I also acknowledge that my closure reasons occasionally show signs of needing more care to assume good faith to even those I am not convinced by. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, I did read your previous message; that led me to stop voting and relisting in the same move discussion from then on. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Dekimasu, I realize that you have closed the RM discussion of the page Kriyananda. I would like to suggest that the arguments put forward by me endorsing the RM were entirely aligned with Wikipedia:CRITERIA, while OP's arguments lacked the reasoning on the same criteria. I would like to quote WP:TALKDONTREVERT : "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever."

The OP is strongly opposing my RM, yet they are not supporting their arguments with good reasoning (rather tends to overweigh on personal preference, often masquereding it as a preference of the article subject himself (Kriyananda). I request you to re-look at the discussion from this perspective. Bluesky whiteclouds (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(1)In regards to your discussion on Precision and Concision - Kriyananda is the precise and concise name to use. There is no one else on Wikipedia using the name Kriyananda so no confusion exists. A person can search for Swami Kriyananda or Kriyananda and they are directed to the Kriyananda page. On top that if there is another Kriyananda on Wiki, a disambiguation notice can be placed at the top of the page.(2) in regards to consistency here are just two examples of swamis without the title in their name on Wikipedia [[1]], [[2]], (3) Don't assume other editors have personal preferences because they do not agree with your assessment.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bluesky whiteclouds, as a neutral observer, there was no agreement as to whether the proposed title better fit several of the article naming criteria (concision, precision, and consistency). You were the "OP" of this request, but if you are using that as short for "opposition" here, then I would note that several editors contributed different perspectives with basis in policy and guidelines. In addition, other policy concerns like WP:TITLECHANGES and guidelines such as WP:NCIN#Titles and honorifics (as you noted in the request) may apply to this case. I understand that it can be difficult to share the perspective of other editors when participating in these sorts of discussions, but when there is no consensus the status quo is maintained, and here the status quo is also in line with the naming convention. (Note that the naming convention says "Exceptions may be made in cases where the subject is not known except with titles or other honorifics, or where they become the best means of disambiguation", but the title does not serve as disambiguation here and the subject is known to some extent without the title.)

It is true that the quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. However, conversely, it is important to consider carefully the possibility that the majority may have reasonable grounds for taking its position. Dekimasuよ! 07:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Dekimasu and Red Rose 13, thanks for your reply. I meant "other person" by OP, sorry for confusion! You know, the subject is known to great extent with the "Swami" in his name. There may not be consistency by himself in using that name, but he was known as Swami Kriyananda by everyone and through out his life. I've showed that using 'exact match' searches on few websites. Hence, my request would be, can we redirect Kriyananda to Swami Kriyananda, instead of the other way around? Red Rose 13, it certainly felt that you had a personal preference for just Kriyananda, because of the reason I stated while saying that. Yet, I sincerely apologize if it has caused you discomfort. I'm sorry. Bluesky whiteclouds (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I need to point out that 4 people said no for various reasons. It is my understanding that Dekimasu's job is to assess the consensus of the editors responding. If I am wrong, Dekimasu please correct me.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure if formal discussions are required, but there are templates and categories which should probably be moved, per the recent rename of January 6 United States Capitol attack‎. Are you open to moving these or submitting rename requests? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Another Believer, I am happy to perform any moves that are blocked by move protection, but this is not an area in which I normally edit, so I would prefer to stay out of the decision-making process. For now, I will go ahead and move Template:2021 US Capitol attack and Template:2021 United States Capitol attack to Template:January 6 US Capitol attack and Template:January 6 United States Capitol attack, respectively. I hope someone else can work on the categories, but it might be better to wait before starting on that, since move requests on this page have been sent to WP:MRV before. If there are other templates that need adjusting, please let me know. Best, Dekimasuよ! 15:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, I have added the Dictionary of National Biography as a source for Honywell (and his date of birth). Please see discussion at Talk:Robert Honeywood#Requested move 17 August 2022. Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like mosdab was seriously undated recently. Thanks for pointing at it. Still, placing surname in "See aslo" is wrong. The policy says, in part, A list of name-holders can be included in a People section of the page, or alternatively in sections such as People with the surname Xxxx or People with the given name Xxxx below the main disambiguation list. Loew Galitz (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of President of Japan. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Privybst (talk) 05:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reason of those here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here is because of the redirect links so I have to fix them. That's the reason, so don't block me indefinite while I'm fixing it. Obrigado (Thank you). Wildlover22User talk:Wildlover22:WL22 27, September 2022 (UTC) Wildlover22 (talk) 04:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wildlover22, thank you for communicating with me politely on my talk page. You wrote, "because of the redirect links so I have to fix them. That's the reason, so don't block me indefinite while I'm fixing it." However, what I and other editors have been trying to explain to you is that links that redirects that get readers to the correct articles should not be "fixed". Wikipedia:Redirect says that Redirects aid navigation and searching by allowing a page to be reached under alternative titles and It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]. This is an editing guideline on the English Wikipedia, which means all editors are expected to follow it in normal circumstances. I do appreciate your communication, but you still must stop editing links that are working redirects. Dekimasuよ! 04:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop and how many times do I have to you? "DON'T BLOCK ME INDEFINITELY WHILE I'M FIXING IT!" Wildlover22 (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! On behalf of WiTricity and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I've shared a draft entry for Japanese Wikipedia, which is a translated version of the English Wikipedia article. I'm searching for an editor who is willing to review this draft and update the entry appropriately. Might you be willing to take a look? Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The draft has been reviewed and the entry has been updated. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The edit was reverted by someone who hasn't responded to my request for an explanation. Perhaps they do not understand I was given permission by implement the draft by another editor. Are you able to take a look at the draft, or are you aware of a place at Japanese Wikipedia for me to seek assistance? Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your work in dealing with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fuhitobe.

