User talk:Ayuta Tonomura

Please read this before you leave a comment on this page:

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

If page size reachs 250,000 bytes or beyond, then will move the contents to past log page.

I encourage you to log in, to distinguish yourself and increase the credibility of your discussions. Posting as an IP user is not recommended.

Olympe Amaury and cutting and pasting text

I see that you created a mini-bio for Olympe Amaury and that you did so by copying the text of the article to the new page but without making a note about where the text came from. Per copying within Wikipedia, please note in the edit summary from which article you got the text when you copy text from one article to another. Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 01:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan: Request for examples of significant coverage

Hi. You recently voted "keep" in the discussion @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan. Please note that there is no specific notability guideline for "oldest person," and any reliance on such a guideline or presumed precedent is misplaced. All such "oldest persons" must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, as well as other suitability guidelines such as WP:NOPAGE, in order to have a stand-alone article. You are respectfully requested to please provide links to what you believe are the three best examples of significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources per GNG, so other editors may evaluate whether such persons are notable. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eunice Sanborn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/153.151.83.197, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Mr. Guye (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know. but user:EEng's editing in Jane Gray (supercentenarian)[1] it seemed to vandalism. In the previous version, nothing there was no problem.[2] In the version after user:EEng's edit, to an important infomation (case of death, next recordholder etc.) is erased, article has been destroyed.[3]--Inception2010 (talk) 10:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring on a topic on which you have been warned of discretionary sanctions is unwise, to say the least. You may well be heading for a block if you don't change your approach. (Also, you do not help your case by making ridiculously exaggerated claims such as that another editor has "destroyed" an article.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Inception2010. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Please explain how this edit is vandalism. Tiderolls 16:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitoyo Kawate ‎

Don't revert closed discussions like that. If you disagree then ask at my talk page or take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. The AfD was closed as redirect show you should not have restored Mitoyo Kawate. Again take the whole thing to Wikipedia:Deletion review. I might have got the target wrong but you were just being disruptive and pointy. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to reverted your edit, but I think this AfD should be redirect and merge to List of Japanese supercentenarians#People. many AfDs of oldest people was resulted "merge" and created mini-bio on country's oldest people list, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Hulmes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koto Okubo, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Benkner, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelby Harris, etc. Mitoyo Kawate was the world's oldest person and also the article had 4 reliable sources, clearly notable than other people who merged to List of Japanese supercentenarians#People, such as Tase Matsunaga (2nd oldest in the world) and Ura Koyama (only world's 4th oldest). Inception2010 (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not bothered where it redirects to. If you want to change the target page (and merge in the material) then go ahead. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Should I use deletion review? or should redirect and merge to List of Japanese supercentenarians by myself? Inception2010 (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the target of the redirect and the merge you can do yourself. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you. I'll doing this some minutes later.Inception2010 (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, How are you, sorry about the damage to the article of Zoltan Sarosy, i Tried to upload a picture, as of rah both er oi removed it because i didn't think it was relevant now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.198.170 (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Regarding the photos, added, to article Supercentenarians from American, i did not VANDALIZE the article, no offense but you vandalized it, i added VERY relevant pictures to the article, that clearly document what is in the article body, it is a differing of opinion only. Besides you will find that most if not ALL articles contain more than one picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.234.146 (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Vandal or not, this edit summary [4] is inappropriate. Don't do that again. Acroterion (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I will not do such a warning in the future. However, as a human being, I could not forgive the evil and waste of time vandalism by user:Fydcinnz. Inception2010 (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Report removed from WP:AIV

This report was declined.--Chaser (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fydcinnz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). To do vandalism, cryptic edits, add unsourced material, and disruptive editing (see history) in spite of warning by other users several times (see User talk:Fydcinnz). It might be the WP:SOCK of DN-boards1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) or Doveanupam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user performed many destructive edits for too long times and was robbed the time of many users who undo this user's edits. I think this user is shame of all human beings.Inception2010 (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to Sockpuppet investigations. I've spent a lot of time looking at the edits, and I don't see everything as vandalism or destructive, if any are. There may have been some incorrect edits, but that does not make it vandalism. In many cases, this editor is just providing links to the individual Wikipedia articles. I also don't see a strong link to DN-boards1 or Doveanupam, might be the same articles but not the same edits. You also edited on those articles. If you feel strongly that this editor is a sock of anyone, please file a report at SPI and include diffs in your report. — Maile (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nabi Tajima

