User talk:Dekimasu

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

Assistance with a user

Hi, Dekimasu, per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1230#Admin intervention request, neutrality, and reliable sources on WP:ANIME, I am asking for assistance with communicating with a user over articles at WP:ANIME. For the record, she is personally asking for someone who speaks Japanese, though she has no problems communicating in English. Please see the post on the noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga for context. I will be happy to help. Thank you. lullabying (talk) 03:47, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I read the threads, and while I am not sure there is much I can help with other than corroborating editors' understandings of Wikipedia policies and guidelines or verifying the contents of specific Japanese-language sources, I can try to be available. I certainly cannot keep up with the current pace of comments, though. Best, Dekimasuよ! 06:28, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

"Ansatsuken" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ansatsuken has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 August 23 § Ansatsuken until a consensus is reached. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:08, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Hoax

The article need an unsourced tag. --DoveTheEditor (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

You are free to add any needed tags to the article, of course. However, there are already eight sources cited, so Template:Unsourced doesn't seem to be the right one. Dekimasuよ! 15:31, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

As a rebuttal: none of which confirms he was 168. --DoveTheEditor (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

The article does not say he lived to be 168. (Of course he wasn't.) The article says he claimed to be 168, and describes how outside organizations reported on his claim. Dekimasuよ! 15:33, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

A claim like Jimmy Wales thinking he's the founder of Wikipedia, when he's the co-founder, and overshadowed Larry Sanger. Just like Steve Jobs did to Wozniak. The fact he walked out of an interview after 40 seconds. He so calls it an "opinion" and "you can have whatever opinion you like". False: Wikipedia is about facts. --DoveTheEditor (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to convey here. The article has been on Wikipedia for more than two decades because it is a well-known story about a hoax. The (cited) coverage of the hoax is what demonstrates its notability to a degree that makes it unsuitable for speedy deletion. You are free to bring the article to WP:AFD or add tags to any particular uncited statements, as I noted above. Dekimasuよ! 15:41, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

It should be a legendary character then, not a real biography. --DoveTheEditor (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Barnstar! (as close to the target as I could get

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		Your wordsmithing in regards to closing admin-recall petitions was excellent. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 23:49, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Best, Dekimasuよ! 05:10, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Pop Watson

I closed the discussion as uncontested, but just as a quick FYI, some page movers like to relist elapsed discussions without any comments made, usually just to see if input can come later. If after the relist there are still no comments made, then it is closed. It's usually based on the users' preferences. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 19:03, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello 1isall, as someone with a few decades of experience in this area, I would recommend not doing that. Opening a move discussion is, in part, a courtesy to other editors who may have objections. If there are no objections then this basically shows the move could have been completed as a bold or technical request, so there is no particular reason to leave it open after the initial discussion period has elapsed. This is even written into the instructions at WP:RMNOMIN: "If no one has objected, go ahead and perform the move as requested, unless it is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guidelines or policy." If you have a particular reason to think that a request is out of keeping with naming conventions, guidelines, and policy, I would recommend opposing it rather than relisting it. And this instruction doesn't say "you may prefer to relist it instead". Rather, if you find such a request and do not feel comfortable either closing it or explaining why it should not yet be closed, I would recommend just leaving it for another closer to examine.

Another reason to go ahead and process such requests is to help focus attention on other move discussions that really do need additional comments and insight to be added so that they can reach clear consensus.

Finally, I was specifically objecting to relists that were occurring before they had even elapsed. Your relist at Pop Watson technically took place 5 minutes after the request was eligible for closure, so although I would not have relisted in that case, it was not the specific action that I was objecting to at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Periodic reminder on relisting. If you have any other questions, please let me know. Best, Dekimasuよ! 03:05, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Should we tell other page movers this? Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 04:27, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

You know what? Scrap that question. It's already in that talk page section you linked. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 04:28, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks for your replies. I am hoping that some page movers will see the discussion at WT:RM. If this proves to be ongoing the concern it can always be raised again in a more specific way, but my hope is that this can point things in a productive direction without needing to frame it as an issue with individual editors. Best, Dekimasuよ! 04:33, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Requesting some elaboration

Could you elaborate on your recent close at Talk:German Emperor#Requested move 15 September 2026? It doesn't give much insight in how you came to conclude there was no consensus (which, to be clear, I don't think there is anything wrong with – one could even argue it's best practice to not elaborate on RM closes unless its requested, for the sake of efficiency) and I don't think the discussion speaks for itself. Could you explain how you evaluated the arguments? Because when I look at it I see the supporters all arguing WP:COMMONNAME with evidence to back it up, while only one opposer made an attempt to make an argument based on article title policies and guidelines. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 15:17, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree that less is usually more when closing requested moves, particularly when the outcome is "no consensus". If there is a consensus to move or not to move, the closer should be able to explain which arguments from the discussion justified the decision. When the outcome is "no consensus" and a lot of explication goes into the closing statement, it often leads to "what about X", "why was Y discounted", etc. But in this particular case, the most relevant arguments made were about WP:COMMONNAME and, although it was not mentioned by name, WP:UE.

In the case of the common name argument, some data from Ngrams was presented showing "German Emperor" to be more common, and other data from Google Scholar was presented purporting to show that "German Kaiser" is more common. Counterarguments were made about the scope of what was captured by both searches, and several claims about the common name were made without presenting additional data, so I treated this as a good-faith lack of agreement as to which name is more common for titling purposes. Reading through the proposal again today, I note that there were no quotation marks around the Google Scholar search terms, which yields misleading results. Putting the search terms in quotation marks yields 3.5x as many results for "German Emperor" as "German Kaiser", or around 3x for sources after 2000 with around 75% of the hits seeming to apply to the correct historical period. The disparity is in part because a search for German Kaiser without quotation marks picks up a large number of articles by authors with the surname Kaiser, such as the first result, which was for RNA-seq analysis of single bovine blastocysts with contributing author German G Kaiser. However, that problem with the data was not raised during the discussion and did not factor into my close.

On WP:UE, there was again a lack of agreement, with some editors arguing that kaiser and emperor are functionally equivalent terms and therefore the English term should be used, and other editors arguing that the frequency of the use of kaiser in English sources establishes it as a valid English title. There was additionally some concern about whether the use of the term kaiser should be considered neutral, both in terms of connotation and in terms of whether the use of terms with foreign origins for emperors is consistent across regions. The discussion illustrated no consensus as to how to apply this aspect of the policy. Best, Dekimasuよ! 05:51, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

That's reasonable. Thank you for the satisfactory explanation, and for helping out with closing, of course. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 06:46, 29 September 2026 (UTC)