Two on one: no fair! But, okay:
Wikipedia defines the troublesome word: "Transliteration is a mapping from one system of writing into another."
First of all, I'm not sure why you need to cite Wikipedia rather than a dictionary - although it seems strangely appropriate in this case. Be that as it may, the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transliteration
) is a reasonable base for discussion.
Since the original was itself translated from a transcription of verbal speech into Japanese writing, "re-transliteration" may be awkward or a tad stilted, but is not an unfair description of David's method, if not his purpose in doing it.
I don't know whether the description is 'fair' or 'unfair', but it doesn't describe what he has done. I would say, "look it up," but it seems you have. I'm not sure what else to say. Transcription and transliteration are distinct, and neither has anything to do with translation. This is spelled out in agonizing detail in the article to which you refer. If the primary purpose of David's article was to debate the roman spelling of a Japanese word, I might buy transliteration, but it wasn't. I think Jory has already concisely and politely articulated the difference between the standard meaning of transliteration and the activity performed in the article.
Incidentally, would you like in on the spelling bee? We could make it a round robin.