I replaced the "anonymous" woman with "unknown" as a person always has a name and therefore cannot be anonymous. Anonymous may be a source, a report or whatever comes from an unknown source, but not a person. I also suggest you quit calling vandal persons who only speaks English in at least a reasonable manner and may spot obvious mistakes: I'm sure the Japanese wiki (or whatever language you're proficient in) has a lot of articles in need of attention. REDGOLPE (TALK) 13:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne Calment

I do not think that the wordy insertion was my 'edit' (which you reverted). I too would prefer the simpler language (that you chose over the previous editor). MaynardClark (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize; and again, I apologize. MaynardClark (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summaries

How is this an appropriate edit summary? You shouldn't go around calling someone "evil" because I added tags to an article. Don't do this again. CommanderLinx (talk) 06:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are almost all remove and added dead link template. And you never added source for poor article and archive link for dead links. It seems to be you are WP:NOTHERE and also may be WP:DE, and I hate your edit styles. I don't understand why you came to Wikipedia for what purpose. Inception2010 (talk) 08:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've found a shortcut for noting disruptive editing in edit summaries. Congratulations. Rest assured when I use it for your disruptive editing it will be more appropriate than this edit summary. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warning other users

Hi there, re: this, a few things: new comments belong at the bottom of talk pages, not at the top. There's really no need to include a massive image or <big></big> markup. This just comes off as being obnoxious. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ 15:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know.

Your edit are 15 minites after this edit. and until this edit, I did not editing on English Wikipedia for 71 hours. so, actually your opinion that "Please do not attack other editors." are following this my edit.

However, you are wrong. this edit are only reverted non-constructive edit. this edit was not include non-constructive Edit summary and without non-constructive behavor, so not personal attack. Inception2010 (talk)

Talk page guidelines

Please do not remove other people's comments from my or any other user's talk page, as you did here. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's talk page guidelines. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are you on about?

You placed a warning on my talk page for “vandalism” when I clearly changed information because it didn’t make sense.

If I made an error in understanding please notify me, but that paragraph is absolutely not able to be understood. Tehssiah (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Inception2010. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Jiroemon Kimura, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Ediitor10 (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Christian Mortensen, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Ediitor10 (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Oldest people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Ediitor10 (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion notice regarding your edits.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Ediitor10 (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Ediitor10 repeat arbitrary editing that is not based on rules and guidelines of Wikipedia - and harassment for me. see edit history.
Note: Ediitor10 starting editing on en-wikipedia only 2 weeks ago and less than 30 edits, but actually not a begginer user because of behavor (know how to use Wikipedia:Twinkle and WP:ANI.) There is no doubt that this is someone's illegal sockpuppet.Inception2010 (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done User:Ediitor10 has been blocked from editing en-wikipedia indefinitily as the sock puppet of User:ReeceTheHawk [5]. Goodbye!. Inception2010 (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not vandalism

I noticed this edit of yours on Ediitor10's talk page. What you're reverting there is not vandalism (and neither are Ediitor10's other edits, though they may well be inappropriate for other reasons). Removing others' comments from one's own talk page is explicitly permitted. Huon (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:24.190.40.112, you may be blocked from editing. Black Kite (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I was harrassed by 24.190.40.112 for long time. I want to know what saying by 24.190.40.112 on the edit on 22 February 2018, but already deleted it by admin.[6] It is disappointing because I can't know it. Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is already blocked. Please don't change comments on their talkpage, it is disruptive. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Black Kite OK. I see. By the way, I want to see the deleted edit by 24.190.40.112 on my talk page. I want you to see it. Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can see it. It's abusive, and one of the reasons why 24.190.40.112 is blocked. Black Kite (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, Black Kite. I would like to know what 24.190.40.112 was going to say. If possible and if you can not publish it here, please send it to me using Wiki-mail.Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:TonyBallioni,

Sorry, but this users (User:Cerbone100354, etc) has older blocked account (named "Doveanupam"), so I was going to changed sockpuppet-category name. I have no malice, but sorry to your time.

