User talk:Yamamoto Ichiro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old messages can be found in the Archives

• Please note that unsigned comments will be most likely subjected to deletion. Make sure you sign your comments with ~~~~ at the end, Thank You.
• If you are here to report a vandal, please do so at WP:AIV.
• If you need to email me, please do so here

Contents 1 MSM 2 Another rvv thanks & a question 3 Userboxes heaven 4 RE: William Anderson 5 Thanks for rv 6 well... 7 William Anderson (again) 8 Arnold Schwarzenegger 9 BlankFights 10 Talk page 11 Vandalism 12 Your recent closes 12.1 Now that you're copping a hiding in the sections below... 13 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr.S. Hussain Zaheer Memorial High School 14 Fairmont Preparatory Academy 15 why did you delete my comment? 16 A request for assistance 17 HIIIII 18 star wars vandalism

[edit] MSM

Thanks for reverting the vandalism

Regards ~R

[edit] Another rvv thanks & a question

I'd like to second that reverting vandalism thanks to you in regards to John Cafiero. I assume you found it via Recent changes. Hmm..your userboxes say you use VandalFighter. I've been using my browser's refresh and my fingers, but I'll bookmark VF for later possible download. Is there a pros & cons list of VandalFighter vs. VandalSniper and other such programs? TransUtopian 03:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes heaven

It's none of my business, but I'm curious why you removed your userboxes page. Too misleading with the generalities and labels contained within? I liked that you try to do the right thing, but will admit when you've made a mistake (or something—I only glanced at it); and the Starfleet Academy one. You are/were a Star Trek fan, or previously liked whimsical userboxes. (And thank you for the vandalscript pointers.) TransUtopian 05:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Actually I thought the color background bleeding out from some broken templates was pretty and artistic, but that's okay. :) TransUtopian 22:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: William Anderson

I'm removing the link entirely- he doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO criteria, but feel free to reinstate/tidy up as needed.

Regards,

EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME 23:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for rv

Thanks for the revert on Anti-Mormon! CaliforniaKid 23:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] well...

I wasn't experimenting. I saw it was vandalized, and rather than fixing it because I didn't feel like tracking down the links, I just brought attention to the vandalism by editing the page to say it was vandalized.

"Thank you for experimenting with the page Broth on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. - Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録| メール) 03:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)"

[edit] William Anderson (again)

Me again,

The editor still protests about his reference's removal: could you take a look at it and ascertain whether or no it's notable/worthy of inclusion please? A second/third opinion would be grately appreciated!

Regards,

EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME 20:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arnold Schwarzenegger

I didn't notice this earlier: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arnold_Schwarzenegger&diff=85909965&oldid=85909463 Another vandal slipped in a change just as you were reverting the first one, so your revert went to the wrong version. (Another anon user has since removed the vandalism). -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BlankFights

Thanks for your help with the repeated vandalism of my talk and user pages. I've been very heavy into vandal fighting the past few days, reverting and warning quite a few juvenile edits. I suppose it stands to reason that my pages would become a target as well.... -Quintote 04:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page

Thank you for the reversion. The IP is likely User:Durin's Bane, who is annoyed with me for a AfD I initiated and his banning subsequent to his reaction to it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my talk page too! Primogen 19:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I just reverted some vandalism on your home page but by the looks of things you have a section specifically for it! amitch 03:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about it... I dont really know what to put on my userpage so i got lazy anyways. --Y.Ichiro (会話) 03:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent closes

Hello. I was led here when I felt that your closing of an article I nominated for deletion was badly off the mark, and woefully perfuctory to boot. I glanced back at your nineteen most recent closes...

I'm going to saved this here, and then removed the ones I reckoned were fine... This accomplishes two things: It assures you I've actually checked all of them, and it also lets you know you're mostly doing fine despite not following the letter of the "non-admin close" thing.

I'd ask that you review these closes, and that in particular you re-open and relist the "Space -Glory Through Conquest" and "NaSTA" on the most recent day's AfD page. If you want, listing these two on Wikipedia:Deletion review would be a second option.

152.91.9.144 07:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Now that you're copping a hiding in the sections below...

