User talk:Kiyoweap

Disambiguation pages

Hi, just a hint so you don't waste time: there is a rule somewhere that each line in disambiguation pages should have only one blue link, so your change to Gobo is likely to be zapped by someone. Best wishes, Nadiatalent (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I think that different sets of wikipedians already contributed about gobo under those two different pages so that a WP:CFORK situation already exists. I suppose I could preferentially select one of the links over the other, and add a hatnote to point to the unmentioned one. But I'm not sure which to select. Also seems to me like I would bias one page over another, when the proper merger proposal process is to initiate discussion without such bias. Just going to leave that alone for now, since I'm actively engaged in some other pages Kiyoweap (talk) 11:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Food ingredients by nationality and Category:Vegetables by nationality

Hello, please note that the proposed deletion process is for articles only; categories such as Category:Food ingredients by nationality and Category:Vegetables by nationality cannot be deleted under this process. However, pages in any namespace where the author and only contributor of substantive content wishes for it to be deleted qualify under speedy deletion criterion G7. I have tagged these categories accordingly. Cheers! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy deletion on these ! Kiyoweap (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Fix your edit

Your edits at Tokyo Two are not in compliance with the manual of style. Simple things like putting refs on the other side of punctuation need to be done. Although you used sources, you also bordered on going against the commonly expected and neutral tone of the project. It needs a good clean up or it will simply be reverted by someone else. Cptnono (talk) 06:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you mean about putting refs after commas and periods, and I appreciate you pointing it out. Is that the most outstanding manual of style infraction? Doesn't seem like pressing issue to me, but I may get to it in a while, I just got swamped by work on short notice.

I'm fully aware people are going to challenge the neutrality. But I don't feel that it should be the prerogative of the pro-whaling side to just revert it saying it is one-sided. The onus should be on that side to provide counterlevying evidence etc. I would use it myself if I could find them. For example, if Kyodo Senpaku's claim that embezzling is a lie, and that every kilogram has been accounted as they claim, then they should disclose the breakdown data of every catch, in order to prove this to a third party. Fact is, I've tracked down Greenpeace's document dossier2.pdf, where I dicover that Greenpeace requested disclosure of exactly this kind of information, but the document was completely blackened out making it useless as any corroboration to say every kilo is accounted for.

But the way I see it, I just googlee for info and gathered non-opinion info whereever I could get them. Greenpeace side is open. The other side side is secretive. If I described the "operation" from April 14-15 using finer details from Greenpeace sources but I doubt this is controversial. I suppose one can attempt to get court records but that should say no different.

The portion that some people might consider Greenpeace leaning in my view is my use of large portion of what the ex-whaler informant had to expose. I sometimes reminded the reader this was an allegation and purported stance but did not say so in every single sentence.

I do have a pro-eco endangered species protecionist stance, but don't follow whaling or anti-whaling regularly, and it isn't really my pet project. I'm certainly not a Greepeace insider or anything like it. -- Kiyoweap (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Standard practice...

...is Bold, revert, discuss, not "Bold, revert, discuss for a day or two, then decide that I'm just obviously right and re-insert." If you believe I'm wrong, please pursue dispute resolution. Standard next steps would either be a third opinion or taking the issue to a noticeboard (in this case WP:NPOVN). Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No. I didn't just reinsert something I had saved. You previously accused me of just "stuffing it full of Principals' POV" or whatever so instead of sourcing from Greenpeace's own site, I've rewritten it all, closely citing mainstream media sites reporting. And I didn't consciously cheapshot like represnt a Greenpeace quoted opinion as fact. I will admit that The Guardian and the Aussie media are very sympathetic to Greenpeace and made it easy to reconstruct what I wanted. But I used Japan Times, and BBC and so on.

I think you have a very self-defeating proposition. You want things to be short and simple, when it's this controversial a topic? It's impossible. You can't expect two diametrically opposite sides to agree on a tiny turf. You just have to give room for all sides of the issue even if it gets bloated, is what I think. I guess the other thing is, if you can show that I've misstated what's not in the source, or if the media has actually attributed it as opinion and I state it as a fact, you can edit those. Maybe something reported isn't a hard fact in your world view, but try to cohabitate with it. Basically I don't agree that if something is elegantly simple it should be kept, if it deliberately omits some essential elements and distorts that way. -Kiyoweap (talk) 10:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Except that it's not a controversial topic. There are a set of facts, verified in news sources, that discuss the Two's activities, arrest, and conviction. Then there are a bunch of trivial details about the alleged motivations of the Two, along with a number of claims that they made that have never been independently verified. Of course, I might be wrong--it's happened pretty often before. Outside opinions will help us get to a clearer understanding. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay now your're being ridiculous. How can you pretend it isn't controversial, from various aspects. I'm just going to have to air it on the article talk page.--Kiyoweap (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:American cuisine

I set a poll up here, please contribute. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Linktext

Hi, I see you were involved in documenting Template:Linktext; I wonder if you know what quote: "you can specify the language code with lang" is supposed to mean. I'm not sure if it is supposed to mean that the parameter lang=ja (or whatever) can be used, or if it means that template:linktext can be embedded in template:lang   LittleBen (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I think that's right. If you append "lang=ja" as parameter, each Chinese character will be appear in a Japanese font whereas if you use "lang=zh" it will appear in a PRC Chinese type font. I'll write it more concretely on your talk page --Kiyoweap (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your trouble, and for the nice examples. I'll add them to the template docs. if you haven't already done so. LittleBen (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Bascinet

Although the article was far from perfect, you have managed to completely derange it. The section on the great bascinet now has content refering to the previous type of helmet with a mail aventail and the quality of English is not as good as it was. Why? Urselius (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll grant that at the point you commented above, I did save an intermediate finished draft, and it was still disorganized. As I already wrote in the Talk:Bascinet page, you (Urselius) repeated or rather three-peated a statement regarding the transition from "bascinet (with aventails)" to "great bascinets (with plate gorgets)". The date range you gave were inconsistent each time. You did not source your article well, so I had no clue where you pulled which dates from who. I pooled all three of your statements under the /*Great bascinet*/ section to illustrate the inconsistencies. But I may have misplaced one of the sentences, sorry. Hence the resultant "deranged" edit, as you would put it. But that was just an edit in transition, and no longer in play. --Kiyoweap (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ikuro Takahashi (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on Ikuro Takahashi (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Responded to in talk. I have created the Ikuro Takahashi (botanist) page, and I believe the actual WP:CSD#G6 guideline permits a two-link disambiguation page (once they are both no longer red links), despite the warning label above. --Kiyoweap (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOOD Needs You!

Hi there Kiyoweap! I've noticed you have yourself listed as a member of the Food and Drink Wikiproject. Unfortunately it looks like the project has been slowly sliding into inactivity except for a couple of people. That makes me a sad potato, and nobody likes a sad potato amirite?

If you'd like to turn my frown upside down, can you do two small things?

First off, go here and add {{Tick}} (Y) next to your name if you're still part of the project.

Second, go to the project talkpage and participate in a discussion about how to make the project more active, and how to go about making articles in our area of interest a lot better.

You don't want to make me cry, do you? Potatoes have a lot of eyes you know. So come on, join in! :)

— The Potato Hose 18:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)