Jump to content

User talk:Tomos

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Past communication 1

If you are here to inform me of the status of deletion-issues on certain image files (related to Japanese prefectures), I appreciate your help very much.

And I would appreciate if you can inform me (and others) about the following.

  1. which Wikipedia you are talking about.
  2. if discussion has been initiated
  3. if any concensus has been reached (if so, deletion or not)
  4. if any action was taken (keeping them as they are, adding some notes, or deleting)
  5. if there is any question to be answered, or help needed.

Tomos 03:42, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you received my mails or not, so i prefer posting here...
On fr: it was decided to remove all japanese prefecture logos, so they were removed. Hopefully all, but we may have missed some, in which case we'll remove'em when we find'em.
Ryo 15:45, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I received your email, and replied thankfully. Merci beaucoup. :) Tomos 20:07, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi, Tomos-san. Thank you for your correction of Meta:Metaページ内での多言語間リンク. My translation was terrible $-{. I try my best next. Thanks again, Electric goat 15:35, 21 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

No, your work was quite good, and I thank you for that :) . If you see what I did, it was mostly about word choice, etc. I also found that your method of keeping the English withing comment blacket was really helpful. Tomos 18:39, 21 May 2004 (UTC)Reply


Hi Tomos, thanks for your kind words! I hope you will add more Japanese to your user and talk pages here on meta: / do more of your wikimedia-wide writing here (and link to it from your user pages on en/ja). Just a moment ago, I came and thought there was no japanese on your user page... I'm using Netscape 4.x, and it was cutting off at your first < hr > !

I am also excited to see that e-Goat is adding to some of the interlingual pages... Sj 07:25, 22 May 2004 (UTC) rReply

Hi, Sj. It is my hope and intention to contribute to the interlingual ties. Other japanese wikipedians, e-Goat, KIZU, and G may work here from time to time, I think. That's good. I also have several ideas of what I would like to do, so stay tuned :) Tomos 00:10, 23 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

More multi[edit]

Hello again! Please revisit Talk:Wikimedia_Fundraising_page when you have a moment and start a japanese translation. See the links at the top (you will need to rename the linked-to page appropriately). +sj+ 09:43, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Sj. I have finished the first draft now. Tomos 22:11, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. Most of the filler text is a standard body of latin text used by printers to help fill out a layout before there is real content. It even has an article about it... w:Lorem ipsum (-: . It would be helpful to translate just the title and section-headers of the newsletter, to make it easier for others to translate bits of it. (I'm adding that to the translation page now.) +sj+ 21:28, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Silly me. I figured that out only after I left wikipedia. Thanks for your work on this. The format looks really neat. Tomos 04:52, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On your draft "Guideline according Japanese Copyright Law"[edit]

ええ、まあ日本語で。 ときどき英語版からの画像持込でもめる「フェアユース」の概念についても、記述があると嬉しいと思いました。すでに日本語版の議論で二三言及があるようですが、わたくし自身が参加する以前の議論であることもあって追いきれておりません。KIZU 06:26, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

この間作成したページは、ウィキペディアのコンテクストに限定せず、日本の著作権法と文章の執筆のみを考えて書いた文書です。英語版などからのコンテンツの輸入についてはまた別途考えてみようかと思ってます。端的に言えば日本法の文脈では通用しないということに尽きるのですが。。Tomos 03:21, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Japanese Paedophile book[edit]

We appear to have some problems with paedophiles using Wikipedia to promote their "we're harmless" stance on child rape. Can you go to

Cheers Duncharris 23:19, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice, and sorry for the late responce. I did a little research on that and wrote some comments here: en:Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Fumoto no iro. Hope it helps. Tomos 11:37, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

New upload form[edit]

Hi, Tomos-san. 新しいアップロードフォーム用の翻訳を行ったのですが、それについていくつかお願いと質問があります。see Translation/New upload form

  1. まず法的な文章に慣れていないので、いくつか適切な訳語が思い付きませんでした。査読と推敲をしていただけますでしょうか。英語版の原文はコメントアウトして残してあります。
  2. それからフェアユースは日本語版ではダメ、と変更したほうが良いのかなと思いましたが、どう思われますか?
  3. 最後に、ja:Wikipedia:著作権以外に、パブリックドメイン、GFDL、コモンズ、フェアユースなどのウィキメディアでの実際について、まとめて説明したページを整備する必要があるのかなと思いました。これはまあ、思っただけですが (^^;;

e-Goat 00:55, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

いつもありがとうございます。^^) さっそくやってみます。と、ずいぶん前のリクエストですね。。最近ちょっといろいろな事情で時間がありませんでした、せっかくお知らせ頂いていたのにすみません。Kzhrさんの推敲も入っているようですし、余りやることは残っていないかも知れませんが、これから見てみます。Tomos 11:41, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

ja.wiktionary's Licence[edit]