I feel I'd be remiss if I didn't reenforce what was tacit in the above: Most of the closes I looked at were fine, and of the above only the two incarnadine ones were worthy of sending to review. The others might have gone down differently if someone else had closed them, but probably not. I encourage you to continue to do the things that you think need to be done, and if you ever are uncertain about a close or want a second opinon leave a note on this IP address' talk page. - 152.91.9.144 23:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr.S. Hussain Zaheer Memorial High School

Hi there,

I'd like to request you have another look at this debate, I think the consensus achieved was actually in the negative. If you consider that the aim of an article for deletion debate is to reach a consensus, not vote on an outcome, the consensus was overwhelmingly for the article's deletion.

But first, this school still spectacularly fails WP:SCHOOLS as follows

The school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself. No, or none stated which is the same thing. This school has not been the subject of any non-trivial publications in the world at large, it is only notable within one country.

The school has been or was in existence for over 50 years, due to the great likelihood of—but greater difficulty of uncovering—non-trivial historical coverage of that school. This school has existed for 27 years, a little over half of that requirement. Even if we halve the requirement as per WP:SCHOOLS it just makes it.

The school participates in the highest grade of the state, province or regional competitions in at least three extracurricular activities and has won at least two regional championships or one national championship in any of these activities. These can include, for example, sports teams, band competitions, cheerleading competitions, engineering contests, and so forth. Again, no. The article states two fields of endeavour in which it has been successfull. This is again a case of if the requirements set out in WP:SCHOOLS were halved it would still just make it.

The school has a substantial and unique program, structure, or technique that differentiates it from similar schools. My understanding of this (perhaps you disagree) is that the school would have to have something very specific about it that sets it apart. A school which provides for IT industry certifications as part of it's highschool education curriculum, a school which teaches braille or sign lanugage as part of it's curriculum in servicing the blind or deaf, something which sets it apart from highschools. This is another spectacular failure of WP:SCHOOLS.

Significant awards or commendations have been bestowed upon the school or its staff. None. The school has not been awarded any state awards, or had any commendations from notable people as would be outlined in WP:Notability.

The school has notable alumni or staff (e.g. would qualify for an article under WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC) No, or not stated, again the same thing. You could almost consider that it's namesake is notable, but I'd doubt it and I think the other considered arguments for deletion would agree.

The school building or campus has notable architectural features that set it apart from others. No. I assume that this school is not on board a spacecraft, under the sea, at the 150th floor of a building or in a building which has existed for time immemorial as an example of a particular period of architecture.

As you can see this is a failure of WP:SCHOOLS that can not possibly get any worse. Further the debate that was meant to achieve a consensus, only tallied votes. These "keep votes" had such nonsensical explanations as "Weak Keep- Seems to be a notable educational institution. Nileena joseph (Talk|Contribs) 16:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)", or "KEEP. NOT ALL SCHOOLS ARE INDEPENDANTLY NOTABLE, BUT THERE IS AMPLE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THIS SCHOOL IS. RFerreira 05:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)" a cursory counting of heads and people weighing in. There were paragraphs upon paragraphs of weighted, supported, considered reasons for it's deletion.

•Elomis• 08:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a note Yamamoto, you have this now listed twice on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 16 (at 33 and 155), I'm not sure if that's what you intended to do. 86.20.30.144 22:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fairmont Preparatory Academy

I came here to question your premature "keep" closing of Fairmont Preparatory Academy, but now that I get here I see you have a history of making improper closes, and strangely, often on school-related AfDs. I would urge you to heed the suggestions given by the editor above regarding these matters. I see no evidence that you did anything on Fairmont Preparatory Academy but count the votes, which is not how it's done. wikipediatrix 14:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Note that I have actually deleted this article. Do NOT close AFDs prematurely unless the verdict is not in question. Proto::type 12:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why did you delete my comment?

i was asking for follow-up information. you deleted text in a talk page. why? 02:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A request for assistance

Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 05:02 3 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] HIIIII

takeshi is sexy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.147.97.81 (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

User:74.107.165.220 has vandalized several (6) pages, and has been repeatedly warned. Perhaps he should be blocked?--Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 02:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC) -thanks

[edit] star wars vandalism

i didnt vandalize, y. ichiro. i was revising for things i saw in a comic book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.8.200.18 (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC).