User talk:Hijiri88

Note: If you open multiple sections on my talk page at the same time, about the same issue, I will likely merge them into one.

Archives
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Thank you for fixing my !vote

Thank you for fixing my !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Na brzegu rzeki Sometimes the first few keystrokes that I enter using the 2017 wikitext editor get lost. I would also like to thank you for adding the information about the translation to English. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Deletion request for List of breakfast drinks

You have participated with the editing of List of breakfast drinks Therefore, you might be interested in the deletion nomination of the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breakfast drinks (2nd nomination) --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

for improving Na brzegu rzeki and your "keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Na brzegu rzeki, btw, you will become an "inclusionist", just look deeply into the kitten's eyes......

Coolabahapple (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Coolabahapple: I used to call myself a "moderate inclusionist", until I realized a few months back that editors who call themselves and others "inclusionists", and others "deletionists", were by-and-large more interested in fighting than in building an encyclopedia. This reasoning is outlined in my short (or rather currently incomplete) essays User:Hijiri88/Don't call yourself or others "inclusionists" and User:Hijiri88/Don't call other editors "deletionists". My attitude toward the majority of those clumsy AFD nominations last week was basically Yeah, they're probably notable, and yeah, our deleting them comes across as stupid Anglophones dismissing the achievements of other cultures -- something I spend most of my time on Wikipedia working to correct -- but having standalone articles that are one sentence long and merely duplicate information already found in their parent articles is just going to annoy our readers; redirect for now, and maybe build proper articles later -- heck, forcing the self-proclaimed "inclusionists" to put their money where their mouths are and build the proper articles themselves for once would be optimal, and it really strikes me as inappropriate that one of the above self-proclaimed "inclusionists" (who almost never !votes any way but "keep", even in utterly ridiculous cases) was allowed to get away with NACcing as "speedy keep" one of the one-sentence AFDs based on a 1-1 "discussion". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Nagano

If the city is not the primary topic of Nagano, then the solution would be to start a RM to move Nagano (disambiguation) to Nagano. Having the primary title redirect to the disambiguation page is contrary to the naming conventions (see WP:Malplaced disambiguation pages). Also, the fact that there is an RM (on a different page) in progress but not yet completed seems to me an argument against a change in the target at this time. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 01:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@R'n'B: Isn't having a primary title redirect to a disambiguated title also contrary to naming conventions, though? It would seem to me that this would be an IAR situation pending a proper solution to the problem, and if it's really that important not to have a base title link to a disambig page, then it should probably be redirected to Nagano Prefecture since that one has 5/6 the page views despite the artificial inflation the city page gets from the redirect[1][2][3] and any current attention the city article might be getting as a result of the ongoing RM; this is supported by the fact that on ja.wiki the base title has always been a disambig page and the prefecture article gets four times the page views.[4][5] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Education Not for Sale

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Education Not for Sale. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment of Israeli neighborhoods

I have opened an RFC for several of the Israeli cities that I think are un-encyclopedic. Therefore, I appreciate input from you at that RFC. Thank you. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Personal Attack has no exceptions

Unlike what you think, Wikipedia:No personal attacks remains no room for users like you and it prohibits users from commenting on the editors. "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, etc", "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" and "Comparing editors to Nazis, Communists, Terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons" are among the things the behavioral policy urges us to avoid. You may consider this as warning gainst further commenting on users in Wikipedia. Plus, redacting the attack phrases do not need to be done with prior notifications since "derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor" per WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Umm... I didn't "compare" a user to a neo-Nazi. The user in question was literally a neo-Nazi. It's not a personal attack. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, wait ... you're referring to the "disgusting" bit. I don't know why you would quote the bit about Comparing editors to Nazis, Communists, Terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons, when I didn't make any comparison. An editor engaged in antisemitism ("the Jews control the media", etc.) and advocacy of Holocaust-denial, and I called that "disgusting". It's still not a personal attack. Rather, your accusing me of "comparing editors to Nazis, Communists, Terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons" is something of a personal attack. That text is included in the policy in reference to the "you are a Nazi" attack that occasionally gets thrown around in discussions that have nothing to do with Nazis, fascists, Jews, genocide, etc. -- believe me, I know because the attack has been made against me no shortage of times (mostly due to my username). Anyway, you should retract your personal attack against me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

What the hell? This is you who should stop making such comments. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'm pinging TonyBallioni as he's the involved admin. It's just meant to let him know about your rude comments. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Umm ... I linked Tony to the comments in question, and it was on that basis that he initially blocked the account. In fact, the "personal attack" in question was specifically brought to his attention by the blocked user, and he responded. The simple fact is that I didn't "compare" anyone to anything: the user in question engaged in Holocaust denial, antisemitic slurs, etc., and I called it disgusting. Any civilized human being would, I should hope, say the same. Any Nazi comparisons were drawn by the user himself, not me. I don't care if you don't intend to retract your accusation against me (or if Zero0000 doesn't intend to retract his accusation that calling EoL a David Duke fan is somehow a smear against Zero0000, for that matter), but you really have to stop haranguing me about it on my talk page when I ask you to. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

No, you clearly commented on the user, while you had to comment on the content and his action, not he himself. I'll leave the talk, respecting your request. But I suggest you take No Personal Attack more seriously. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

ANI is for discussing users and their conduct, not content. You really need to read NPA more carefully, as the passages you quoted above had nothing to do with the recent ANI thread. I have been accused of being a Nazi for (a) having "88" in my username, (b) using the word "myth" to refer to the content of the book of Genesis, (c) preventing the words "They are known for their notorious use of blackface" (or equivalent) from being added to the lead of an article on a Japanese pop group, and so on; it is that kind of personal attack that is condemned in that policy quotation, and pointing to antisemitic comments someone made while leaving the "Nazi comparisons" to the imagination of the reader is not the same. Give it up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Chiyo Miyako

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chiyo Miyako. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Andrew D. (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Vishnu Puran (TV series)

The article Vishnu Puran (TV series) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Cites no sources establishing notability and is a mess of an article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Zubin12 (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'm sure Hijiri will get to cleaning this up right away. In the meantime, these are not good reasons for deletion. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Vishnu Puran (TV series) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vishnu Puran (TV series) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vishnu Puran (TV series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Zubin12 (talk) 04:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Wish

Hello. Help improve article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thank you. 125.214.51.223 (talk) 08:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@125.214.51.223: Umm ... why? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Sorry, but my involvement in the "Women In Red" WikiProject is because of my work on Japanese female poets from the early middle ages, and I have no interest in working on fashion model articles. You should refrain from individually messaging random members of a "broad" project like that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