Hi. I just found there is no licience page on ja.wikt.:D Today I just make [1] & [2] . Plz see the histry how to do it. And I advice you to make same page on wikt,and protect it. Thanx. --02:34, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

了解です。お知らせありがとうございました。:) Tomos 00:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pronunciation of my name[edit]

Pronunciation of taw in pseudo-English would be tav.

Pronunciation of Tomasz Węgrzanowski would be approximately TOH mash ven gzha NOV skee (accented sylables uppercase; by zh I mean a sound like in usual, not like jam; that ng it's not like the English ng, actually ę is a single sound, but pronouncing it separately en is close enough), almost completely impossible for a Japanese (or other non-Polish) to pronounce properly ;-)

In Japanese it'd be something like タヴ and トマシュ ヴェングジャノヴスキ (I'm not sure about the シュ, lone シ sounds even weirder; should the order of the first and family name be reversed ?).

Does it help ? --Taw

Wow. I never expected that you would write in Katakana! Yes, it is a tremendous help, indeed. I could never have guessed it right. In terms of the order of names, we generally follow the order of the person's language. For Polish, English, and many other names, first name first. For Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and some others, family name comes first. :-) Tomos 23:54, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hello and thank you Tomasz. and Tomos, also thank you for your effort for translations. :) I'm hesitated to worry you, since you seem to be very busy, but if you give a look to the Japanese project part of Reports/October 2004/Wikipedia and correct my mistakes and misundertanding on issues, it would be helpful for us all. If possible, would you like to make a report on Japanese Wiktionary? In both cases, don't forget your signatures. As for Wikipedia reports elian and I discussed on possible translations; it would be helpful we have some reports from major projects in Japanese and put them on Japanese Wikipedia. Your comment will be appliciated. Cheers. (なりゆきで英語です...) --Aphaia 01:47, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
My pleasure. Would you please review changes I made? Regarding Wiktionary, I would solicit others to make it. Thanks, Tomos 21:06, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Surely. Thank you for your addtion. You've illustrated the going-on issue in details. you made it more informative. Well, as far as I know, major Wikipdia projects finished their reports. How would you think to let the JA community those reports now? Or it would better to prepare translation at least of some major projects? --Aphaia 01:31, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Tomos-san, I wrote a short report at Reports/October 2004/Wiktionary. Could you check and correct it if English (or content) is wrong? Regards, e-Goat 11:42, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I couldn't find much to correct, but I tried. Tomos 16:15, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

hi Neha here is there by any chance i can speak with on yahoo?

please ping me nehavish@yahoo

talking here is a little difficult...

Okay. I'll try. Tomos 11:45, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


あしらのノートにひとつリファクタリングの提案を差し上げました。ご意見をいただけますか? 賛成してくださるのならリファクタリングは私がいたします。(あと要約にひとつ追加をしました。やや見づらいかもしれませんが最後の部分にあります)。--Aphaia | WQ2翻訳中 | talk 22:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) hey tomos what's up?

Kiki designs[edit]

Hope you'll visit Wikijunior project Nikki/Kiki character designs to discuss who's design is best. I've found a dozen talented people to create designs. -- user:zanimum

Trust in Wikipedia[edit]

this is Cathy from Hong Kong working on a research about trust on Wikipedia. I wonder if you would kindly contact me at researchingmedia@gmail.com? I'd like to chat with you about Wikipedia of your language. Would you kindly drop me your email or IM (Skype, MSN, AIM or ICQ)? It wouldn't take more than ten minutes, but it would help enormously for us to understand the overall trust-based social landscape of Wikipedia. domo!

Need Help with Japanese[edit]

Greetings, Tomos-san: How does one learn Japanese online? cello777@hotmail.com

Non-Japanese on Japanese Wiki[edit]

Dear Sir or Madam:

I apologize for bothering you, but I really feel like I am getting pushed off of the Japanese board. If you have time, I would be very grateful if you could look at the discussion at ja:ノート:ウクライナ正教会. I know that non-native speakers are welcome on the English Wikipedia.

I keep thinking that we are reaching a consensus, but then everything explodes again.

I know that you would prefer not to provide an opinion, and I can respect that, but perhaps, if this issue has come up before, you could point out where so that all of us involved could learn how this has been handled on the Japanese Wiki.

I apologize for dragging you into this ugly mess, but I do hope that somehow it will work out well for Japanese Wiki in the end. 11:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I am user Qe2 on the Japanese (English) Wikis. 11:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am now the *former* user QE2, as I was permanently banned from the Japanese Wiki:
(対処)すでに編集は停止しておられるようですが、ブロックしました。依頼理由としては挙げられていませんが、日本語スキルを問題として投票なさっている方もおられることですし、まずは英語版あたりから注力なさるのがよろしいかもしれないです。--Calvero 2008年4月8日 (火) 03:42 (UTC)
Regarding the first reason, I had, in my final post in my defense, written:
. . . 判断が決まるまで、これをわたしの最後の文とします。Wikipediansの皆様に数多くのご迷惑をおかけたしましたこと、心からお詫び致します。Qe2 2008年2月25日 (月) 14:53 (UTC) 20:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

In light of the permanent ban placed on me, I have opened a user account on Meta. I still would greatly appreciate your assistance, even if it were to redirect me to someone who might be able explain or interven. Qe2 00:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you still monitor Meta-wiki, I would be very grateful if you would at least reply to this message. Qe2 13:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wecome back! Dear Mr. or Ms. Tomos, as I see that you have returned, I would be very grateful if you would, at your convenience, consider this matter. I see no valid reason why I should have been blocked. Qe2 00:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for my belated reply... I will take a look into it next time I have a chunk of time for Wikipedia. I appreciate your patience and politeness on this. Tomos 14:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you; I really do appreciate that. Qe2 15:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I have taken a quick look and ... well, was overwhelmed by the amount of text on this matter. It seems that your blocking (for indefinite period of time, I understand) is shaped not only from the talk page you referred to, but also the discussion on the Request for Blocking page and its talk. I do not have background knowledge on the orthodox church matters, so I have to say it will take some time to absorb all that.
With that limitation, I got an impression that the discussions involved
  • how the order of items should be on the disambiguation page on Ukranian Orthodox Church
  • if it was a good idea to discuss highly technical matters at lengh in English on Japanese Wikipedia
  • if it was a good idea for Japanese Wikipedians to ask you to first try to discuss the matter on English Wikipedia and change the page, since your command of English is pretty good, and you Japanese is quite limited.
My sense so far is:
  • I cannot at this point have any sense if one side or the other of the discussion regarding how the order of items on that disambiguation page should be is clearly superior to the other.
  • I cannot at this point tell if you or the other Wikipedian who discussed the matter with you, or both, are having some sort of "double standard." I picked up those allegations, but I need to pay closer attention to your conducts to understand and have my opinion.
I am sure I have not picked up many other important points. So please let me come back again some time later.
I have an impression, again without having background knowledge on the matter, that the way the disambiguation page is written right now is fairly neutral. It has a warning to the readers that the talk page contains important discussion on the matter, and explains each item to let readers know what you and others think are important.
Japanese Wikipedia's blocking policy includes a provision that a user could be blocked if he tires the community. So I am wondering if there is a possibility that Japanese Wikipedians had felt that spending a lot of time and effort (including long discussion in English) on rather minor issue was unnecessary burden and was therefore a reason for your blocking.
I am curious, if I may, to know what your opinion is on one particular point, so let me ask. What would you say if I characterize this issue in the following manner?
  • For many Wikipedians, the issue at hand (i.e. which church should be listed first at the Ukranian Orthodox church page) is highly technical
  • Both sides seem to present sufficiently reasonable ground to support their view. (Domestic prominence vs global institutional prominence, or something like that.)
  • Many Wikipedians are aware that some issues, like page names, orders of explanation, etc. cannot be treated in a perfectly neutral manner.
  • On those matters, we need to compromise in one way or another.
  • Unless some compelling evidence is presented, the debate should end and edit war is out of question (well, it is in any case, of course).
  • Participating to Wikipedia mainly to make changes on these issues could be counterproductive, and thereore not welcome.
Do you think this is a somewhat reasonable characterization of the issue and how we can deal with it? Or am I completely off the mark?
