Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74

Your userpage was already deleted. There's nothing to delete anymore. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I was editing it when it was being deleted, and somehow recreated it.--Tekleni 23:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

About this, it's a red link I'm after. I know it has been deleted [1] - I was just trying something out when it suddenly got deleted. Could you please delete it again - dōmo.--Tekleni 00:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, man. Sorry for all the confusion and trouble.--Tekleni 00:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Should I be deleting the Fidika articles that claim to be derived from the samurai sourcebook rather than Samurai Archives? So far, I haven't found the text of those on the Samurai Archives. It's likely still copyvio, though, so it may make sense anyway. What do you think? Mangojuice^talk 02:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Given the track record, I would say it's better safe than sorry. Any samurai or related article for which Fidika is the only or main contributor (especially since Kuuzo has made it clear on your talk page that he will write to Wikipedia's legal people if things are not handled quickly). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. The problem is, it's very tricky to explain what he did wrong. Fundamentally, how are we supposed to write an original piece of work on, say, Abe Katsuyoshi? I don't know what is conceivably available in Japanese, but it's certainly possible that what's on the Samurai Archives is just about everything known. And how many ways are there to state those three or four facts? In a vast number of cases, Fidika copied parts of sentences, usually copied the structure, and so on, but if he didn't do those things, it probably would be okay. As much as Kuuzo may hate it, he doesn't own the information on his site, just the text. So what did Fidika do wrong exactly? The scale of it is a part of the problem: it was always him, and he did the same thing over and over... but if what he did in each case isn't individually wrong, that argument doesn't really work. In some cases, he wasn't differing enough from the source text, and it's a copyright violation. And I think Fidika does understand that he needs to not copy someone's text, it's just that he's trying to do the bare minimum to not copy that text, and what he sees as the bare minimum isn't always acceptable. And plagiarism isn't exactly the problem either: he may not be giving credit as specifically as he should (ie, simply saying "The Samurai Archives" without even providing the website address, let alone the individual page the information is from)... but that could be fixed by giving a more specific reference, if it was the only problem. In a way, this is only such a big problem because Kuuzo is so upset about it. Basically, I think we should ask Fidika nicely not to create any new articles until we've come to an understanding, and then try to work through all this until either he understands, or it becomes clear that he won't be able to understand. Mangojuice^talk 19:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This is my last post on the matter - the issue is that "darin" copied my articles sentence by sentence, kept the same structure and information, and then changed the words. He took full, complete articles of mine, and used them, sentence for sentence, for "his". If he had pulled together these biographies and clan pages from multiple sources within the samurai archives (which is fully possible, many biographies cross-reference) than that is perfectly acceptable. However, he did not do this. As for the "amount" of source information, I can assure you that for many, many of these biographies there are books written about these people. The purpose of the "sengoku biographical dictionary" was to give short, concise entries. There is far more information out there, even in english, I'm sure. But I was forced to protest not because my website was used as a source, but because my articles were taken sentence by sentence and reproduced. I don't know how else to get that point across. He "paraphrased" entire, complete articles. He did not build an original work. Paraphrasing an entire, complete work sentence by sentence, from start to finish, I believe is plagiarism. Again, if he were to have used the samurai archives as the exclusive source for his information, but built original articles by cross referencing various articles within the samurai archives, there would not be an issue. The reason I am so adamant is because all he has done is to take complete articles that I and my associate has written, and reproduced them, sentence by sentence, from a single source each. I respect and am thankful that you have both helped me out this far, and I know that you understand my point of view. I am sure you understand that the sheer scope alone of the plagiarism is very disturbing to me, and I still believe that until there are contributors willing to do research, rather than just paraphrase the entire contents of my articles, the "offending" articles should be deleted. This is my work, and I take my work seriously, and I understandably want my work protected from people such as Darin. I am sorry if you feel that I am being unreasonable, but the shock of having years of your work reproduced sentence by sentence on another website in a matter of 10 months by a single contributor is very disturbing indeed. --Kuuzo 21:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No one has said you were being unreasonable. No one (other Darin) has said that he didn't plagiarize your articles. None of that is in dispute. What I object to you is you rehashing the same thing over and over and over and over and over again. All you're doing is making the people who are trying to help you get pissed at you because you won't stop beating the descicated corpse of the horse (so to speak). You have been asked multiple times to stop "making your case" in various places since it's already been decided, yet you persist.