They created an account

Hello. Help improve for article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you. Arina56 (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Ignore. User is a sock puppet. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you from editing for 1 week, to stop your disruption of Philafrenzy's RfA. It is *not* a suitable place for you to continue whatever disputes you might have with James500, nor to launch personal attacks like "James is a serial liar, with a demonstrable history of attempting to cover his tracks when it comes to his own misbehaviour". His !vote consisted of a simple and perfectly acceptable one-liner, with no mention whatsoever of you, and a lot of people are really getting sick of seeing you popping up in fights with monotonous regularity. I'm sure you know how to appeal if you want to be unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll just add that your extended argument in response do Mike Peel's support was also disruptive, and way over the top. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Apologies in advance for commenting—I didn't realise there was a further issue than that in the block rationale—but I had been about to suggest that Hijiri88 might want to base an unblock request (if they choose to, of course, it's up to them) to a commitment to a) avoid the RfA (at which they have, after all, already commented, so hopefully would not feel disenfranchised over), and b) to not mention you-know-who either directly or obliquely for X-amount of time. How would you feel about such a request? Apologies, H88, for leaving you yet another orange blob at the top of your page—I thought this might resolvable soonish rather than later. But wanted to ask BsZ's opinion. Take care! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 19:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Umm... I had already retracted my reply to Mike's vote and withdrawn from the discussion of James's. James's looked legitimately suspicious to me (and I provided the diffs to make it clear exactly why I thought it was suspicious -- the "personal attack" you quote above was based on several diffs I had already provided above), but once I realized no one else thought the same way I stopped. My last comment was just about the weirdness of how the EditorInteract tool wasn't working right. My last several comments on the actual RFA were in the oppose section, in response to replies to my own vote. Blocking me for continued disruption on RFA would make sense, but you blocked me several hours after I had voluntarily withdrawn. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

My two cents: @Hijiri88: you have to understand that, from an outside perspective, your interactions with both James500 and MikePeel evinced a severe lack of WP:AGF and were bordering on WP:NPA. @Boing! said Zebedee: However, I personally appreciated Hijiri88's comments on the close paraphrasing issue and would be in favor unblocking to allow them to continue commenting on the RFA, since they seem to have understood the reason for the block. Λυδαcιτγ 03:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

My two cents. The last comment left by Hijiri below Mike Peel's !vote (post which I said they'd gone OTT) consisted of this statement: "I'm unlikely at this point to convince anyone that his motivation for choosing this one of the dozens of RFAs his old associates have been involved in to comment on was dubious". In other words, the editor still believes in the dubiousness of the !vote (James or whoever's) but is disappointed that he'll not be able to convince others. I respect Hijiri's editing experience; unfortunately, I'm absolutely not convinced that this editor knows where the line needs to be drawn, especially in this RfA. There will be absolutely more such comments by the editor, leading to a worse situation and a harsher block than there is. If Hijiri agrees to not comment in the RfA or about this RfA anywhere on Wikipedia, I can support an unblock. But given the tenacity of their repetitive OTT statements (as shown above), absolutely not as of now. Lourdes 04:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Lourdes: I do not intend to continue to defend a fact claim that I'm not going to convince anyone else of, and I've already made that clear. What I "believe" is pretty inconsequential to the smooth functioning of the project. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Respect your right to have your view. That said, I'm not sure you'll not pick on other support !voters in this RfA to question their credentials. You seem to be impulsively hitting away at the keyboard during this RfA (I don't know why you're doing that; your past editing background has some stellar accomplishments, so am confused why you're doing this). I'll suggest you agree to BsZ to stop editing in this RfA; I'm sure the unblock would be done immediately. I'll leave the rest of the decision making to BsZ here. Warmly, Lourdes 04:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Lourdes:

Explanation of what I was doing at that RFA to begin with

FWIW, I only questioned two support voters (mostly as a result of the EditorInteract tool leading me to believe there was something fishy about their statements), whereas I am one of at least three oppose voters (Tony and Audacity being the others) who have been questioned on the "close paraphrasing" issue by the same support voter. For the sake of full disclosure, I followed Tony there and noticed the close paraphrasing issue that had caused him to change his mind: textual plagiarism is a very serious issue and one that's quite close to my heart (I lost the "official" top spot in last year's Wikipedia Asian Month because the judges were not careful enough to notice that of the two editors who produced more than 30 articles, one was a native English speaker writing exclusively Japanese sources, and the other was an Indonesian editor, who when citing non-English sources wrote very ungrammatical English sentences, but when citing English sources suspiciously had a level of English writing ability that was almost of publishable standard, and the reason I didn't approach them sooner about the problem was that I am normally extremely careful about engaging in activities that could be called "harassment", "hounding" or "personal attacks"; I wound up "winning" anyway because once it finally was brought to the judges' attention ... I don't really know, but I got a certificate anyway), and I think the project would be poorly served by another admin who is not only "soft" on close paraphrasing but actually engages in it himself.

Explanation of why I thought it was cool to question support voters but don't intend to do so again

Anyway, looking at some past "run-of-the-mill" RFAs that saw high levels of participation (as opposed to ill-considered ones where the opposes were in the clear majority, or highly controversial ones), it does seem that thorough scrutiny of the oppose votes is more common than the same for support votes. I could speculate on the reason for that, but I don't really care; if it's the way things are done, I will respect it, and (assuming I'm unblocked) not comment on any more support votes in that RFA.

As for I'll suggest you agree to BsZ to stop editing in this RfA, I'd be happy to agree to that if it were set as an unblock condition, but I don't see where Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs) actually said that. I already said in my appeal below that I would like to continue discussing the close paraphrasing concerns, but if the reviewing admin thinks thinks there is evidence I would immediately return to hashing out my dispute with James on the RFA I would happily accept a week-long page ban in return for an unblock. (Or, heck, if Boing actually meant that he would unblock me on condition that I didn't edit the page again I'd be fine with that too.)

Honestly, the reason I put more energy into that RFA yesterday than anything else was because I'm too jetlagged to do research and write articles at the moment. Once I get another night or two of sleep a page ban would probably be redundant since I wouldn't even want to be impulsively hitting away at the keyboard during this RfA.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

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).

Hijiri88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I pinged Boing above in the hopes he would unblock once I pointed out that the incident for which he blocked me had ended several hours earlier and my most recent "involvement" was a technical question about a broken tool, but I seem to recall Boing being based in the UK so I don't suspect I'd have got a response for several hours. My last comment on the whole incident (in which I also struck the comment that was the secondary reason for this block) was I'm unlikely at this point to convince anyone that his motivation for choosing this one of the dozens of RFAs his old associates have been involved in to comment on was dubious, so I really don't want to argue it anymore (emphasis added), and this was over four hours before I was blocked. Anyway, I regret the above-quoted comment and everything else I said that could be taken as a personal attack or drudging up old disputes at RFA, and will not do so again. I do, however, wish to continue the discussion I was involved in during the hours leading up to this block, which had nothing to do with either James500 or Mike Peel (and had been going on before either of them commented), and was focused on the supposed distinction, or lack thereof, between close paraphrasing and plagiarism. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

In the events preceding your block you were repeatedly told to drop the stick, since you have made your point more than once, but you failed to stop. Since you are planning to resume the discussion, it would be easier for everybody (including you, so that you do not get blocked for a longer duration) if you stay blocked until this RfA has been summarized. If you want to have a broad community discussion over close paraphrasing, it can be done in a week from now.Ymblanter (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

---

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.

• Not reviewing, but generally Boing! Is one of our fairest admins and I trust he wouldn’t block without good cause. That being said, while you can be a controversial user, in all the interactions I’ve had with you, any time you’ve had issues with someone, you’ve been willing to admit mistakes and find a way forward. If Boing! is firm on this block, I’d support him because I trust his judgement, but I also hope the two you can work something out. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I know he is, which is why I'm fairly confident this was a good-faith misunderstanding (a misunderstanding which my own clumsy writing style provoked). I also know it's stupid to dig one's heels in further after it's become clear you're not going to convince anyone, which is why I attempted to withdraw. I can understand how some of what I wrote (including the middle part of the sentence I quoted in my appeal above, and the "angry" manner in which I complained about the broken EditorInteract tool) might give the opposite impression, though, and for that I apologize. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Ymblanter: I was asked to stop the discussion of ... some stuff I'd really rather not go into because attempting to relitigate the reason for one's block is a really terrible idea if one wants to get unblocked. I have agreed to stop that. The discussion I said that I intend to continue (that of the close paraphrasing problem) has nothing to do with that, and no users have even expressed a concern about my discussion of it, let alone advising me to stop. If you are saying that by withdrawing from that RFA entirely I could get myself unblocked I would be happy to do so, since continuing to engage in that discussion is not so important to me that I'd rather not edit anywhere on Wikipedia for a week. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

  It is possible that by staying completely away from this RfA you can get yourself unblocked but for this you will need to file another unblock request which will be reviewed by another administrator. I am personally still concerned by the fact that you seem to think your participation in this RfA was ok except for the last reply (which you quoted above). It was not ok, and you got feedback on that before you were blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ymblanter: No, I don't think my comments were okay except the last reply. I think my comments between my initial comment on James500's vote (here) and that last reply I quoted were disruptive and have no intention of making them again. I quoted the last reply as evidence that I had already intended to drop it voluntarily even before my block, not to imply that that comment was the only disruptive one. What I claimed was okay was my discussion that had nothing to do with questioning those support votes, like my own initial oppose vote based on the copyvio concerns, and my later elaboration/defense of that oppose vote.[6][7] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Great. I guess now, building up on this, if you promise to stay away from this RfA and to delay your intended copyright discussion until the RfA runs out I think you have a good chance of getting an unblock, but, as I mentioned before, this will not be me who is going to review the case, and that administrator can have a different opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Hijiri88: I had intended to reply to User:Serial Number 54129 to say that, yes, if you agreed to not comment at that RfA again I would unblock you - but something distracted me, and then a couple of hours later all I could manage was bed. RfA has been getting increasingly aggressive and confrontational at times, and your launching into attacks on other contributors (with comments that had nothing whatsoever to do with the candidate) represented exactly the kind of toxicity that we need to curb. And, as I suggested above, I'm confident that I am not the only one who's getting sick and tired of seeing you cropping up in fights with people all over the place. To say you hadn't commented on such things for several hours doesn't really say anything - I've seen you bang on with your personal arguments for days, with short breaks like that signifying nothing. You say you want to continue to discuss the close paraphrasing question - but it's been clearly raised in public, and other people are capable of addressing its relevance to the current RfA in your absence. *You* raised the aggression in that RfA, and I agree with Ymblanter who thinks you need to keep away from the RfA. If you have wider issues to raise about close paraphrasing, I think his suggestion that you raise them after the RfA has concluded is a wise one. So, bottom line... if you agree to not comment further at the RfA (including the talk page), I will unblock your account. Just reply in the affirmative, and don't worry about a formal unblock request, and I will make it so. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Boing! said Zebedee: I had already written most of the following before receiving your message.

{{unblock|reason=As per above, I recognize that my comments speculating on another editor's motivations for showing up at the RFA were disruptive and violated AGF, and that dragging these speculations out even after it was clear I wasn't convincing anyone was unhelpful and even more disruptive. I will not do either of these things again. I will also stay away from that RFA in particular until it is closed. I don't particularly want to start a broader community discussion about close paraphrasing a week/month/year from now (I think there was some miscommunication), but I will definitely not do so for a week. Anyway, I won't touch that RFA and go back to writing articles on Japanese poetry for the next few days if/when I am unblocked. ~~~~}}

I was unaware of the state of RFA and was actually under the impression the opposite was the case. I guess I'll probably stay the heck away from all RFAs until I've further familiarized myself with the process. But yes, I will definitely not touch that page again.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that, you are now unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• It should probably be noted that as soon as the above block was put in place one of my wikistalkers immediately logged back into Wikipedia and make his first non-UT edits in weeks, including a ridiculous and disruptive AFD !vote; I guess unless that editor is indeffed, any admin considering blocking me should weigh the potential benefits to the project of me being blocked (?) against the disruption that would likely be caused by said editor returning for the length of my block. Just figured this should probably included before I archive this thread. Whenever that is. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Board

I don’t know what really Adamstom.97 is inhabiting. There is a serious disconnect between him and I. I have come to believe that he is collaborating from a dishonest position. I know that Swarm has warned them about disruptive behavior. Would it be canvassing to ask Swarm to review this situation? I’m becoming pretty frustrated here. —AdamF in MO (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it would be "canvassing", since DRN is not the kind of forum where that would make a difference, and I doubt Swarm cares a whit about what the article says. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I tagged them. Hopefully Swarm has the patience to wade through AT97’s non-sense. —AdamF in MO (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

If you decide to go the RfC route...

As an uninvolved editor, I'd be willing to lend some assistance on neutral wording, should you want or need any help. Just drop me a line if desired, even if it's only to review your proposal. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: I guess I might. I don't agree that the nine-months-ago discussion had limited participation (it was as broad as I've ever seen such a discussion get without it being an RFC), but there's no point arguing because an RFC will just make it even clearer that no one who doesn't already want to be on Adam's side is. I'm pretty sure I can word it neutrally, but I'll run it by you first anyway. Cheers! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm seeing a grand total of seven editors in that discussion (five of which actually weighed in on the issue). In my mind, that's pretty limited. Betty cautioned against establishing "shared continuity" but didn't specifically oppose it. Daß Wölf said more clarification should be added to the claim but didn't oppose it directly either. That leaves three that actually took a side: you and SMcCandlish vs Adamstom. In the latest discussion, it was pretty much 2 vs. 2, with Redrose64 technically on the fence but leaning in favor of "shared continuity". No doubt an RfC will paint a clearer picture. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

PPAP?

Yes! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Just FYI

On the user contribution search page putting "mw-new-redirect" in the tag filter field will show just new redirects. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 00:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Zchrykng: Huh. Thanks for the info. That said, I think the way I did it probably highlights the problem more; 35 new redirects out of 39 new mainspace pages over six months is arguably more noteworthy than just 35 new redirects. That said, if I missed anything it's perhaps some manner in which having posted 184 times to AFC/Redirects excuses having created 35 redirects themselves. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Totally true. I just found it following your link and thought I would share. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 00:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Translation

That was some nice translation, I didn't actually expect you to respond that quickly haha. Hope everything is going well for you; I have moved away from Japan after 8 years, hopefully to save some money back home before moving to Asia again (this time around I will likely go and trace my heritage in Taiwan). Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 05:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Japanese Wikipedia

Hi, I understand that you speak Japanese. Would you be able to assist me with a ja.wiki edit? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: I could try, but it would depend on the context. I'm not a big fan of ja.wiki's "cite your sources on the talk page or in edit summaries; inline citations clutter the article" approach to WP:V, so I don't want to get into any protracted editing there. If you just want me to translate some text you want to add into Japanese, or the like, that would be fine. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty straightforward. There are two pages on ja.wiki that use the colourised image File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-H15390,_Berlin,_Kaserne_der_LSSAH,_Vergatterung_Recolored.jpg. I wonder if you could replace it with the original, File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-H15390, Berlin, Kaserne der LSSAH, Vergatterung.jpg. I ran into a challenge with ja.wiki interface and was unable to make the change myself.