Now let me make clear that I do see that your attempt to engage Japanese Wikipedians in dicussion in English is a concern for some Wikipedians. But I thought that fact alone would not produce sufficient level of concern.
Also, I do not have a good grasp of how you were treated by other people, in particular those Wikipedians whose view differed from yours on the Ukraine Orthodox church matter.
And I sincerely apologize if I am completely off the mark on this way of characterizing the conflict.
Okay, so this is my interim report. It might take longer to find bigger chunk of time for reading, digesting, and writing the next post. But I would certainly be interested in your opinion.
Tomos 16:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Dear Tomos. Thank you very much. I did not expect a response this soon, and will carefully consider your interim comments before confusing things further with any more of my own. Qe2 13:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Dear Tomos. It has taken me some time to respond because I must confess that my understanding of Wikipedia is very different from what you express. I assumed that Wikipedia, regardless of language, was an attempt to create a collaborative encyclopedia-like resource, and that, in order to do so, the foundation established a number of rules, such as requiring sources for information, weighing primary and secondary sources above tertiary sources like other Wikipedia articles, etc. [[3]] This is what separates Wikipedia from a simple BBS.
I cannot reconcile this understanding with your suggestion that it may be acceptable to require me, and only me, to first edit the entry in another language. It would be acceptable, of course, to request that a user explain themselves in Japanese, because that it is a neutral standard, but not to demand that users who have difficulty with Japanese must work another language. I am all but certain that if I ignored primary and secondary sources about provided by an editor of the English wikipedia who was Japanese, and asked them over 20 times why they do not edit the Japanese version, it would be me, not they, who would be blocked. [[4]]
Regarding the order of listings as an example, it seems to me that it is entirely possible to remain neutral by using a standard such as I proposed, alphabetical or by relative size. These are neutral, encylopediac standards. I felt, and still do feel, that deciding that one church is the "real" church is not a neutral standard, but favors one church. Rather than begin an edit war, I placed a neutrality tag on the page. Under English Wikipedia, this should not have been removed until consensus was reached, yet my accusor removed that tag.
My accusor has published pages and pages of original research related to the topic of Orthodoxy, citing no sources. When I placed a source tag on one statement (which later turned out to be factually incorrect!), my accusor again removed the tag, cited no sources, and places this tag on my page:
荒らし行為はやめてください。これ以上続ければ、ウィキペディアの編集ができなくなる投稿ブロックの対象となりますので、ご注意ください。 --Kliment A.K. 2008年2月19日 (火) 19:38 (UTC)
Why is that acceptable on the Japanese Wikipedia?
If you have not, I would be grateful if you would please see my reply to the accusations made against me, which I spent a great deal of time writing with the assistance of a Japanese native speaker. [[5]]
As you will note, the party who requested my blocking made a number of allegations. Is it based on one of these that I was blocked? If yes, which one or ones? Do you not feel that this case shows a gap between the standards and policies of the Japanese Wikipedia and those of other languages, such as English? Qe2 18:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hi. It has been a while since I have read those pages last time. But if I may ask one question, would you tell me if your characterization of the issue is neutral in your view? Or are you trying to presnent a best case, by selectively pointing out characteristics of what has happened, and trying to show that this is the kind of thing that should not happen no matter what the other factors are like? Tomos 05:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. I honestly believe my characterization, especially that I presented prior to last week, but including my message of 31 July, is as neutral as I could make it. Especially, I tried very, very hard in my presentation in defense of the accusations made against me to provide a neutral characterization. I do accept that there is a possibility that there are factors which I have not considered. However, my impression at the moment is that this type of thing should, indeed, never happen. I honestly reserved forming that impression until I considered your reply.
I know that this does not directly answer your "either/or" question, but I want to carefully communicate this point. Qe2 02:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Thank you for answering my question. I have not fully formed my opinions on this yet, and my understanding still does not go to the details of your discussion with Kliment A. K. and others. But again, here are what I can say at this point. I should also say that this matter does not seem to be that simple as you characterize it.

You asked, "As you will note, the party who requested my blocking made a number of allegations. Is it based on one of these that I was blocked? If yes, which one or ones? " Let me try to discuss this.