The issue has been decided, in your favor even, and you continue to try to make your case even though it hasn't been necessary for a few days now. At least two admins are working on deleting all the articles which have been plagiarized from your site, so please leave it alone already. The issue is being handled, and Darin has been warned to not do that again. There is nothing else that we will do on this matter, regardless of how many more times you plead your already decided case. You got (or are getting) what you wanted, so please just let the issue lie. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godai Tomoyoshi and the deleted history of Godai Tomoyoshi. Mangojuice^talk 15:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I looked at it, but I'm not sure what I'm looking for. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"The result was delete as copyvio. Copyvios cannot be kept and edited; the policy is, we have to start over. Mangojuicetalk 15:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)" This is a valuable and reasonable precedent. --Kuuzo 22:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with precedent (note the spelling). Copyvio articles are deleted when we're made aware of them. That's the policy. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I had only mentioned it because in the past (by other people) there was a thought to "leave them until they are edited". --Kuuzo 00:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay -- basically, it was deleted twice. We should recheck the new version, but the thing was, Darin Fidika was told about the copyvio issue on that article specifically (see User talk:Darin Fidika). He reposted a version of it; I find this kind of annoying. (BTW, amusing and utter coincidence that I was the one who closed that AfD.) Mangojuice^talk 00:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I know the owner of the company had an article in CRN magazine about one of his companies that he was partners in, can that be used?

Also, I was told of a review that will be posted about AVADirect on HardOCP.com, can that be used as well?

Will I be able to recreate this page once these articles are published?

Thanks

Retrieved from "Talk:AVADirect" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bundar (talk • contribs) .

I suggest posting links to these two articles on the talk page above (AVADirect) and then we can determine if they are good enough to stisfy WP:CORP. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll keep my eye's posted and then once I find them I will post them on AVADirect's talkpage so you can make your decision. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bundar (talk • contribs) .

Hi. You closed the debate on the above article a few days ago and made the final decision speedy delete. I notice that the article still exists. It still has the copyright issues which prompted the deletion. Just wanted to let you know. -bobby 15:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it was recreated afterward. I've put a stop to that. Thanks. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nihonjoe, a few days ago, you decided not to speedy delete the (sub)article System of Physical Quantities/Comments, indicating that the article was currently in translation and that some time should be given to it. I was wondering if you noticed that there were 2 speedy deletion templates on this page (see [2]); it looks like you replied (correctly, as far as I can tell) to the first one; however, the second one was based on CSD G7 (page was mistakenly created and deletion request made by its only author) and it looks valid to me. What do you think ? Cheers, Schutz 20:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I reveiewed it and determined it should be deleted. I have done so now. Thanks for letting me know. (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

WHY ARE YOU DELETING MY PAGES, DUMBASS? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richsala (talk • contribs) .