For background, I've been attempting to clean up some of the WP:NAZIFANCRUFT that's floating around on Commons, but ran into a Commons admin who would not delete such images if they are used on other projects. (Well, he'd not delete them even if they are unused, but that's another story; see this discussion).

If you could make the change, I would appreciate it. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Ugh. Okay: I'd actually rather not open that at work given your description, so I'll try to get to it tonight or tomorrow, if that's okay? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Sure; not a problem. Actually, it's not outright neo-Nazi imagery, just weird colourised / glamourised renditions of the Bundesarchiv originals from the Nazi era. Samples are on my user page at User:K.e.coffman#Nazi_fancruft. No rush! K.e.coffman (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list

This was not a deliberate "mispresent". It was kept. I was wrong in the precise formulation (Keep but had in fact put in "no consensus"), and made the correction. Your poor choice of words in the edit summary was unnecessarily hostile, accusatory and uncivil. ````

It doesn't matter whether it was deliberate, and I didn't imply it was. If you are not going to read my edit summaries, then please refrain from criticizing them. I'm reverting again, as you appear to have misunderstood the problem. This is the AGF assumption: if you continue, that assumption will no longer be tenable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Furthermore, please refrain from edit-warring at my while repeatedly editing my talk page in a rapid-fire style. It makes responding very difficult. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

BTW: I would strongly suggest you not post to ARS anymore when it comes to AFDs in which you have !voted keep and in which you are the only keep !vote. It comes across as canvassing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I will post there when proposed deletions come up.

I was not edit warring Made simple corrections. Threats and retribution?

Again you are using a shotgun to kill a flea. Lighten your touch. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

When it comes to proposed deletions, you should definitely not bring them to ARS. If you don't want the pages deleted, you can just remove the template. Current policy doesn't even require you to explain why.

You reverted my edit, without reading the edit summary carefully enough to understand it, or even waiting for me to respond on my talk page. That's edit-warring.

Shotgun? Flea? What?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, if you are not going to abide by the rules I set on my talk page, then kindly stay the hell off. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Hostility? Look in the mirror. WP:Civil.

Stay off your talk page. With pleasure. Please stay off my talk page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: (Sorry, first name of a non-wikibreak admin who is probably watching my page that came to mind.) I took AGF too far and assumed I wouldn't have to revert back and forth, and am now pushing 3RR (though not as badly as the above editor). Would you mind reverting this? The above editor added his signature to a comment that was written by me, and is apparently unwilling to listen to reason. Telling him he'll be blocked if he continues to not respect my request that he either stop quick-fire editing my talk page or stop editing it altogether would also be appreciated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I added the comment at the rescue squad as my own. You did not sign your comment. Still haven't. I would not here, but you are spreading untruths. this is a tempest inn a teapot. Sorry to come back. I'm gone now. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

?

... and I've been having a dog of a time trying to communicate with him. It's like he's just replying to what some alternate universe version of me might have said. I'm incredibly surprised someone with an edit count that high could have a block log this short and still not know how to communicate.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• Guys, don’t edit war over something so minor. Yes, it is edit warring. No, it doesn’t really matter who signs it. I see both your points: Hijiri88 removed the original comment and then 7&6=13 restored their comment with modification. Not to be flippant, but a Beatle’s song comes to mind here. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I'm more partial to the Wickedly talented Adele Dazeem myself, but I see your point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I have fond memories of Let it Be from my youth. That song is also good, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• It's amazing how Wikipedia will let blatant trolls away with playing the victim like they did here, and then a few short months later they pull this. Honestly, just ... amazing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Peace

As they said in Cool Hand Luke, "What we've got here is failure to communicate" I intended no offense. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

---

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

That's cool. Thanks for the message. I would ask you not to post on my talk page without using the "Show preview" button going forward, and not to message me at the same time as reverting me (since, as happened last night, I'm liable to revert you and say "see response on my talk page", then have an edit conflict with you on my talk page, which I hope you understand can be quite frustrating), but beyond that I think we're okay. Feel free to post here any time. Cheers! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. Botched ping. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay. I don't know how to ping you. You can use the WP:THANK function or reply here again to indicate that you've seen the above message, but I don't think it's all that important either way. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

You can reach me via [[User:7&6=thirteen]] Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

A Little Help

Hijiri,

I saw your former attempt to have page loaded with primary sources removed: HERE I was one of the individuals combating you and eventually it lead to a keep and update status. It seemingly improved over the next year with the height of its quality being [THIS EDIT HERE ] however after a mass revolt over primary sources not being given the benefit of the doubt with the former conclusion of presumed accuracy, the page was torn down to its [PRESENT STATE]. If you look at the page, and its citations ( only 1 of the 2 remaining is academic ) , I now side with you; it needs to go. I went to nominate the page and give the following reason: No academic supporting sources to establish page need. Historically been a battle ground among former and current members using exclusively primary sources. (WP:DEL1, WP:DEL6, WP:DEL7, WP:DEL8, WP:DEL14) however I do not know how to create a separate deletion page from the previous one cited up above. If you can initiate this process, I would support you this time around. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 06:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Coachbricewilliams28: I'd like to help you, but I've recently come in conflict with a number of "keepist" editors who make a nasty habit of showing up to AFDs and trying to find policy loopholes to undermine them, rather than seriously argue for keeping the articles; opening a deletion discussion in someone's stead is apparently a valid argument for speedy keep, and I'm not in a position to do the heavy lifting to personally argue for deletion of the article at the moment, I'd suggest you post it to Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list and see if those guys can do anything to fix the article's problems. In a few weeks my real-world stuff will probably calm down and I'll take another look. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I completely understand your position, in fact I am willing to do the heavy lifting, I just don't know how to do the coding aspect of it. When I typed in the automated code, it prompted me with an error message saying that the discussion for deletion for him already existed. I don't know how to create a third one. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 03:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Just fire ahead and try. Point out that you're not sure if you've filed it correctly, and someone else will probably finish it for you. If someone tries to !vote speedy keep because you made a clerical error, open a discussion on WP:ANI about them, because that kind of wikilawyering is simply unacceptable. (And yes, I am 90% certain that the reason these procedures are so confusing is because of keepist editors deliberately making them so, with the intention of speedy-keeping in discussions that were improperly filed.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I did it. It took me a while to learn how to handle the code, but if a discussion begins, would you like me to tag you? Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 03:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I initially nominated it because I thought it would be uncontroversial, but I'd really rather not get into a back-and-forth over it. I'm already on the record as thinking the article should probably be deleted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Notice of A/N discussion that involves you

You are mentioned in this WP:A/N post: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_review_of_AN/I_close. Although I did ping you when I posted it, I am providing you this additional notification at your request. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: It's not a "request": it is a requirement for anyone opening a discussion on that noticeboard. This IDHT is simply outrageous, and I can't believe you haven't been indef-blocked yet. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