First, regarding the usage of tags, I see that Kliment A. K. has not countered to your defense, as I read ja:Wikipedia‐ノート:投稿ブロック依頼/Qe2. But his argument on ja:Wikipedia‐ノート:投稿ブロック依頼/Qe2 include the point that you made an edit on English Wikipedia to order Ukrainian Orthodox churches in certain way, and at a later point you added the Japanese Wikipedia's Ukrainian Orthodox Church page a POV tag, even though the order was exactly the same as your version of English Wikipedia. I do not know what to make of this. For this reason, I suppose this to be an indecisive factor.

I just want to make one point quickly. When I edited the English page, after urging by Kliment A.K., I ordered the churches alphabetically according to their officially registered name, and made a note that the UOC(MP) because it is legally registered as the UOC. I consider that a neutral standard because it applies equally to all churches, and people looking would not be prejudiced against one church or the other. I proposed the exact same standard for the Japanese page. Qe2 15:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Second, POV editing: Kliment A. K. cites other, seemingly stronger, reason for blocking you, which is POV editing. POV issues are many and complicated. One relatively easy issue to understand, which is still not that easy, has to do with the autonomy status of UOC-MP. It was initially stated wrong, and you corrected it, and after some back-and-forth, Kliment A. K. changed the description to include the phrase "de facto."

Both you and Kliment A. K. agreed that initial description of the status, coming from English Wikipedia, was wrong. But you two did not agree on what the proper description would be. And your initial edit was problematic partly because it was not just correcting wrong statement, but inserting a POV.

In this context (among others), he asked why you would stick to your point while he conceded, and you declined to answer that question, in order not to set a precedent. But it seems that only helped Kliment A. K. to get more suspicious about your motivation. Motivation is not a decisive proof of POV, but your hiding it might have weakened your case, I am afraid, especially given that it is very hard to tell which one of you are truly NPOV. Again, I suppose this was not a decisive factor for your blocking.

This is a good example because please note that I allowed Kliment A.K. to have the final edit, as I did everywhere, even thought I still thought his language was inexact. Wikipedia is not, according to my understanding, based upon "compromise", but upon 'verifiability'. Qe2 16:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Related to this point, I see two of statements that might have worked strongly against you. One is your statement about your religious affiliation, and another is your explanation on the request for blocking page that you needed to engage in a "fight" regarding some articles on Japanese Wikipedia because there were some problems, and you were notified of the problems from your acquaintance. This seem to answer Kliment A. K.'s question about your motivation, but you made it clear only after the request for blocking was made. Why did you decline to answer the question earlier? Some people get suspicious.

I am sorry, I have one more point. I resisted answering because I should not have to answer. My understanding is that Wikipedia is supposed to operate on a basis of 'Assuming Good Faith' and 'Verifiability'. I should not have to have explained myself, but I answered once out of courtesy. I felt repeating that question after that was harassment, which I still ignored. Again, I am certain that if I asked someone on the English Wikipedia 20 times "Why don't you go edit the Japanese Wikipedia?", it would be me, not they, who would be blocked. Qe2 15:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I am shocked that identifying my religous affiliation would be a statement "that might have worked strongly against me". I would be grateful if you would confirm whether that was indeed what you meant. Qe2 16:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hi. Are you aware of the guideline ja:Wikipedia:自分自身の記事をつくらない? I think your affiliation alone does not make you or your edits rejected. Many people of Christian faith edit articles related to their religion. But a number of factors made it because you have been in disagreements with Kliment A.K. and others on certain issues, and made objectionalble edits on those issues, and showed other behaviors that could become explicable if you were motivated to push particular point of view, your statement at that timing might have worked against you. Tomos 04:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I am aware of that guideline; is it the position of the JP administrator who blocked me that I broke that rule? I did not create the pages that I edited, Mr. Kliment did, and it seems to again be lost that every single edit I made was backed by verifiable sources, usually primary and secondary sources, every single one. As much as I disagree with Mr. Kliment, I have never remarked on, and would never even think of remarking on, his religious affiliation or how that might affect his POV. I am all but certain that on English Wikipedia this would be considered irrelevent, and, therefore, that pointing it out again and again would be considered a clear personal attack. [6] My edits only seem to be pushing a POV because the initial article was not neutral.
As to my religious affiliation making me (but not Mr. Kliment) suspect, are not all editors required to assume good faith?
Finally, although it is not directly relevant to this particular topic, on the English Wikipedia it is made very clear that those requesting a block have the responsibility of providing convincing evidence and that, although the community is encouraged to comment, it is the administrators *alone* who decide. This ensures the neutrality of the process, and prevents situations wherein a team of friends can gang up on newcomers and chase them off the project. The adminstrators are supposed to look past the accusations and make a neutral assesment. It is troubling to me that even you, who are an administrator and ambassador for the JP wiki, cannot point out any violation on my part other than possible "tiring of the community" or perceived suspicions. Qe2 11:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Language issue: you suggested that your inability to communicate in Japanese was a reason for blocking. On the request for blocking page, such suggestion was already countered by Kliment A. K. and Chiew. Peccafly also countered it on the talk page.