The editor in question for that has been active for nearly a year, consistently producing rubbish from multiple languages. From what I've observed, their MO appears to be 1) find an article on the JA, DE, ZH, and RU Wikipedias (and possibly others), run that through machine translation, and engage in some light copy-editing. I am a professional JA-EN translator, and I'm fluent enough in German to be able to assess their efforts in that language pair as well -- and it all shows a profound ignorance of the other languages, the translation / localization process in general, the subject matter of the articles themselves, and Wikipedia standards (particularly Wikipedia:Notability, with a side order of problems in understanding what adequate sourcing is).

I and other editors have tried advising them to change their approach, as documented in part at User_talk:Immanuelle/Archive_2#Dongyue_Dadi and User_talk:Immanuelle/Archive_3#Please_take_previous_comments_into_account, among other threads. Our entreaties have clearly fallen on deaf ears, as those threads concluded in August and September of last year, and the editor continues to create terribly incorrect content.

I spend most of my time helping to admin over at Wiktionary, where this user would have been blocked months ago for their persistence in adding misinformation. I am less familiar with procedure here at Wikipedia. What forum would be the appropriate place for nominating this user for intervention / censure? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eiríkr, I do agree with your assessment of the situation, and thank you for contacting me about this.

I began to work on this last week here, but have not had time to move forward and may not be able to for another few weeks. If you are worried about additional damage during that period, the next place to take this would be WP:ANI. I believe the editor is acting in good faith, but since there are a number of policy violations involved (WP:SOCK given the history of overlapping use of accounts, WP:C as noted in the deletion discussion—the history of that page still needs to be handled, and there may be many other copyright issues on other pages) as well as behavioral concerns (WP:CIR, particularly the part that requires "the ability to understand their own abilities and competencies, and avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up") and content concerns (WP:CITE, WP:F, etc.), that is likely enough for the community to reach a decision on how to proceed without worrying about the problem of whether there is a meaningful corpus of "reliable sources" in this area of Japanese prehistory. Still, I feel it would be better to establish community consensus here. I was treating this as a slow-moving problem since I have not brought my concerns to the editor directly, but as you note, others have raised the issue, and complaints were also made on the talk page of the previous account. By all means feel free to bring it up at WP:ANI and to reference my comments at the deletion discussion, the sockpuppet investigation, or here. Best, Dekimasuよ! 05:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, unfortunately I can only write a quick note here, but it may be worth raising that the editor has begun to react to objections to substandard content (like deletion nominations or draftification) by "merging and redirecting" the disputed content into other locations, as was done with Fuhitobe, Ichidaisotsu, and Girl Temple. There may be other examples of this since I only went back a few days. This is also problematic behavior that will require future cleanup, making the issue appear more severe. Dekimasuよ! 05:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I'd noticed that as well (multiple-redirecting and copy-pasting into other articles) -- worrying, as it partially hides the problem, and pollutes other articles that might not have had issues prior to the insertions.