Please be more specific so I can know exactly which pages we are discussing. Thanks! (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:ShigeruChiba-promo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 17:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's see you get a free image of Chiba. Just like any major star in the States, getting free images of stars is very difficult, if not impossible. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've gotten lots of free images of stars in the U.S., actually. —Chowbok ☠ 05:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations. Please note, however, that images taken of people are not necessarily free as you must get their permission to use their image for any purpose. Hence the fair use policy here, which covers instances where free images are non-existent, or extremely unlikely to exist. As I've indicated multiple times lately, unless you can provide free images to replace those you are marking (or links to free images), all of the images you are marking as "replaceable" are very clearly legitimate fair use images. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sukekiyo Kameyama promo photo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 05:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your note. I'm sorry that it appears that I'm not assuming good faith. I do assure you that I am; I don't believe any of these images, including the one you uploaded, were uploaded in bad faith; it's just that current Wikipedia policy holds that fair use images should not be used if a free image "could be created". Of course, whether one could be created in any given case is debatable, and I encourage you to state your reasons why you feel this or any other image I've tagged is not replaceable. Do keep in mind that whether the images exist currently is beside the point; the issue is whether they can be created. So, while I must regretfully decline your request to stop tagging images, I hope that we can each remain respectful of the other's views of Wikipedia policy, even in the face of our current disagreement. Thanks again for your note. —Chowbok ☠ 15:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with celebrity photos is that multiple court cases have shown that people own the rights to their likeness, including photos taken by a bystander in a crowd or on the street. That's why people doing photo shoots on the street, film crews, etc., will either clear away anyone who could accidentally appear in a particular shot, or they get everyone to sign waivers releasing their rights to the shots. Shots of celebrities are just like cover scans of books or DVDs or CDs: while the photographer/scanner of the image owns some of the rights, the subject (or owner of the subject) owns rights as well. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Nihonjoe: please glance over my comments here, concerning this issue.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  00:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the current FU#1 policy is a steaming pile of unchi. Doesn't seem there's much we can do, though, as a few editors with incredibly narrow interpretations of the policy have taken it upon themselves to decide what is and isn't "replaceable," and therefore reduce the value of the encyclopedia as a whole due to the information loss. As you argued there, in many cases with Japanese celebrities, there are no free images available, and taking them would involve breaking the law in Japan to do so. That sounds pretty much unattainable to me, yet there are still editors who insist, "Oh, but you could take a picture of them." I doubt anyone is going to risk being arrested and/or fined just to take a free picture for Wikipedia. It's so frustrating dealing with such narrow minded people. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

you deleted a page entitled "Todd P." This was a very well cited page with no copyright violations and about a subject who has received individual press in the New York Times, as well as in the Village Voice and Time Out NY, among many other outlets. Why did you take it unto yourself to delete this page? There are surely far less notable people chronicled on these vaunted pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.215.206.159 (talk • contribs) .

If you disagree with the deletion of the page, please make your case on Wikipedia:Deletion review. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

refutation of notability argument that led to article deletion (sans any discussion, mind you)

"Please read WP:BIO for biographical notability criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia . Thanks!"

1.) The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.

Todd P print appearances, almost all of which are direct profiles solely on his work:

The Village Voice http://villagevoice.com/music/0626,breihan,73642,22.html

Time Out New York http://toddpnyc.com/images/todd_p_timeoutny.pdf

The Deli Magazine http://thedelimagazine.com/content/kitchen/toddp/index.htm

New York Press http://nypress.com/16/9/music/music2.cfm

The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/fashion/01boite.html?ex=1163566800&en=8f81ef9edb2bd606&ei=5070

The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/27/arts/music/27club.html

Perhaps you did not actually read the article, as many of these notable press references were cited? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.215.206.159 (talk • contribs) .

Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote above, so here it is again: If you disagree with the deletion of the page, please make your case on Wikipedia:Deletion review. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, I checked through the version of the page right before it was deleted, and the only one of the citations above that was in the article was the one from the village voice. The others were a fan site and a blog, neither of which are considered credible sources for WP:BIO. Again, please feel free to make your case on Wikipedia:Deletion review, as I don't mind if the article is recreated as long as it meets the notability requirements of WP:BIO. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Todd P. article be listed somewhere on Wikipedia:Deletion review in the recently concluded section? I didn't see it listed there for any month since July of 2006. Jecowa 23:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

response

I read what you wrote above, and I read the deletion policy, this article deletion doesn't follow Wikipedia guidelines for deletion, as this person is clearly the recipient of multiple profiles in the legitimate press. Also, the undeletion policy calls for trying to:

"resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question (this should be attempted first - courteously invite the deleting admin to take a second look)" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DRV

This is what I'm doing, as you are cited as the sysop/editor responsible for this error. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.215.206.159 (talk • contribs) .

Please note that there was no error here. The page clearly did not meet WP:BIO in its form at that time. Only one of the links you listed above was actually in the article. With the new ones (a couple of which were published about the same time as when the article was deleted, it may meet WP:BIO. Feel free to create the article again, but make sure to include all the references. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

pardon?

BS, my friend - two of those articles are years old. One is from 2003. And regardless, a full page profile in the Village Voice is a helluva lot more notoriety than ninety percent of the supposedly notable individuals often found article-ised in Wikipedia. Perhaps this person would be considered a notable figure to you people if he had done work related to the Lord of the Rings or Burning Man or Open Source Programming or somesuch. There are other aspects of human experience out there, apologies if you are unfamiliar with them... The mistake is clearly yours - you correct it.