As I understand it, Kliment A. K. was fine with discussing Ukrainian Church matters with you in English. He was not fine with what he perceived as your manipulative characterization of what is going on with you and he, POV edits, etc.

But it seems that some people thinks language is an issue. Since you emphasize language issue being the reason for blocking, let me present you two ways to understand how this could be an issue.

One reason for your blocking many people cite, but not Kliment A. K., is that you "tire" or "exhaust" the community. Peccafly, ПРУСАКИН (PRUSAKYN), HOLIC 629W, and fried-peach cited it on the request for blocking page. This seems to fail to get your attention. But as I see, the dispute between you and Kliment A. K. are highly technical. In that case, arguing at length which one is better for which reason might not be very productive. Discussing at length alone would be okay for certain articles, but it seems that you make some moves before the consensus is formed. That means other people need to watch your move. Again, not very productive use of resource. The fact that discussion is conducted in English make monitoring and intervention more difficult for the third party. Consider also that at least a few people consider Kliment A. K. a trustworthy and productive Wikipedian. These are some of the things I think they were thinking when they said you tired the community. In contrast, if you could engage in discussion on English Wikipedia and form a consensus that supports your opinion, that would be more efficient for the simple reason that English Wikipedians are good at discussing things in English. Related to this point, I see that while you seems to think that you have the right to contribute (to discussions) in English, while others think that it is Kliment A. K.'s generosity that makes your English contribution acceptable.

Another way to understand how language relate to your blocking is that some people cannot really tell if you are as manipulative, POV, and ill-motivated as suggested by Kliment A. K. and other harsh critics of yours. If they believed in those criticisms and considered you a vandal, they would not suggest you to go to English Wikipedia. They would simply suggest you to stay away from Wikipedia. But they probably could not tell if you were that bad or you simply could not communicate well with others because of language. (And in case if this is not clear, your Japanese is sometimes hard to make sense. Not all the time, but people of course have different tolerance levels.)

You wrote above that I suggested "it may be acceptable to require me, and only me, to first edit the entry in another language." I hope I can get myself understood better now, with these explanations.

To summarize: I do not see any single reason as to why you were blocked, while all the votes were supportive of the block. But I do not see this primarily as you being the non-native speaker. That fact alone would not, and did not, result in blocking.

Tomos 19:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

The community, or the community surrounding Kliment A.K., may have been very tired. I was definitely very tired. The difference is that I cited sources and used neutral standards, while Kliment has published pages of pages of unsourced materials. Instead of finding sources, instead of asking for mediation (which I did, but in the wrong places), he asks to have me banned, and the admininstrators of JP Wikipedia agree. Again, my impression based on your explanation is that, unlike the English Wikipedia, the JP Wikipedia values "harmony" over neutrality or verifiability.
Kliment cannot know my motivation, nor can I ever know his. That is Wikipedia (or at least English Wikipedia) sets rules to guide the editing, so that no one is supposed to have to, or try to, guess any one else's motivation. Qe2 16:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Let me respond here, since I cannot keep my reply short..