Re: WP:SOCK, that is new to me (although I admit I may have forgotten something in the past several months). I had thought that these were two different people, but perhaps not...

Thank you for the link to the investigation page, I will have a look in the next couple days. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 05:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eiríkr Útlendi, I saw your miscellany for deletion request. Looking at the stated use of AI (this time based on an English-language source) to generate a mishmash of inappropriate synthesis and improper paraphrasing—and the citations are not all correct, either—at Draft:Gehōbako, I think it's clear something needs to be done soon at a more general venue related to editor behavior. Dekimasuよ! 06:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the ping! Things IRL have gotten quite hectic for me (in the midst of a move), so my bandwidth is limited. I will help as and when I can, but it won't be speedy.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eiríkr Útlendi, another editor has raised this now at WP:ANI#Need Japanese-speaking and maybe admin help, so I have added what I could there in a small amount of time. If you are available, that would be a good place to comment. Dekimasuよ! 05:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[3] Elinruby (talk) 06:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oops meant to show you this one: [4] Elinruby (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Eliruby, and thank you for the messages. I think it is likely that all or almost all of the redirects should be kept, but I would like to avoid any impression that I am hounding anyone, so in my case I am happy to let that discussion continue among editors who often participate at WP:RFD. Best, Dekimasuよ! 05:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok. I don't completely understand what they was doing, is why I asked. I bow to your judgement on the matter. Elinruby (talk) 05:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the advice on page move perm. I saw that you changed the title of an article mentioned at perms. I made some comments there about how I came to use the lowercase letter in "life" Still life: An Allegory of the Vanities of Human Life. Thank you. Bruxton (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doing more research, I think you are probably right, "Still Life: An Allegory of the Vanities of Human Life" I originally had it with upper case "Still Life" and it was changed to lowercase after a suggestion during the DYK nomination. There is a lot to know so I thank you for the help. Bruxton (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Bruxton, in case you hadn't seen it, I replied at WP:RFPPM. Best, Dekimasuよ! 05:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Dekimasu, Thank you for removing the spam site that replaced Jolliffe's expired website for his project One Free Minute which now directs to a casino. Jolliffe was an awesome Wikipedian, and I like to keep an eye on his biographic article. Re: his expired "Official Website" I found an archived version on the Wayback Machine and added it to the External links. But I'm not sure I did this correctly.