As I am not the creator of the article, and as you're the one who has access to the article that -you- deleted without submitting your decision for any kind of review - why don't you just cut the attitude and restate the article, as there was no problem with it to begin with. The Wiki-rules don't say that every press reference citing notoriety about an individual must to be cited within that person's Wiki-entry - only that multiple articles about the individual have to exist. They clearly exist, now admit your error and move on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.215.206.159 (talk • contribs) .

Please note that you aren't going to get very far acting like that. I never said the links you provided above were all new; I only indicated that at least two of them were really new, and that only one of them was in the article before it was deleted. I'm fine with you recreating the article, and I'm fine with undeleting the article as the links you've provided show enough notability to meet WP:BIO. However, I strongly suggest you can the attitude and work to not attack people from the get-go. I was acting well within policy when I deleted the article, and your ranting is not going to change that. Now that you've provided more than just the one reliable link that was in the article, I'll be happy to undelete it. Just don't be such a jerk next time you want something done, as it will likely get you nowhere. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, the article has been restored. Please go fix it as it's very poorly written and doesn't have all the refs you listed above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

silliness

Give me a break, you were being obstinate for no reason at all. FYI - I am neither the subject nor the author of this article, and I can say objectively that this article isn't written any worse or better than any of the other so-called journalism on this thing. Geez - there are articles on here full of run-on sentences about obscure comic book inkers and Star Trek fan fiction writers - most of which offer no citations whatsoever.

Why should I have to ask you nicely not to be a self-deputized judge and jury of things you know nothing about? Besides that, I did ask you nicely, several times, and you were snarky and unreasonable and rigid - and in the wrong.

You won't solve Wikipedia's reliability and integrity problems by giving an overworked and under-qualified cabal absolute power to judge factualness and notoriety. How does that make your little experiment in public participation better than when the actual experts controlled the encyclopedias? Bad as the old way is, I trust the professors in their ivory towers checking facts and deciding what's notable more than a pack of clueless internet dweebs. ..... added at 05:43, 14 November 2006 by 24.215.206.159

If you're talking about what I think you're talking about ("Todd P."), Nihonjoe hasn't been obstinate at all. The article exists. Yes, a lot of other material in WP is pretty bad; this little experiment in public participation does significantly worse than Britannica with, say, Elvis Presley; but then again it does better with Crushing by elephant. If you're in the mood, you can make it do better with Todd P.; or you can decide instead to persuade some prof in an ivory tower to add it to the forthcoming Oxford Companion to Organizers and Promoters of DIY and Indie Rock Shows and Parties (Clarendon Press). Nihonjoe may be a clueless internet dweeb (as you seem to imply) but then again so might you or I be; either way, (i) he doesn't have absolute to judge anything (and neither do I), and (ii) implying that somebody is a clueless internet dweeb strikes me as an unlikely way by which to win friends and influence people. -- Hoary 09:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

more

Somehow Nihonjoe was able to unilaterally delete a page without following any protocol - ie. he didn't submit it for review (there is a nice section in the Wiki-guidelines about a five day review inorder to wholesale delete a page.)

He just decided to trash that page among undoubtedly many others, and that particular article only exists again now because he, -Nihonjoe- decided to take it out of the trash after I pestered him. If that's not absolute editing power than I don't know what is.

If you think that I am in the wrong and your editor wasn't being obstinate, then I would counter that this is obviously not the first time this guy's been accused. There's a thread on here entitled:

"WHY ARE YOU DELETING MY PAGES, DUMBASS?"

is this common among your editors' discussion pages? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.215.206.159 (talk • contribs) .

Actually, it only happens when people don't understand the guidelines to which they refer. I've already explained why the page was deleted, so I'm not going to bother reiterating that. Please stop being disruptive on my talk page. Any further comments from you here will be ignored as there is nothing productive to be gained from replying to them since you can't seem to wrap your brain around anything I write. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

ridiculousness

90% of what you wrote to me was cut-and-paste boilerplate that you send to everyone who disagrees with you. After you finally read what I was actually writing to you, you did as asked.