  • (role of administrators in blocking) Administrators are not the judges on Japanese Wikipedia. Administrators can express objection by casting a vote or commenting on a request, like other participants. As an administrator, you are in general expected to act on the community concensus.
    • For your information, if I find you to have been blocked wrongly, I probably would not unilaterally unblock you. I would submit a request for unblocking, and ask for community opinions. One of other admins would act on the concensus there. (I would refrain from acting on it, since I have submitted the request.)
  • (what resulted in blocking other than "tiring the community") Perhaps I was not clear on this, but I did not mean to suggest that tiring the community was the only factor I found resulting to your blocking. When I said "indecisive" I meant that those factors might have contributed to the blocking in some votes, but not in a decisive way. So, for examples, 1) if people thought that some of the discussions between you and Kliment A.K. (or others) were disagreement between two NPOV ways to describe the same issue, that could work against you. Pushing for a change to shift from one to the other, particularly when it consumes a lot of time, might be considered bad of tiring community. The fact that lengthy discussion happens in English does not help; 2) if they saw that you sometimes made objectionable edits without getting to an agreement first, then that might be a concern. They might think that someone has to monitor your move and check your edits. If they have suspicion about your motivation, that could work against you; 3) Your comments on edit summary to suggest that you are NPOV'ing the article would not help if your judgment is objectionable. They mean that your edits need monitoring.
  • (characterization of your edits) You wrote "every single edit I made was backed by verifiable sources, usually primary and secondary sources, every single one." As I see, some edits are removal of text or rearrangement of text. I see some edits that do not cite any particular source. So did you to mean that you had sources to back up your edits, while you did not necessarily cite them..?
  • (personal attack issue) I see your point that repeatedly asking about your motivation can amount to a personal attack. But I think you might have behaved suspicious beyond reasonable doubt as to make asking that question somewhat acceptable. And perhaps more importantly, I do not know if making that case would help your unblocking. Even if Kliment A.K.'s repeated questions are personal attacks, it does not make your blocking invalid.
  • (assume good faith) I see some efforts on Kliment A.K.'s part (and of course on your part) to maintain good faith. But I also see that Kliment A.K. gave up at some point. He cited many reasons. Without going into if I agree with each of his reasons, in general, assumption of good faith could be rejected. Don't you think so?

Tomos 17:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Biography of Living Person[edit]

A different, but related, issue. Mr. Kliment created an article [7] about the head of the UOC-KP that is filled with rumor and innuendo. The links he gives are either dead or contain no supporting information. That is a biography of a living person and, under English Wikipedia rules, either the article or the allegations should be rapidly deleted. Qe2 15:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

hmm.. Interesting.. and it so happens that this, too, is a translation of English Wikipedia article, like some of the Kliment A.K.'s posts you objected. I do not have the ability to check cited sources, but the English Wikipedia's counterpart does include those rumors (described as rumors). I see people discussed on talk page how the rumors should be handled. I also see that the talk page on the Japanese Wikipedia's article includes discussion on the rumor. The rumor part is not challenged to be inaccurate, but described as if it is a common knowledge, though... Tomos 17:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." [[8]]
"When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." [[9]]
"Articles and posts on Wikipedia, or on websites that mirror its content, should not be used as sources, as this would result in a self-reference (Wikipedia citing itself). An exception may be made in articles about Wikipedia. In addition, sources that present material known to originate from Wikipedia should not subsequently be used to support that same material in Wikipedia, as this would create circular sourcing (Wikipedia citing a source which already cited Wikipedia for the same material)." [[10]]
More later, but it appears that their is a huge gap between JP and EN Wikipedias, and that this will grow even larger soon: [[11]] Qe2 11:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
This is also different: "Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no neutral version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details)." [[12]]Qe2 11:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This is the former QE2 again. I would like to bring this situation to the attention of the Wiki Foundation, as, years later, I can still recognize no objective reason that I was singled out for a permanent ban. I would be very grateful if you could assist me in pointing to me an appropriate contact point.

Legal department[edit]

I do believe that you are interested or perhaps currently working on legal issue for the foundation. The legal department is certainly a failure. There is certainly lack of effort in pursuing legal issue and I believe that legal works might be a source of income for the foundation instead of a cost. Do you have any plan in mind on what to do to restore this department.

Btw: Almost all the departments are failure (finance department,grant department). Perhaps we could work together on this. Diagramma Della Verita 00:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Deletion of Posts for "Legal Risk"[edit]

I am very concerned with the recent deletion of the Japanese page http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%90%E3%83%BC%E3%83%8B%E3%83%B3%E3%82%B0%E3%83%97%E3%83%AD%E3%83%80%E3%82%AF%E3%82%B7%E3%83%A7%E3%83%B3. I believe the issue is with allegations that the company in question has relations to crime syndicates. There are many published magazine articles and books that make this claim, and yet, any new edit raising these allegations has traditionally been immediately deleted. And now, the entire page has been deleted under the reasoning "High legal risk."

