User talk:Hinata

ANI[edit]

Just so you'll know, I've brought a matter up at ANI here [1] and mentioned your name, feel free to comment. Dayewalker (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Hinata. You have new messages at Swifty's talk page.
Message added 15:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Swifty*^talk 15:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Well, I won't bother re-deleting it, but since you deleted everything I'll just say take it to the article talk page. --Hinata talk 18:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genesect has NOT been acknowledged![edit]

It has been unanimously voted by the Wikicommunity that Genesect is not to be acknowledge until it is official announced by Nintendo/GameFreak/Pokemon.com or whoever owns Pokémon and with a reliable source and IGN does not count. That is a leak and this has already been brought up as well. So please do not change anything or add Genesect otherwise your edit will be reverted as vandalism. Thank you. ^_^ Swifty*^talk 01:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hinata, do not listen to Swifty, he cannot read Japanese and does not understand that Genesect has been released and the discussion on Talk:Pokémon should have been rendered moot.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey =)[edit]

I looked at your youtube page and saw you liked anime and was wondering if you would like to join and help out over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga? =) I am an anime and manga fan myself ^-^ - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Communist "regimes"[edit]

The word "regimes" is used at Mass killings under Communist regimes because that is the term many of our highest quality academic sources use. I have copied excerpts from four such sources here, and bolded their use of "communist regime". AmateurEditor (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if the sources say it, Regimes is incredibly Negative it in my opinion is far worse then mass killings. Also, I would like to nominate the article for deletion, but can you help me? --Hinata talk 00:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable sources say is very important on Wikipedia, see WP:RS. Since the term "communist regimes" has already been backed up by several high quality reliable sources (and, in fact, this complaint has been raised before to no effect because of this term's use in these sources), you will need to present alternative sources of high quality to get it changed. The opinion of Wikipedia editors alone will not be enough. Also, I am in favor of keeping the article and I disagree with your opinion about the nature of the term "communist regimes". AmateurEditor (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, maybe the reason this article is protected is because of some disruptive sock puppet, but seriously this article is a classic fork that is quite possibly the worst name title in this website. If you find an admin that will let me nominate this article for deletion, that's all I want. Until then, this article will continue to be the worst article. Also, this regimes part if the part that completely obliterates any neutral part that this article may have had. --Hinata talk 18:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the article is protected is because of edit-warring, not sock puppetry. And it is not a fork. If you want the title changed, you should propose a better title on the article's talk page. Not liking the title is not a valid reason for deletion. In fact, I don't think there are any valid reasons for deletion of this article, as I explained in the deletion discussion here. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mass killings did not happen. It is hearsay and the sources are simply not credible. --Hinata talk 19:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you must prove that with sources of your own and show why the sources we already have should not be used. Simply asserting that they are not credible is not going to convince anyone. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, maybe it's that way, but it is not credible sources. All of them are not credible. --Hinata talk 19:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

I would ask you to strike your comment about Baseball Bugs on AN/I, and cease making comments like it again. It clearly crosses the line into a personal attack. Ironholds (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will not. It is in my opinion he is clearly what I say he is. --Hinata talk 21:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would ask you to not make such a statement again. If you do, I will block you. Ironholds (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or, more accurately: to agree not to make such a statement again, and to follow through on that agreement. Are you comfortable with that? Ironholds (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am ignoring you, I won't make it again, but this is the last time I will reply. --Hinata talk 22:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's all I was looking for. Ironholds (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

get a clue[edit]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

AfD[edit]

If you do seriously wish to nominate Lynette Nusbacher for AfD, please let me know and I will open the page/start the process on your behalf. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to be away from the computer for a while and so if no one else has, I will when I get back. (as it has been nominated before, it gets a little more tricky without the right tools.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to see you don't think you need Hinata's permission, TRPoD. I think we both know what the result will be, but at least we can dispose of this particular complaint. ► Belchfire-TALK 23:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion page has been created if you wish to expand your rationale Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynette Nusbacher (2nd nomination) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013[edit]

Please stop using talk pages such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. В и к и T 23:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A warning such as this is worthless without further clarification. Generic response such as this is not to be taken seriously by me. --Hinata talk 23:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--В и к и T 00:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unwarented block[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hinata (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Why I got blocked indef... Anyway, I request unblock chiefly because this is the first time I got blocked, and why didn't I even get a warning. I will not post uncivil things again. Hinata talk 00:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is available for everyone to edit, regardless of race, creed or sexuality. The question you need to answer is exactly why we should allow someone to edit who openly espouses a view that the death penalty for certain people, which includes editors here, is somehow valid. Black Kite (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Enough.

(Non-administrator comment) An AN/I thread is like a warning, just a lot louder and nastier. Now, if you are in any way serious about getting unblocked, I'd suggest you answer the following questions:

Do you legitimately believe that making homosexuality a capital offense would be uncontroversial? Mind you, I'm not interested in hearing the argument for it; I just want to know if you actually think it's a controversial suggestion or not.
You believe that anti-semitism accusations are not serious. Is this because you think that they're made too liberally, or because you think anti-semitism is not in itself serious?

From considerable experience with the unblocking process, I'll warn you that you'll probably have your talk paged access revoked if you say anything remotely offensive here, and that claiming that you thought it to be inoffensive will not be seen as a valid excuse. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a more verbose rationale for why you think the block is wrong Hinata. Could you elaborate on what you meant by your comments, and why they shouldn't lead to a block? Prodego ^talk 01:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the hate speech was part but not all of the block rationale. You would also have to address the disruptive editing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The disruptive editing is just icing on the cake. There really is no place on Wikipedia for an editor who either believes that there should be a death penalty for homosexuals, or feels free to say such a unbelievably monstrous thing just for the effect it might have. I strongly advise admins that negotiating with this editor for an unblock is not in the greater interest of the commmunity or the project, and that should someone see fit to unblock them, I will (for the first time ever, in 7.5 years of editing here) propose a community ban for this editor, and perhaps even sanctions for the unblocking admin. A line must be drawn somewhere, and I draw it at this kind of virulent behavior, whether it comes from neo-Nazis or racists or homophobes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree that the comments themselves are quite unacceptable. I just have very low expectations for the Wikipedia community when it comes to sanctioning editors for anti-LGBT behavior - though then again, editors have said in the past that they've disrupted the encyclopedia specifically to spite LGBT people and not been sanctioned for it, so I suppose reiterating that Hinata's edits were disruptive as well as offensive might not have done any good anyway. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference: I have revdeled the comments referred to in the second ANI thread. Admin-only link to the revdeleted comment. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And here is quick access to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion about this issue in case someone doesn't want to have to go digging through the archives. Flyer22 (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the death penalty is in no way hate speech. This is hypocrisy at its finest. I should have quit long time ago. I don't care if I get blocked. When I move out of town, I may think about it. Also, let me explain. I quit anyhow. When I go out of town, I may think about creating another. But I won't because that would be sock puppet. In any case, homosexuality is a capital offense where my old country was. I was raised where it would be illegal. I guess I was taught when I was a child. Finally, and one last short-so-called paragraph. If anyone needs me, I will be on shadow1033 YouTube. I will not waste my time appealing here. Because of people hating on me for my beliefs, I view my chance of getting unblocked slim to none. Thanks, Yours truly, ~Unknown PS. I personally, as I've said before, gay is morally wrong. I came from the middle east. See... you --Hinata talk 15:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Telling me I should die for my sexuality most certainly is hate speech, you revolting bigot. In MY country, which is a democracy, my sexuality is legal, and hate speech is not. I prefer it that way round. 'I come from the Middle East' is not an excuse for promoting morally reprehensible things. The judicial murder of people for their sexual orientation is morally reprehensible, it is only uncontroversial in that most the civilised world agrees that it is wrong, and it really, really is hate speech. Now get lost. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Hinata/Speedy Deletion reminder[edit]

User:Hinata/Speedy Deletion reminder, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hinata/Speedy Deletion reminder and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Hinata/Speedy Deletion reminder during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]