Two questions: 1) Is there a tool available that can help with adding archived links (I see this frequently in citations where the url expired)? 2) Can a link to the archived site also be in the infobox, or should that be deleted since it duplicates info? Netherzone (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Netherzone, there is some information on tools at Help:Using the Wayback Machine, and there should not be any issue with using an archive link in the external links section (although I would mark it as an archive). As far as the infobox goes, I am not aware of any rule but infobox editors tend to have very specific opinions, so you might be able to get suggestions at a page like Template talk:Infobox person. Personally, I do not think I would include a link to a non-live site in the infobox. Best, Dekimasuよ! 02:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, I'll follow your guidance on this. Netherzone (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi to whomsoever it may concern. We cannot retain former names of cities, the current name is Gurugram and not Gurgaon. Why do we need rfc ? it is common sense? If that is the case, then we should retain the city names Bombay and Madras. The advise received in preceding section is some editor's personal opinion. Personal opinions doesn't work in this case. News paper articles can write anything, they just take info from wikipedia, it is called mirroring of wikipedia. Coming to books and articles, there are still millions of articles calling cities as Bombay and Madras before their official name change. You cant take it as a standard, and forcefully rub your opinions on other editors. Your personal interest with Gurgaon instead of Gurugram cannot be endorsed by other editors. The Govt officially designated it as Gurugram city in (Gurugram District) - https://gurugram.gov.in/department/municipal-corporation-gurugram/ Fostera12 (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This post duplicates Talk:Gurgaon#Official name is Gurugram. – Uanfala (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I'll post my response there as well. Dekimasuよ! 16:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This seems to have been posted here because in one of the move requests that took place several years ago, I noted in response to a comment about Google Trends that "Gurgaon" remained more common than "Gurugram". That appears to remain the case. Fostera12, the current name of the article is not based upon my personal opinion or anyone else's, but rather upon Wikipedia policies like WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIAL, which on Wikipedia normally take precedence over names mandated by governments. Regarding the application of print sources, our standard is that we follow them rather than tell them what to write, and in the case of something like "Bombay", the change was performed due to a shift in usage after the name change per WP:NAMECHANGES. That shift has not been found here. If the common name changes then I will not take issue with any move request related to the article. Dekimasuよ! 16:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For Special:Diff/1149326615.  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 18:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi CityUrbanism, when relisting for a requested move, please put the relisting template at the end of the statement made by the person suggesting the request rather than at the bottom of the discussion (this differs from AfDs, for example). The RM bot will read everything before the relisting template as part of the initial request, leading to all of the previous comments in the discussion being improperly transcluded to the main WP:RM page (see here). I did position your relist incorrectly when I moved it, since the "contested technical request" comment was not on a separate line, but it was something that needed to be fixed. I have put it in the right place this time. Best, Dekimasuよ! 03:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dekimasu Understood. Thank you for your work.  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 08:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please revoke TPA, they are somewhat violating NPA and are being disruptive. Thanks, Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 07:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Zippybonzo—thanks for the suggestion. I agree that the IP's run through the project pages was quite disruptive, but given that it is an IP and seems to have given up for now, I think it is all right to leave the access alone. I'd rather avoid blocking the talk page access myself when a block I made is being appealed, even if it is a silly appeal, and as long as the personal attacks are directed at me then I'm fine with overlooking them for now. If another attempt is made to vandalize Nijisanji from another IP address then it should be able to be protected. Best, Dekimasuよ! 08:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see undid my move of the german torpedo named Neger from Neger (torpedo). do you think when someone see the title of my comment here will think “ha, a discussion about torpedoes!” Neger is german for negro or to be more accurate the n word. Never heard someone using that word and discovered they were talking about torpedos! FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you moved the page and redirected Neger to Neger (disambiguation), the disambiguation page became WP:MALPLACED and came up in a database report. Evaluating the database report, the options were to move the disambiguation page to the base title, or to reinstate the status quo. Titles on the English Wikipedia are in English, so the meaning of the search term in German is not a central concern. Among the pages titled "Neger" on the English Wikipedia, the article on the torpedo is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC according to page views, and there is no large number of hits for the disambiguation page which might indicate that users are arriving at an unexpected page (see here). As I wrote in my edit summary when I reverted the undiscussed move (which also had no edit summary to explain its original intent), you are welcome to initiate a move request using the procedure shown at WP:RM#CM if you think it is warranted. Best, Dekimasuよ! 14:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dekimasu your point about the views is a bit shaky as you understand that page views can be because people thinking it’s the right “N****”. These people are not there for a german torpedo

I think it’s a non controversial move but I will go through the process

But can I ask you a question, you don’t need to answer it, when you read the notification or the title of this comment did you think “yay torpedoes”? FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I remember reverting the move, so I thought it was about the move. When I saw it in the database report, I did not particularly think anything of it as a title. I understand from your comments that it is an offensive term in German, but it does not register for me as a word in English at all, and I cannot recall ever having seen it used in either an offensive or an inoffensive way in English. Dekimasuよ! 14:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Dekimasu! Thank you for your kind help on my draft article for James E Ketelaar.

The 2006 version of Ketelaar, J. E. (1990). Of Heretics and Martyrs in Meiji Japan: Buddhism and its Persecution. seems to be significantly altered beyond a translation. The following is written on his Chicago uni page https://history.uchicago.edu/directory/james-e-ketelaar: "Jakyô, Junkyô no Meiji: Haibutsu kishaku to kindai Bukkyô. Tokyo: Pelikan, 2006. A substantially revised version of Heretics and Martyrs in Japanese with a new introduction."

to that effect I believe that they constitute separate books. What are your thoughts? Thank you! Coroz Coroz12 (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Coroz12, translations very often contain new introductions or other editorial material. The Japanese translation of this book has the original English title on its cover, and this sort of translation is made due to the contents of the original work. I think it is more informative to the reader to know that the two books being listed contain roughly the same research. As a more general question about the inclusion of this biography in the encyclopedia, it is not clear to me whether the subject meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Right now, a lot of work is being done by one quote in one review. The explanation of the criteria note that one of them can "be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question." One review is probably not enough here. Further, the page notes that "For the purposes of satisfying Criterion 1, the academic discipline of the person in question needs to be sufficiently broadly construed. Major disciplines, such as physics, mathematics, history, political science, or their significant subdisciplines (e.g., particle physics, algebraic geometry, medieval history, fluid mechanics, cancer genetics are valid examples). Overly narrow and highly specialized categories should be avoided. Arguing that someone is an expert in an extremely narrow area of study is, in and of itself, not necessarily sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1". Here we would want to see a major effect on a larger field like history of religion or Asian studies, but I think the claim here is limited to something like "Buddhism in late nineteenth century Japan". Can a broader claim be made? Dekimasuよ! 04:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Dekimasu,

Thank you kindly for the feedback, and I concur wrt the exclusion of the translation as a separate book.

As for notability —

1) I removed several references to his book as I was provided feedback that it was "over-referenced"; however, I am happy to include them more tactfully to balance the scale of over-referencing and providing more credibility. The reviews in question come from notable academics of Japanese history with their own Wiki pages, many of whom created bold claims about the prominence of Ketelaar's work — a sign I took to suggest "substantial number of references... indeed widely considered to be significant." His text on martyrdom, I believe, satisfies this claim, and I will re-include the references as they constitute "Reviews of the person's work." Happy to discuss further on this point.

2) On "academic discipline of the person in question needs to be sufficiently broadly construed" — you make a good point here; however, I thought that the individual must satisfy just one criterion found in Wikipedia:Notability (academics) (which I argue is criterion 6 below). That notwithstanding, his academic discipline is Japanese religion (a subdivision of religion), a broadly-enough construed field, whilst his "significant new concept" is more specifically his analysis on the Meiji-era as a watershed moment in redefining and bifurcating ancient and modern Buddhism. To that end, I think that "Buddhism in late nineteenth century Japan" is slightly reductionist, and indeed Ketelaar's work does substantially contribute to the study of Japanese religion, as claimed by notable academics.

3) Ketelaar's standing as professor emeritus at the University of Chicago satisfies criterion 6:

1. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.

Particularly, the University of Chicago Center for East Asian Studies (https://ceas.uchicago.edu/directories/compact/professors-emeriti) lists only 9 emeriti faculty, of which Ketelaar is one. The same idiosyncrasy exists on the pages for other departments, like physics (https://physics.uchicago.edu/people/emeriti-faculty/). I take these lists to strongly suggest that, at the University of Chicago, emeriti is not an automatic title bestowed upon retirement, in which case there would be hundreds more emeriti faculty listed. As per Wikipedia's article on this: "In some cases, the term is conferred automatically upon all persons who retire at a given rank, but in others, it remains a mark of distinguished service awarded selectively on retirement." The latter condition seems to be the case here, and "distinguished service" matches the criterion's need for "distinguished professor."

Looking forward to hearing back,

Coroz Coroz12 (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies, please ignore point 3. Evidence pointing to the contrary: https://provost.uchicago.edu/handbook/clause/statute-16-emeritus-status#:~:text=A%20Faculty%20member%20who%20retires,Member%20Emeritus%20of%20the%20faculty. Coroz12 (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I received an edit conflict, but I will put my original reply here as well: I should clarify that I am not going to accept or deny the article submission myself, so my feedback here is mostly for your benefit if you would like to try to improve the article before it is reviewed. However, I do not believe that criterion 6 is satisfied in this case; it does appear that all or almost all professors who end their careers affiliated with the University of Chicago receive the emeritus title. There are 24 emeritus faculty listed at history.uchicago.edu, along with 49 current or affiliated faculty; the university websites all appear to limit themselves to listing living retired faculty as emeritus faculty. It would run contrary to the objectives of WP:NPROF for us to exclude "typical" faculty when they are working but then to include them when they automatically acquire emeritus status upon retirement.

Following the edit conflict: with that agreement here in mind, criterion 1 is probably the one that would need to be met. Dekimasuよ! 06:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Dekimasu,

I appreciate your feedback and will strengthen the defence for criterion 1!

Best wishes to your day,

Coroz Coroz12 (talk) 06:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey there, Dekimasu. I suspect the block evader who has been editing the Sailor Moon articles over the past few months (such as Black Moon Clan, Chibiusa, Sailor Pluto, List of Sailor Moon Crystal episodes, etc.) has returned, this time as EleventhBrother26.5 (talk · contribs), 2603:8001:4a00:ca8:154d:5d39:1fe2:fa76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 216.176.47.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Can you please take a look into this? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, Dekimasu. Please don't listen to Lord Sjones23. Because I EleventhBrother26.5 (talk · contribs) the anti-vandalism and the anti-corruption. Another thing you should know Dekimasu, since Sailor Moon Cosmos part 2 is arriving that I saw on the trailer that the Inner and Outer Sailor Guardians and Tuxedo Mask have become Sailor Galaxia's slave, which means Sjones23 get rid of Sailor Pluto, Saturn, Mercury, Venus, and Jupiter except for Sailor Uranus, Neptune and Mars and Tuxedo Mask. Ever since then I am angry at Sjones23 for what he did. Distasteful! So I want you to block him for 2 months or 2 years so he will never change back. Can you help me with that? Please? EleventhBrother26.5 (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have re-added both comments and am responding to them now. First, it is clear from behavioral evidence that EleventhBrother26.5 is a new account of an indefinitely blocked editor who has lately been targeting these pages with changes via dynamic IPs. This is a WP:DUCK block. I have made a rangeblock to handle the 2603... abuse. The other IP has only been used once and is not currently active, and has been used by other productive IP editors in the past, so it will remain available unless new abuse appears. I may not always be available to reply quickly to these sorts of problems, but because the behavioral evidence is quite clear, it may be possible to get something like this handled more quickly at WP:ANI than at WP:SPI or my talk page. Of course, I will do the best I can.

To the editor who has been evading an indefinite block: it is clear that you are frustrated by your block, and I believe we share the objective of improving the encyclopedia. However, block evasion is not a route to instituting your preferred versions of articles. In edits made with IPs or using this new account, you have continued the behavior that caused your initial block. In these circumstances, as a community, we have determined that it is preferable to continue with incremental improvements over time that are not created by the editor causing long-term disruption. If you would like to contribute positively to the encyclopedia, take 6 months off without editing as an IP, go to your original talk page, and request an unblock by explaining what behaviors you engaged in, what you plan to do in the future, and why we should think that you will not continue to disrupt the editing process. (See WP:PERSPECTIVES#What the community wants to see.) If you are not interested in doing this, edits made as IPs or with sock accounts in violation of your block will continue to be reverted. Dekimasuよ! 03:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've just stumbled on talk:IPA#Requested move 28 July 2018 where you (very reasonably) closed the discussion with a "consensus to move". But it doesn't seem to have happened? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The request on that talk page was to move the "IPA" disambiguation page to the plain title IPA, so I performed that move, and that's how things still stand now. IPA (disambiguation) continues to redirect to IPA as a way to mark intentional disambiguation links. Which move were you expecting to see that hasn't been done? Best, Dekimasuよ! 00:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I must have been having a bad day. I could have sworn that I got directly to International Phonetic Alphabet by putting "IPA" in the search box but I must have been in a parallel universe, because clearly that is not what happens. My apologies for wasting your time. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the discussion at Talk:Post-it Note#Requested move 13 August 2023, you said "Please avoid relisting before the discussion's initial week has finished; this can be interpreted as a sort of finger on the scale. Dekimasuよ! 09:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)"Reply[reply]

Is that guidance stated somewhere? Isn't a relisting prior to the end of a week the only way to discourage immediate closure when the end of the week arrives? And as far as I can tell, the relisting was only 10 hours before the end of the week; maybe DaxServer needed some sleep or needed to go somewhere offline IRL at the time. I notice that DaxServer had not expressed any opinion in the discussion. I was surprised to see some discouragement of relisting in the WP:RM instructions; I had thought that some years ago it had said anyone could relist – even editors who had been involved in the discussion – but perhaps my memory is faulty.

—⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi BarrelProof, I've seen your message now and I'll reply as soon as I can. Dekimasuよ! 08:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Dekimasu! Remember your page move on 19 March? It seems I have to alert you first before I begin the process with this as you did it and you're an admin. It kind of drag me into what I've never been used to here on WP until now; see my talk page. It seems part of the community wants to move foward with this now so as to prevent this from ever happening again. Thanks! Intrisit (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Intrisit: You can just open a requested-move discussion. It doesn't matter in this instance that Dekimasu is an admin, and you didn't have to alert them. It's just that Dekimasu is an editor who reverted moving La República away from that title (and asked for an RM discussion before moving it again). SilverLocust 💬 21:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please, can you help me with these Japanese translations? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.251.38.168 (talk) 06:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have asked for a Move review of List of spaghetti Westerns. Because you were involved in the discussion, you might want to participate in the move review. --В²C ☎ 04:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Short version when we move (at least at WP:Plants) we mostly follow Plants of the World Online (POWO) (except for ferns, World Ferns for them), but check with other major sources like World Plants, World Flora Online, USDA, VASCAN, etc. to see if they are the one source that says something different than everyone else.

Longer version example. The discussion at Mahonia came to the conclusion that since both POWO and WFO say synonym of Berberis, even though World Plants says valid and there is a very persuasive paper, we're going with them for now since there is not yet a complete survey of everything that "should" be in Mahonia or the two new genus proposed. We're going to move and then wait and see if everyone changes their mind in five or ten years. Or not. Also most new serious botany books like Flora of Colorado by Ackerfield are using Berberis so this seems to be the way the wind is still blowing in the botanical world.

I changed my position on this one after discussion. I wanted to stick with Mahonia, but I opened the discussion because I was not sure if I was right after seeing NatureServe using Berberis for a species I was working on. Edit to add: I could not avoid the thorny issue. (joke) 🌿MtBotany (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed you reverted a lot of edits from an ip editor just now. Were they long term vandalizing Japanese pages? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It does not only relate to pages about Japan, but there is an editor who has been using multiple IPs to evade an indefinite block over an extended period, mostly in order to continue altering WP:NOTBROKEN links to preferred forms. There may have been individual edits in the group that were not disruptive, and those can be reinstituted by uninvolved editors if necessary, but the reason for using rollback is to take care of the large-scale block evasion. Dekimasuよ! 13:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am working on a draft on the Kobe Watatsumi Shrine, also more intuitively read as Umi Shrine (海神社) but I've been hitting a major brick wall. I can't find english book sources on it. I think this is rather strange for how highly ranked it is.

It is currently the highest ranked shrine in the Modern system of ranked Shinto shrines without an article, being an Imperial shrine, 2nd rank.

I'd like you to search a bit through google books or a similar service for any book sources about the shrine and determine if you think it is notable or not.

My leads are as follows to start

• It is not to be confused with the Tsushima Watatsumi shrine, which dominates English search results due to Ghost of Tsushima
• It is not to be confused with Kaijin Shrine (海神神社) in Nagasaki
• It seems its kanji 海神社 are eccentrically read as Watatsumi Jinja due to Motoori Norinaga. Umi Jinja or Kai Jinja may have been the original readings
• It was supposedly founded by Empress Jingu after she returned from her Korea campaign alongside Ikasuri Shrine and Ikuta Shrine

Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 08:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Dekimasu, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 05:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Spread the love by adding ((subst:Seasonal Greetings)) to other user talk pages.

🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 05:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! Merry Christmas. Dekimasuよ! 05:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You seem to be very exited and interested in my editing domain don't you! Every single time in every controversy related to me, you always come outta nowhere! Very nice of you, keep it up! – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 18:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Akshadev, you pinged me with a direct question last week, so I am following your talk page. Please be aware that issuing threats and retaliating against editors who disagree with you is actionable. Leaving a comment instead of making a decision on the matter myself was meant to be the gentler option here. Dekimasuよ! 18:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did follow the gentler option, and I am aware of what Wikipedia is and what Wikipedia is not! – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 18:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no hard feelings for anyone in the community but I do not like to repeatedly describe something again and again! I warned that IP in my edit summaries multiple times before (at Chiangrai United F.C.) but I guess they were unable to see and listen! May be they're deaf or something! – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 18:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As noted at WP:AIV, other editors do not appear to regard the IP's edits as vandalism. However, what I was objecting to was specifically this particular edit summary, "Enough explanation by me, now you'll pay". Threatening other editors is never acceptable under any circumstances, and going through the list of the IPs edits and undoing them when they have not been blocked can be regarded as harassment. I find it very troubling that you are doubling down on this. Note that I have not given you an "ultimatum"; we are not supposed to be giving ultimatums, because they are counterproductive. I am asking you not to threaten or hound the other editor, whether you feel your position is correct or not. Have you received that message? Dekimasuよ! 18:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was nothing but frustration. It happens sometimes! You can't expect a person (like I am for example) to repeatedly teach some IPs about editing Wikipedia or how it's done! Although I can assure you that I'll be more careful with my words! Can't guarantee it but of course I'll better try not to do it. Happy editing! – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 18:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have I recieved that message! Not exactly (I guess)! I have no idea what massage you're referring to! – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 18:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's time for me to sleep, It's 3:43AM in Japan, so you should also take a nap or something. Goodnight! – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 18:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All editors are expected to uphold Wikipedia's policies regarding user conduct consistently, including when dealing with IPs. You've said that you will be more careful with your words, so hopefully this is an isolated incident; please be sure that you are also not retaliating against other editors. If other editors are causing you too much frustration, please consider taking a break. I hope the sleep will help; you're right, it's late here too. Dekimasuよ! 18:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not like I haven't been slept for the ages! And I have took frequent breaks, sometimes for a day, but things never changed, they always remained the same! Anyway we should leave this topic. I asked you a question three paragraphs above (What message have I received?). – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 03:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The message is simply insistence that you not threaten or retaliate against other editors, even when frustrated. You do not need to reply again here. You've already said that you will do your best, and hopefully that means there will be no further problems. Dekimasuよ! 04:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding your edits today, please note that WP:RMCI#Conflicts of interest states "Do not ask for a specific closer under any circumstances." When a move request has run its course, someone uninvolved will eventually close it. Specific editors should not be messaged for a close; if there is something particularly pressing involved, you can make a post at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Dekimasuよ! 04:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright! Thanks for the suggestion! – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 05:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Dekimasu. I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to reach out with a quick inquiry regarding the Wikipedia page for Zaw Min Tun (general). I have noticed that there is another individual named Zaw Min Tun, a footballer, who does not use the (footballer) designation in his page title, whereas the general's page includes (general).In an effort to maintain a better standard of names and enhance visibility for General Zaw Min Tun, who is currently more relevant than the footballer, I am interested in proposing a move from "Zaw Min Tun (general)" to simply "Zaw Min Tun."Could you kindly guide me on the appropriate steps to initiate this process? Your assistance is highly appreciated. If this adjustment is not feasible or requires further consideration, I completely understand.Thank you for your time and support. KhantExploreWiki (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no problem with the way the discussion is arranged, but the discussion needs to proceed for one week, and the page must not be moved while the discussion is open. Please leave things the way they are, although you should feel free to respond with additional comments. Note that General Zaw Min Tun is not a standard title under WP:NCP. Also, it is fine to write to me using your own words. If there is something I can't understand, I'll let you know. Best, Dekimasuよ! 15:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay. Thanks! KhantExploreWiki (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Dekimasu,

I am terribly sorry I removed your additional comment when I added a few things to the Afd about Choshu. I saw there was an edit conflict and tried to resolve it manually but I didn't check neither the preview nor the result. My sincere apologies. Thanks again for noting and fixing it. Very sorry. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem! Thanks for the note. Best, Dekimasuよ! 16:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]