My questions are: 1) Was there any actual lawsuit threatened by a party? Or was the site taken down over possible threat? 2) If this "unpleasant" information is being alleged by multiple media sources over several decades, shouldn't the article at least reference the media narrative about the ties to organized crime? That is to say, even if Wikipedia users cannot prove the connection for themselves, they can comment on the media's constant allegations. 3) Does the Japanese Wikipedia page have no way to reference "taboo" topics — that are often sued for libel — without necessarily confirming those topics?

Anonymous 16:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Here is my personal opinion baased on my non-expert understanding of law and legal risk.

To answere your questions:

  1. I have no knowledge of what happened with that article, or if there was any particular threat made.
  2. If only multiple media sources raise allegations like that, it may not be legally safe enough for a Wikipedian to write about it. The Wikipedian might be personally obligated to do fact-gathering, such as by contacting the alleged, if he wants to secure himself from the potential liability. If the court finds that he has done enough research by himself and it is reasonable that he had believed in the accuracy of the defamatory factual statements he made. The level of this obligation - how much effort is "enough" - is not very clear to me. But it seems that just checking and citing media coverages is not enough. If, on the other hand, he cites a court case, he might have a better chance of being found to have done enough. If he personally communicates with the alleged, he probably has a good chance. This is really troublesome for projects like Wikipedia because we want to collaborate and save time, whereas the law seems to indicate that everyone either writing about it or editing the same page and leaving the allegation on the page has to personally do the fact checking. That is absurdly costly.
  3. Libel and privacy issues as I understand are very difficult to deal with for Wikipedians. I hope I am wrong on this, but I am cautiously pessimistic.

Now, legal risks aside, I think there are some allegations made in some of the articles even on Japanese Wikipedia. Risk aversion does not rule all deletion issues, which may be a good thing or a bad thing. I think there is a tendency that when some assertion is made by fanatics, out of vigilante justice, out of some rivalry, or on some other uncivil ground, the assertions are more likely to be deleted. And of course, determination of if a post is made by a fanatic is not easy and fallable.

Tomos 20:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I should also note that reading the comments on deletion request page ja:Wikipedia:削除依頼/バーニングプロダクション200904, the assertion was not sourced.

Tomos 20:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Terms of Useの校了について[edit]

私が懸念していたことはノートで解決したと思いますし、自分の訳したものを自分で校正するのも限界があるので、当該翻訳の校了(ready)はTomosさんの判断でしてください。--Amatanoyo 16:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

了解しました。なかなか思い切りがつかないのですが、もう一度チェックしてから決めようと思います。どうもありがとうございました。Tomos 04:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I need help to start a Japanese version of a wikipage.[edit]

Hello Tomos- san,

I need help about an article. Let me explain, it is a wikipage in French, I've worked to make an English and an Italian pages. So I would like to start the Japanese page, but each time I tried a bot remove. I don't know who to start it, when it is the Japanese translation I would like to do. I will appreciate your help sincerely. This is the page, I'm talking about: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Fontaine_(Qu%C3%A9bec) What I should write to make the Japanese version, link or anything. It is my first wiki work in Japanese.


--Chikkuru (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Active Participation in Amendment to the Terms of Use Discussion[edit]

¡Hi Tomos!

According to the Wikimedia Embassy in Meta, I see you are the ambassador for Japanese Wikipedia, for which I contact you as a representative of this community. As you may know, we are currently discussing an amendment to our 利用規約 (Terms of use). At the Wikimedia Foundation, we would love to have the participation of the Japanese Wikipedia Community in the ongoing discussion taking place in Meta Wiki.

Wikimedia Foundation's team in the discussion is open and available in any moment to respond to any doubt or comment that you or any other user may have about this topic. Although the discussion is taking place mainly in English, please rest assured that comments in other languages are more than welcome in the main discussion. We really hope that contributors in projects in different languages actively participate in their own language. I want to invite you (日本語で if you prefer) in the discussion taking place in Meta Wiki.

We hope you encourage other Japanese community members to participate!

See you in Meta!

--JVargas (WMF) (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Where place to request a pictures?[edit]

Good night, I want to ask, where place to request a pictures? i need a picture of mount rebun (礼文岳) in rebun town(礼文町), please, i'll take that picture to a page that i created. here id:Gunung Rebun. please help me. Dimas Laksani会話) 2019年3月9日 (土) 17:21 (UTC)