Also, why is 31 hours, not 24 hours?Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked you because of the above warning for disruptive editing, as you kept going around changing templates on sockpuppet pages of a CU confirmed sock on what appears to be related to this IP above, and continued even after I reverted you. This is disruptive. Black Kite had already warned you about messing with unblock templates here, and messing around with CU confirmed sock templates is on the same level. I'm very open to unblocking you as you seem to be a good user, but what you are doing is disruptive and makes it difficult for admins to figure out what is going on. This block (like all blocks) is preventative in nature because it was the only way I could think to get you to slow down, especially after the warning above. Re: the time of the block: 31 hours is the default first block from the dropdown menu in Twinkle, and I didn't change it. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:TonyBallioni,

Changing unblock-template was (I tried to delete the comment of sockpuppet who did racial discrimination) my wrong behavior, I apologize.

However, "User:Dylan Cerbone 2018" and his sockpuppets including "Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dylan Cerbone 2018" are sockpuppet of "User:Doveanupam" created in 2012 and this is the main account of "User:Dylan Cerbone 2018". For that reason, "Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dylan Cerbone 2018" should be merged to "Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Doveanupam". I edited for that reason, but my edits was reverted by you. Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are changing sockpuppetry tags from multiple different SPIs to be this user because you think it is them, even though multiple CUs haven't tied them together when they were active in the same time frame? From a behavioral standpoint, I see multiple differences in the MO of the Cerbone socks as compared to Doveanupam (namely Doveanupam seems to use comprehensible English where Cerbone is incomprehensible). The tags help CUs, clerks, and admins who work in SPI figure out which users to block, and if socks belong to the same family. Changing the tags without filing an SPI or consulting a clerk or CheckUser is disruptive and makes the process much more difficult. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:TonyBallioni, I think "Doveanupam" is the same person of "Dylan cerbone 2018", because of many evidence (Account registration date, characteristic words, continuous posting in same article, and also his behaivor in the other forum-site (outside WIkipedia), etc.) that I've recognize.　In this case, Is changing templates needs a discussions/consensus? If yes, I really did not know that. I'm sorry. Can you unblock me?Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:TonyBallioni, No reply? Are there any questions?Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Like I said, I blocked to prevent edit warring in an area that is sensitive and where only CheckUsers, SPI clerks, and admins should be changing things. In terms of an unblock, I'm willing to unblock on these conditions:

You agree never to place any sockpuppetry tag on a user, and let CheckUsers, admins, and SPI clerks do that instead of you.
You agree not to ever edit other users comments regardless of whether or not you think they violate WP:TPO.

If you agree to these two conditions, I would be fine unblocking. Let me know if you accept them.

In terms of tagging them, as the claimed master I don't see much point trying to link them as that account is stale and as I said, there are some behavioral differences that make me doubt it, even if they do have a similar topic area. User:TGBCT1, however, I can see a behavioral case being made, and possibly getting a CU to look at if there are more accounts that were missed (though they might not as different CUs have looked at both accounts.) If you wanted to do so, you could file an SPI and make the case. I would recommend filing it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dylan Cerbone 2018. If you needed help learning how to file it, I could file it procedurally, and then let you present the evidence. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: I had saw many time tagged sock template by the user who not admin/CU, such this edit, so I was thought that is no problem.

2 is agree, Of course. 1 is also agree~~, and I'll let the administrator to tagged the sock template to user page of Doveanupam, etc. I have many edidences that can prove Doveanupam is the same person of "Dylan", "TGBCT1", etc.~~DeletedAyuta Tonomura (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A CheckUser has determined that the only non-stale sock that you thought was Doveanupam and wasn't confirmed to Cerbone lives in a different part of the world from Dylan Cerbone, so I'm going to ask that you agree to drop this stick now and stop trying to tie users together and to a master who hasn't edited in a year. If you still want to argue that point, I'm fine leaving you blocked for the next 30 hours as it will only cause disruption. Edit: we seem to have crossed paths, moving this up. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I'll not discuss this matter anymore. "different part of the world" - Unexpected result. may be using proxy or the same person only moved to far place...Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Thank you for understanding!. Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, you shouldn't do advanced administrative tasks when you are not an admin/clerk. It might cause other users to think that you actually are an admin, when you're not. That is a very serious offense, in my opinion. The correct action in this case would have been to find an admin and make him/her aware of your suspicion.