I've made my point several times, here it is again: This article was cited with a major mainstream press article profiling the subject. This person is notable - as evidenced by several articles in the mainstream press about him.

Most important as to why the article shouldn't have been deleted: the Wiki-Bio guidelines don't require two articles ot be cited for a person to be "notable," only that at least two articles about the subject exist. You should show some respect for other people's work and do minor research before you delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.215.206.159 (talk • contribs) .

Hi. Sorry to bother you. You participated in a television episode article naming poll which now lives at this location. Some feel that wording changes have compromised the results of that poll. If you don't mind, could you please take a look at what is there now and add a quick note at WT:TV-NC#Looking for anyone who objects to the last poll to say whether your feelings on the matter remain the same? Of course you can feel free to read over the entirety of both links for more information. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As you have contributed to this article, you might want to know about the AfD for it. -- 63.224.136.62 03:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I was going to create an article for Apple's new iPhone, but I see that you've deleted and protected that article title... I understand you probably had a good reason for deleting the original, but why did you protect it from recreation so that a good/sourced article can't be placed there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 35.11.177.40 (talk • contribs) .

It was protected because it was all speculation and kept getting recreated when Apple had made no announcements regarding it. If you have some announcements from Apple regarding this device, I'll be happy to unprotect it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I also came to your talk page to inquire about the IPhone. Even if Apple hasn't made an announcement yet, I think it's fair to have an article about it since there are now many reliable sources (ZDNet, Wired, CNNMoney) reporting about it. If nothing else, I would like to see the previously deleted content so I can better develop the article as a userpage. Schi 19:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

While the sources may be reliable, all they are doing is reporting about the rumors. There's nothing concrete in any of the articles. It's all still only rumors and speculation at this point. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

As I've discussed here, I don't think it's the case that the articles are just reporting about rumors. They're reporting about analysts' predictions, which I believe counts as credible research that is predictive in nature. In any case, news reports about patent filings that are reported as related to an Apple cell phone do not count as rumors. Can you please take a look at User:Schi/iPhone? I think it is ready for undeletion; if you disagree with me, please let me know your comments. Thanks, schi

FYI, I put the iPhone page up for deletion review. Your comments are welcome there. Cheers, schi ^talk 17:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:YasuiKunihiko-81Produce.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 03:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Yūko Mita promo photo.jpg

—Chowbok ☠ 22:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're doing a series on ArbCom candidates, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?

2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for answering the questions. Just a brief follow up. I've been helping to maintain a summary table here. You are down as ">18". Hope that is OK. If you would like to increase that figure to a more accurate ballpark figure, please do so. Carcharoth 11:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which indicates that any unsourced statement about a living person (regardless of who that living person is) should be removed immediately. This is a policy on Wikipedia, and must be adhered to. Do not revert this unless you can provide reliable sources for the information. If you have any questions, please let me know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LeftistScum (talk • contribs) .

(Note for anyone reading this: LeftistScum copied my comments to him/herr on his/her talk page and pasted them here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC))

Hi there. So about a month ago you protected with deletion the article Jenn Brown. I was very new to the Wikipedia community and hadn't done my research about posting an article and the regulations surrounding that. I finally figured it out, but unfortunately it was too late and the new article I wrote was never reviewed. I have posted it here my talk and would appreciate it if you would take a look and give me your thoughts. Hopefully you will find it acceptable and we can possibly supplement it for the deleted page. Jenn Brown has a very large following with her work with ESPN and 3 nationally televised shows. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Brownie1212 05:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The article needs to meet the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guideline, as well as the Wikipedia:Verifiability. You can do this by using Wikipedia:Citing sources to help you cite sources for the various information and claims made in the article. A good example of very good use of citations is Toilets in Japan (an odd article, but it makes good use of sources). The citations can be used to support verifiability and notability. Additionally, make sure to take note of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have outlined the reasons for re-uploading the speedily deleted Image:Yamauchi.jpg on the appropriate talk page. - hahnchen 01:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that as I did not jump through the necessary policy hoops, that it's now on DRV. I'm not even going to pretend I have any idea about Japanese law, so nothing has yet been made of your image talk concerns. - hahnchen 17:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)