Regarding the suspicion, one of the sockpuppet accounts of User:Dylan Cerbone 2018 is User:Dylan Cerbone born in 2006. And judging from the way he behaved and the language he used I would probably guess that he actually is born in 2006. User:Doveanupam has edits as far back as 2012, and I don't think those edits were made by a 6-year-old. Therefore I think it is extremely unlikely that it is the same user. --Marbe166 (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want to do? Marbe166, this is none of evidence, and its just a claim of blocked user. no evidence that he was born in 2006. also, it seems to be he was born on 2005, not 2006 because the username of User:Only Childs&2005 kids. Please show me evidence that User:Dylan Cerbone 2018 was born in 2006. Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2005 or 2006 doesn't matter in this case. User:Dylan Cerbone 2018 has claimed multiple times that he is "just a kid", and he has behaved like an immature child, so I see no reason not to believe that he actually is ca 12 years old now. That would mean that he was ca 6 years old in 2012 when User:Doveanupam made his first edits, and I don't think that any 6-year-olds write on Wikipedia, in quite good English, on a topic as narrow as Longevity. Therefore, my point was that it is extremely unlikely that User:Doveanupam and User:Dylan Cerbone 2018 are the same person. --Marbe166 (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doveanupam: I totally agree to his mental age is less than 12 years of age, but may be the real age of him is 20 or beyond. I think claiming that "I'm just a kid" is typical lie in order to prevent block. He was often rude to the children/young people and made comments to insult, in both inside and outside of wikipedia. If he's the same child, I think will not make such a comment.Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having dealt with both Dylan Cerbone and Daveanupam I am 100% sure they are NOT the same person. The editing style is completely different. I am quite prepared if you persist changing any page on the basis that they are the same person I am quite prepared to take you to ANI and request that you be blocked again for disruptive editing. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... "Dylan Cerbone" may be was named after "Derby County", because of similler name. And DerbyCountyinNZ, it's good to not have to worry about. Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 04:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC closure

This is not a formal warning, but based on your editing history, I think it would be very wise for you to start the required discussion with the closer rather than unilaterally reverting an administrator's action - which incidently was purely due to a software glitch in the script. In fact you are not qualified to be patrolling anything or doing any maintenance tasks. Do it again and you may risk your editing privileges being limited (again).. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

user:Kudpung, By the way, the AfD closed as delete (closed by you), but why article is still not deleted? I can’t understand. I wasn’t wrong and the article should be deleted because AfD closed as “delete”. It’s simple thing. Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I told you it was a software glitch. We rely on these complex scripts and are not always aware when they don't work as expected. You weren't wrong and I appreciated you pointing it out, but you must never revert an admin action without discussion. It's now deleted, but we admins are busy people and we can't do everything at once. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

software glitch, ok. I understand. Thank you very much for explaining and deleted the article.-Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 04:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Ayuta Tonomura. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MediaWiki message delivery: Thanks for leaving message here. but I'll not editing Wikipedia again, for at least 2 years or probably over a decade in order to apologize and repentance for my behavior on Wikipedia. I will edit properly, when I come back here. Again, I apologize. Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 02:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be change the username soon. The reason will be describe in my talk page of the Japanese version of Wikipedia. Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 10:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocks

Hi - we don't usually block IPs for long periods of time, simply because it is very common for them to be dynamic - a user will typically be reassigned a new IP from time to time (sometimes very frequently, multiple times per day), so blocking a single IP often has no effect other than potentially inconveniencing the next person who is assigned to it. If the same user comes back on that same IP, report it again and we'll look at a long-term block. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 05:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't make pointless edits, nor unexplainable ones

You seem to think otherwise here. It's not like your way is bad, but my way simply keeps similar information together. Her age at death is directly connected to her place in the record books, so it might go textually as well. It's not uncommon to clump three obituaries together, especially for uncontroversial claims, but if you want to split them up, I suppose that's OK, too. Thanks for restoring my "remains", in any case. "Is" just doesn't work the same, in context. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As for the point in removing "following her death" from the sentence following her death, that's because I think it pointless to state the obvious. The reader knows what's happening within a paragraph, chronologically. "Then" explains everything much quicker. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]