EC closed discussion

It seems I EC edited a closed discussion. [8]. If you wish to remove my reply feel free to do so. If it wasn't closed may have edited my comment to say I'm even more concerned that you seem to think it was okay to discuss SemiHyperCube's actions without notifying them. Yet your earlier comments seem to suggest you thought you should have been notified. However there is even less reason to notify you than there was to notify SemiHyperCube. You opened the initial discussion, and DT did mention one of your comments, but frankly that was irrelevant. DT was not suggesting any wrong doing on your part. DT's concern was about the appropriate of the close. And you have no say on how the discussion should be closed. DT could have simply removed their mention of you and your comment, it would make little difference to their close review request since they did not provide any evidence, or even a suggestion, that Swarm was unduly close or otherwise unduly influenced by you. So you opening the discussion was irrelevant to the appropriateness of the close and therefore there was no real why they had to notify you. There was no reason why you or your actions had to be or were going to be considered by anyone at that thread. But frankly, I wouldn't fault DT for notifying you even if they hadn't mentioned you since it's simply too minor to worry about. However notifying someone when you are specifically bringing their actions up for a discussion has been expected at ANI for a very long time, so I would assume based on your own comments AN. (I don't spend so much time at AN that I can say with confidence.) Anyway, frankly I find this a dumb irrelevant diversion to the main issue in that thread, so even if it wasn't already closed I would likely not engage further. But rest assured, if you do open a discussion at ANI and don't notify someone despite bringing their behaviour up for discussion, there's a good chance this will be challenged by me and probably others. You yourself seem to agree it's a big deal, so I really don't understand why you then think it's okay to do just because their actions aren't the main focus of a thread (in so much as a main focus even exists, which isn't always clear). Nil Einne (talk) 11:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Cool ... story? Your opinion is noted, but it is clearly a minority opinion, and you're not going to convince me. You are required to notify editors about whom you are posting on the drahma boards, and not encouraged to go out of your way to name editors who may be inclined to agree with you so that you have an excuse to notify them as well. I got the original ping, so a separate notification on my talk page after I'd already made it clear I was aware, and separately notified Swarm, was actually not required after that point, but it's pretty clear to me that what was going on there (going out of his way to notify someone who was likely to take his side) was inappropriate. I'm not going to push it, though: I'm happy with Swarm's close being endorsed, and I don't know why you are continuing to come after me over this. (True story: I didn't notice the Atsme/Swarm discussion until shortly before the close, and consciously decided not to respond to something questionable that was said about me "running to ANI" when I had in fact gone out of my way to discuss on David's talk page, because I really don't care; I'm only posting this here now because I've been forced to post about this three times since then.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

BTW: The discussion was closed one minute after my post to which you were responding and my comment was roughly 250 words, so the only way you could have had an EC would be if you opened the edit window immediately upon seeing that I had responded, without having read the response itself. This kind of thing could be avoided if you read through other editors' comments before deciding to reply. Just something to think about. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Messages from David Tornheim on Halloween night, 2018

Request

This is another polite request that you stop WP:HOUNDING and stalking me. See also [9]. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not hounding you. You're hounding me. How did you know about Nil Einne's talk page, and ... other other stuff that's pretty obvious and I already pointed to on Beeblebrox's talk page but don't want to mention here.

And you hounded User:Jytdog and User:MjolnirPants before me.

@Beeblebrox: Do you see what I was talking about? Some users take an "enemy of my enemy" stance, and while still subject to the IBAN I can't even say "You went so far as to request an editor who was indeffed for harassing me be brought back in the fold", let alone "despite new evidence that harassing me wasn't his only indef-worthy behaviour".

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: BTW, I would like you to apologize for your repeated derogatory and groundless accusations that I "[seem] to be obsessed with [you]", I am "eager to get new editors who disagree with [me] banned", I "[seem] to have drama with almost everyone [I work] with", etc. Are you going to own up to your own grossly uncivil and disrespectful behaviour? Let alone your (continued) hounding of me? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Please stop lying about me

You have lied saying I support Breitbart as WP:RS. I never have. Show me some diff where I said I support Breitbart as a good source. This is what I say about Breitbart: [W]e do have Breitbart printing rubbish like this "Scott Baio Suggests Obama Could Be a Muslim Who Wants to ‘Totally Eliminate the United States". Please strike every comment where you claim I said Breitbart is good WP:RS. An apology is in order.

Example 1: David's history of permissiveness when it comes to citing Breitbart.com as a source would appear to indicate that he's not actually a great advocate of diversity and welcoming of women and ethnic minorities on this project 11:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC). diff at 11:00, 28 October 2018

Example 2: [10]

The comment of Example 1 is completely unacceptable. Comments like these need to stop. I expect an apology. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I never "lied saying you support Breitbart"; example 1 refers to your permissiveness regarding the then-SPA-and-still-kinda-pushing-it-despite-the-fact-that-there-was-strong-consensus-for-a-TBAN Endercase, who, yes, was spending all his time on-wiki complaining about how Breitbart.com is a reliable source and should be citable and still is, thanks, exclusively, to your efforts in preventing him from getting blocked or TBANned, and for your refusal to actually act as his mentor like you promised to; in example 2 I alluded to, extremely vaguely because I'm frankly sick of dealing with you at this point and want it to be over (I've wasted far too much time on it already). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Note

In the AD thread at ANI, you implied that you were pinging MelanieN, HighInBC, Barkeep49 and Insertcleverphrasehere, but they were all "noping" links [11], so nobody got pinged. If you wanted to ping them, you'd have to change the codes and also re-sign your post, for those people to actually get pinged. Softlavender (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Sorry, I didn't mean to imply I was pinging them. I was asking for permission to ping them. I recently took another editor to ANI for canvassing, so the optics of me doing the same without getting advance approval would be pretty bad. How Barkeep happened to show up anyway is likely a coincidence. I might as well ping them here, though, and link to the thread. @MelanieN: @HighInBC: @Insertcleverphrasehere: You were mentioned on ANI, here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

"Shared continuity"

Catching up after a really long wikibreak. Did that issue at MoS about "shar[ing|ed] continuity" get resolved? I agree that the exact phrase can be problematic in some instances, as in the MCU films vs. TV series stuff. There's probably another way to phrase it when two-way shared continuity isn't actually happening.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I think I brought it up once more, it didn't go anywhere, and someone (a good-faith editor who seemed to be in basic agreement with me on the substance) messaged me further up this page to the effect that the previous discussion hadn't seen as much consensus as I was reading into it. This, combined with the fact that I'm busy IRL until the end of November (I'm teaching in Japanese junior high school at the moment, but it's only part time and the pay is abysmal, so I've been freelance translating on the side, but I took a big job with X total word volume, of which Y was repeated and didn't count, and I was told that translating 3,000 a day would be enough, but that was 3,000 a day to finish X-Y, not all of X, as Y would finish itself automatically once I finished all of X-Y, and so I was including automatically-filled-in repeat sections in my daily word counts for the first two weeks, putting me way behind schedule, and now I'm compensating), combined with the fact that the editor most responsible for the mess convinced an involved admin who already seemed to want to block me, and a clearly NOTHERE troll who apparently abandoned their account shortly afterwards, to come after me essentially if I ever touched an MCU article again, combined with the fact that shortly after that an admin actually finally did volunteer to step in and do something about the whole user conduct mess (and I was sure I recalled the editor at fault quickly becoming defensive and starting to see every action I took against him as me looking for an excuse to get him blocked, but I can't seem to find the diffs), means I haven't really been pursuing it of late. But you're right: something does need to be done. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I feel your pain, on both counts. I've had some exploitative work in my time! And here on WP, I've also had a PoV-pushing tagteam go after me (including with a "pet" admin to do their bidding). That shit was the direct cause of two of my months-long wikibreaks (though not the recent one). I find it's best to develop patience about this stuff. There are things that need fixing that I have not touched in several years years but will eventually, when certain people have become inactive and the OWN stranglehold they have dissipates. It can also be a factor of personal stress: if the thought of getting re-involved in a topic makes your blood pressure rise, stay away until it doesn't have that effect any more. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Evidence prep

What you wrote here is worth diffing (for each quoted statement) and including as evidence as a new posted that includes these quotes for a diff for each of them. I didn't realize the problem was that severe, or I would have urged for a topic ban under no uncertain terms, and possibly an indef.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Kenji Miyazawa

Q=This is in reference to a content dispute in which you involved yourself a few years back, which 2015 ArbCom later weighed in on quite heavily, so I kinda feel it's worth asking. On 23 March 2015 you wrote that you felt the Kenji Miyazawa article's lead should mention the Kokuchūkai, a Buddhist group with which he was briefly associated, based on how prominent it was in the article body at that time. (The above diff doesn't actually go into as much detail, but giving all the diffs would be awkward: the further comments are here.) Do you still feel that to be the case based on the current state of the article? I am the principal author of the article as it exists now, and would like to nominate it for GA, and maybe eventually FA, but am unwilling to do so while it still has what I see as an extremely serious flaw, and am just as reluctant to fix that flaw myself given (a) the opinions expressed by you and others in that RFC, and (b) what happened in the resulting ArbCom case (permalink of ArbCom unanimously agreeing that the dispute started there). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

A= I will answer this on your talkpage, as it doesn't appear to be related to the ArbCom elections. SilkTork (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Hijiri. I can do a GA review of the article for you if you like. I haven't read it yet, but I have glanced at it and note there are several cite needed tags, and that there are several single sentence paragraphs, and the impression is of an untidy article, so it seems unlikely it would be ready to pass, but I can give you closer ideas after doing a review. It may take me a few days or even a week or more, depending on how much background reading there is to do. You needn't nominate the article for GA. I can just do a GA review as it is, and give you an idea of what work is needed. SilkTork (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Will respond in more detail later, but figured I should thank you for your reply and clarify that I don't see it as unrelated to the elections. I think that ArbCom really dropped the ball at several points in my case (adjudicating a content dispute without looking at the content, which would have quickly revealed that Catflap was either a NOTHERE troll, a tendentious POV-pusher, or too incompetent to read sources and accurately summarize what they say; hearing testimony from hounds without considering that they are hounds unless there was already community consensus on that point elsewhere, which completely undermines the whole purpose of ArbCom as a last resort where community DR efforts failed). I am considering asking all candidates a set question about how they would address such issues going forward, but decided to ask the one candidate who was involved in the case before ArbCom (and with whom I haven't been in contact off-wiki) about it first. Honestly I think any uninvolved admin who looked at the Kenji article circa March 2015 and said to Catflap "Hey! You were warned about this months ago: do you want to be blocked?" cut have ended the whole affair immediately. I'm not still bitter about it (I have no reason to be, as I've seen worse since and ultimately it all worked out anyway) but I am still baffled that no one did. You are much less culpable than the guy who issued said warning and then quite pointedly refused to follow it up, but he's not running for ArbCom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: I meant "more detail" in that I would actually address the content of your answer, as opposed to justifying my own asking of the question where I did. My Kenji-GA-specific response will probably be shorter than the above, unless you look at the article and give me detailed advice on what to do with it today, in which case I'll have to go through that and probably write more than 1900 bytes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

My perspective on why I think it's unrelated to the ArbCom election, is that the only question I see is where you ask me about the lead of the article to prepare it for a GA review. Anyhow, I won't have time to look at the article for a day or two, so I won't be able to give you any meaningful advice "today". My offer remains open, though. Just let me know if and when you want me to look at the article more closely. SilkTork (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

YouTube

Thanks for your comments. Uncertainty seems rife for non-techies like me. Sca (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Sca: Sorry to be relatively late responding. I saw your message earlier, but given some other stuff (see one section down) I was a little too distressed to give a cheerful response.

But I'm always happy to help. Honestly, it's less a "tech" thing than a copyright thing. Bootleggers are all over the Internet (by sheer coincidence, another ANI thread I commented in yesterday was about a problem on an article about piracy), and the relative liberalness of some copyright holders when it comes to handling them can make it seem like it's okay -- and if the copyright holders are okay with it then an argument could perhaps be made in that direction from an ethical standpoint, but ethics and what we are allowed do on Wikipedia are sometimes quite different affairs. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Y Sca (talk)

Fascinating

I wonder who this was. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Brough87: @Nil Einne: @Legacypac: @C. W. Gilmore: @Dream Focus: @James500: @Expectant of Light: @Mhhossein: @Simonm223: @David Tornheim: @Darkknight2149: @JohnWickTwo: @Andrew Davidson: @Adamstom.97:

Any ideas? A number of you are people I conflicted with only once, briefly, months ago, so it's unlikely that a random troll would know about you but not, say, Ribbet32 which may be a hint. Or maybe it's just Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JoshuSasori returned from the grave, deliberately pretending to be someone who conflicted with me in, say, late June 2018. I'm honestly not sure which conclusion would make me look more paranoid, so I'm keeping an open mind about it.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Apparently closely monitoring me and then immediately unretiring if I am blocked, following me to a couple of discussions, then immediately re-retiring when I am unblocked, counts as being "retired" and I should refrain from pinging to "accuse of ridiculous and insulting things" like ... posting the above diff that clearly was posted and I didn't just imagine it. Oh, well. I guess I can take solace in the knowledge that there is no justice on Wikipedia and I as a malicious troll can keep harassing people with impunity. But honestly I'd rather be subject to the same restrictions as everyone else, if it meant I was protected from harassment like the above diff. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

If you suspect it's me or related to me, you know where to take it. I'm too occupied to deal with this at the moment (as evidenced by my lack of activity lately), so I have nothing to add. I can't speak for any of the 9,000 other users tagged above, though. DarkKnight2149 02:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't have the time or interest to pursue grudges on Wikipedia using socks, and even if I did, you'd not even make it into the shortlist of people I'd be inclined to grief over. Sorry you're dealing with a pest. But no. The closest I ever got to sockpuppetry was accidentally making some edits on a friend's laptop, logged into his account without realizing it - and even that was only once, for which I considered myself thoroughly trouted. Simonm223 (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I have no idea who you are, and only pinged you because the IP did and I wasn't sure it wasn't you (Drmies, a candidate for ArbCom, would be unlikely to log out of his account in order to harass me, even if he wasn't on record as actually liking me, and similar could be said for the rest of those I didn't ping). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, took a second look at the link and see what you meant. I suspect it's probably somebody with some sour grapes over the cryptids merge discussion. That's about the only common link I could think of between these disparate accounts. Simonm223 (talk) 13:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Cryptids? Brough was a "Germanic nationalist" who was removing references to Celtic peoples throughout the encyclopedia, and I interacted with him exclusively on his ANI thread; yeah, I suspect it's someone with a bone to pick over cryptids and a whole lot of other stuff: it was clearly Dream Focus, who has a history of calling me a "self-proclaimed Japan expert"; if it was someone impersonating him by posting on their talk page, they would almost certainly not have got that detail correct. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Just noting the hypocrisy of this. Say what you want about Googling my username and the word "expert", it would seem given the sparsity of recent diffs (Catflap in 2015 and Necrothesp in 2013!) that only one editor has made that claim in the last three years. And there's also the fact that DF was monitoring me closely enough to know immediately when I was blocked in August, and once I was blocked suddenly "unretired" and followed me to an AFD, and then once I was unblocked suddenly "retired" again. Monitoring someone's talk page when you know they are watching you and trying to "get" you is the opposite of "hounding". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, it's worth noting that the interaction of mine with Catflap08 is quoted out of context, with a quote of me saying I have specific expertise in the narrow area of "Miyazawa Kenji" (and the broader area of "Japanese literature") made to look like it was Catflap08 calling me a self-proclaimed expert on Japanese stuff, and even the five-year-old Necrothesp quote didn't anachronistically accuse me of proclaiming myself a "Japan" expert. Essentially this looks like DF had a couple of pre-prepared examples to "prove" that other editors had used the same type of language, but they prove nothing of the sort, and by doing so just add fuel to the idea that DF was the one who wrote that message. I'm seriously considering opening a new ANI thread and requesting DF be formally site-banned, since I can't imagine any good-faith contributor not interpreting this evidence the same way I am, and it's safe to assume anyone who recognized that IP as DF would support site-banning DF. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

I responded to your message at ANI, but my ping win't go through Tornado chaser (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Hijiri88. 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)

Trout

I will gladly accept your WP:TROUT for feeding the trolls. :-p --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

redacting my commentsa

Why did you remove a comment by me at ANI? [[12]].Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I had about three edit conflicts with you and S22RB. I needed to get back to something else and didn't want to lose my edit, so I wound up having to copy the whole section of my version of the page and (clumsily?) attempt to preserve the edit(s) I conflicted with manually. Did I make a mistake? I was assuming you were the one who struck that word from your comment, and I went out of my way to respect that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Well yes you did, you removed a comment by me (removed a whole post, not just one word striking).Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah, I see I accidentally deleted (or rather failed to preserve) ::::::::Maybe I am missing it, where did they accuse you of being sneaky?Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC); I thought you were referring to my striking "him" and adding "them", the only edit I consciously made to anyone else's post. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Nope.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Umm... could you be a bit clearer? Are you saying "Nope, that thing you already acknowledged I was not talking about is not what I was talking about"? Or are you just trolling me on my talk page to annoy me? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

AGF please, it was after all you who removed my comment form an ANI, and I gave you the courtesy of asking why you did it, rather then assuming bad faith and reporting you (it was after all a violation of policy, and a pretty egregious one). It is clear from the context it was "nope what you assumed was not the case", it is common in conversation to do this with a shake of the head and a one word "nope". I assumed it would be clear as this is a perfectly acceptable conversational flow.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

There you again, insisting that AGF applies to everyone else when they are, reasonably, questioning someone's genuinely suspicious behaviour, but not to you when you are just throwing "I dunno, maybe he was completely full of shit with his perfectly legitimate reasoning". You say you "gave you the courtesy of asking why you did it, rather then assuming bad faith and reporting you" after referring to it as "redacting" of your comments (a word that clearly implies intent) and immediately before calling an accidental blanking of someone else's comment an "egregious" "violation of policy". Please stay off my talk page until you learn that policy applies equally to everyone. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

"A version of a text, such as a new edition or an abridged version", is that not what you did? Yes (by the way) removing a users comment form an ANI is an egregious violation of policy, even if accidental. If nothing else it showed a lack of care (in a situation where great care should be exercised).Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I told you to stay off my talk page. Apologize for (now repeatedly) accusing me of "egregiously violating policy" for accidentally blanking one of the multiple edits of yours with which I had an edit conflict, or get the heck out of here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I think I have had my say, you have said it was an accident and I accept that. I just ask you to show ore care in the future.Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you post here one more time, I will request that you be blocked, unless your further comment is a retraction and apology for your repeated groundless accusations that I egregiously violated some kind of policy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

And no, I will not "show more care in the future" than the already excessive amount of care I put into trying to preserve as much of your incessant comments having had no less than three consecutive edit conflicts. If you do that, you have no right to dictate terms and place further burdens on the people who have to repeatedly copy-paste their own comments as a result. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Hi Hijiri

I've restored TH1980's statement - it looks like it was removed unintentionally as part of a revert of an error they made when writing the statement. (They edited an old version of the page, thus erasing lots of other comments in other sections). So feel free to restore your reply if you want. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Thanks. Restored! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for Chiyo Miyako

An editor has started a deletion nomination for Chiyo Miyako. Because you were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion discussion. 96.253.25.35 (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Credit where credit is due

I thought about dropping this; I can see how this post might be taken in a way it isn't intended. It does feel a little like I'm giving a backhanded compliment. But ultimately I wasn't fair, and so want to clarify my comments at the now-closed ARCA.

I appreciate and respect Mainspace Hijiri88. He does more article work in a few days than I do in a year. I don't know enough about the subject matter to know who is right and who is wrong when you get into content disputes, but it is clear that whether generally right or generally wrong on content, Mainspace Hijiri88 is knowledgeable and productive and respected and has the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart.

My comments at ARCA were actually directed at Wikipedia-Space Hijiri88. I pretty much stand by those comments. I honestly feel that conflict escalation is almost all that Wikipedia-space Hijiri88 does. But when I said "that's basically all he does", this is what I was referring to. If the ARCA request wasn't closed, I'd go back and change that to "that's basically all he does in Project space". --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: FWIW, I saw the above several days ago, and appreciate it, but was unsure how to respond. Obviously I disagree that all of my AN/ANI activities (I think that's what you mean by "Wikipedia-Space", since it hardly describes my questions or answers on, for example, WT:JAPAN or WP:RSN) have been to escalate (to give one example,I'm rarely the one who says "send it to ArbCom"; I don't think I've ever supported such a proposal at ANI, and I've actually lobbied several Arbs to publish more regular information about the volume of emails they receive to dispel the widely held misconception that ArbCom aren't busy when there are no active Arbitration cases), but I can appreciate what you are trying to say. As for mainspace-versus-WPspace, I have explained a few times that most of the time I am primarily active in the WP space and not building articles, it is because I am too busy IRL to do the research necessary to build articles (gnomish activities don't appeal to me), and those times when this is not the case it is usually because of drahma that has come upon me through no intent of my own, so I would generally appreciate assistance in ameliorating those cases so I can spend as much time building articles, and as little time dealing with drahma, as possible.

Anyway, thank you for your kind words regarding my mainspace work, and hopefully what happened last week will be the last drahma I come across for a while. I'm gonna be free(r) to build articles in the near future, anyway, so we can all look forward to that.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red

Hi there, Hijiri88, and welcome to Women in Red. It's good to have such an experienced editor as a new member, especially as you intend to contribute articles on historically notable Japanese women and their works. I see from your user page you have a systematic approach to article creation with a pre-established list of red links. Presumably a significant proportion of these are women. In any case, I look forward to seeing your future contributions. You may be interested to learn that in February we have a focus on the Ancient World, which should fit your area of interest. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Thanks! Yeah, I'm not sure about "Ancient World", since Japanese history (as in recorded history, with named individuals, including named women, about whom we can build articles) begins around the 5th century CE, and actually with Japanese "ancient" (Asuka-Heian) history the problem is less "women in red" than women who are already in blue but on whom our articles are really abysmal (I started work on turning Ono no Komachi into an FA some years ago, but never got it finished; the article itself existed; the article itself existed before I created my account) -- by sheer coincidence, though, I created an article on a Japanese empress exactly two minutes before you posted the above message. The redlinks on my userpage are mostly either (a) redlinks from this or that article I want to make FA standard, (b) topics with standalone articles in the Nihon Koten Bungaku Daijiten but not on Wikipedia or (c) topics beginning "Fujiwara no..." with standalone entries in one or more encyclopedia I can autosearch quickly. But yeah, at least 34 of them are women (just a quick scan of ones with names ending -shi or -ko). I might spend February doing those ones specifically, if someone tells me that the 9th century counts as part of the "Ancient World". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Portal:Ancient Japan is currently featuring an article on Date Masamune. If that counts as "ancient", then I think any article you'd touch would count as "ancient" Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: An earthquake and tsunami in 2011 caused massive economic dislocations and a serious nuclear power disaster. Ancient indeed ... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for your detailed comments. Women in Red tends to be very accommodating. I'm sure there would be no problem in including Japanese women from the 9th century in our February focus on the Ancient World but in the meantime any additions can of course be included under our #1day1woman initiative. Fujiwara no Ryoshi is indeed an interesting addition for WiR and could be tagged {{WIR-00-2018}} on the article's talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 at Women in Red

		The WiR December editathons provide something for everyone. New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/101|Photography]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/102|Laureates]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/103|Countries beginning with 'I']] Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00/2018|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): BBC 100 Women 2018 (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

--Ipigott (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

What canvassing looks like

This made me laugh, w/re our discussion of canvassing earlier. I was like, "Now THAT'S canvassing." Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacy Layne Matthews Thought it might make you laugh, too :D valereee (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Valereee: Yeah, I've seen those before too. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rashumon springs to mind, but I've definitely seen more than one this year (after a while they all kinda run together). The problem is that when a bunch of SPAs show up that's really obvious (actually it might not necessarily be canvassing; it might be sockpuppetry), but when someone posts a notification at a non-neutral forum ([13]), or a non-neutral notification at multiple neutral/unproblematic fora ([14]), that can be a little less "obvious" and cause problems because dealing with such issues is really difficult when the canvasser doesn't want to own up, acknowledge the canvassing, and promise not to do it anymore. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, but I will say that I don't think there was anything underhanded intended. I agree that the note appended to the project page listing was not the right way to go about it, but I'm assuming good faith and that there was a simple intent to notify, possibly accompanied by not knowing exactly how you're supposed to go about that. I learn (relearn, more likely -- I've forgotten 90% of what I've tediously taught myself about WP) better ways of doing things all the time. Just in the past few days I figured out there was a whole notify/note on the AfD thing and still don't actually know how to do the second part myself. And for my part I had zero intention of hiding where I'd stumbled across the AfD; in future I'll note that 100% of the time. If I remember this learning, lol valereee (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's cool. Always glad to help! :) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, nm. You were right, I was wrong. It was intentional, and they still don't think they did anything wrong. valereee (talk) 14:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

January 2019 at Women in Red

January 2019, Volume 5, Issue 1, Numbers 104-108 Happy New Year from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual editathons. January events: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/104|Women of War and Peace]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/105|Play!]] January geofocus: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/106|Caucasus]] New, year-long initiative: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/107|Suffrage]] Continuing global initiative: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/108|#1day1woman2019]] Help us plan our future events: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas|Ideas Cafe]] To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list Image attribution: Nevit Dilmen (CC BY-SA 3.0) --Rosiestep (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Wikipedia Asian Month 2018 postcard - info needed!

Hello! Kevin from Wikipedia Asian Month here. Thank you very much for your contributions this year. Because you have created at least 4 eligible articles, you are qualified to receive a special WAM postcard from an Asian community. If you would like one, please fill out this form by January 10. All personal information you submit will only be visible to select organizers in charge of postcards, and will be destroyed once postcards are sent out. If you have any questions, please drop a line on my talk page or ping me. Thank you, and happy holidays! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@SuperHamster: Thanks! I'll fill it out momentarily.

BTW, are the "winners" of WAM not eligible for postcards as well? I was under the impression that I would get a postcard in the mail and a "digital" certificate, whereas what I actually got was a certificate in the mail and no postcard. I suspect the "digital certificate" thing was a misprint in the WAM announcement back in 2015 that somehow survived without correction for years, but I don't recall reading anywhere that winners would receive a certificate instead of a postcard; the only reason I gave my address last year was for the postcard, because I thought the certificate would be email-based, and so was in a state of confusion when I got a somewhat larger package than expected. (Bear in mind, WAM is the closest I've ever come to deliberately crossing over my real life with my Wikipedia editing: I've never attended a "real" editathon or Wikimedia-related event, primarily because I'm based in Japan but despise Japanese Wikipedia's sourcing standards and so tend to steer clear of it.)

Also pinging GSS-1987 (the 2016 winner) and Ssriram mt/Nvvchar/User:Cwmhiraeth (sorry -- I can't seem to figure out a quick way of figuring out who the actual "winner" in 2015 was without counting up each contributor's entries manually -- you're just the three whose lists of contributions in the poorly-laid-out Wikipedia:Wikipedia Asian Month/2015 take up more than four lines of text and didn't have most of your entries disqualified) to see if they can offer insight and SamHolt6 (who obviously as of now has no more insight into the matter than I but may be interested).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you didn't get a postcard! As far as I'm aware you should have received both - may have simply been lost in the mail (unfortunately happens with overseas postcards), or just a result or mis-organization. We may have some leftover 2017 postcards; I'll go ahead and see if I can locate any for you.

As for the "digital" certificate, unfortunately I'm not entirely sure about the logistics there as I wasn't involved with that part of the event. Physical certificates may have been mailed when mailing was feasible, but sent digitally if not (depending on countries, cost of shipment, etc.). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I took part in a previous Asian Month and received two (I think) postcards through the mail in what I thought was a rather nice gesture. I never really understood what I should expect in this regard, but it was interesting receiving greetings from unknown, far-away participants in this world-wide project. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I received two post cards, but not the digital certificate. But appreciate the efforts of the organizers - think it was user Addiswong who sent it to me. Ssriram mt (talk) 07:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Argento Surfer (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Hijiri88, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Chris Troutman (talk) 17:48, 25 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Your GA nomination of Tenjin no Honji

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tenjin no Honji you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MPJ-DK -- MPJ-DK (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Kashihara Shrine Sightseeing Map.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kashihara Shrine Sightseeing Map.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Please note The reason I don't name any specific editors in my farewell message is to avoid people saying "This is about user X and needs to go". A certain editor recently assumed "the whole hounding thing" was about them, but this is clearly incorrect.

Hope you'll find the interest in coming back sometime. I stopped editing for two years after an upsetting incident, and eventually did find some joy here again. valereee (talk) 12:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Also sorry to see this, and I hope you do return. You do a lot of good here. Dekimasuよ! 22:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

So we never grabbed that beer you promised while I was living in Japan, and now you leave here without telling me? I understand though, take care and come back when you feel like it. Alex Shih (talk) 08:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Sad to see you go. Hope you'll change your mind in the future! -Zanhe (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Interaction ban

Following this ANI thread, you are indefinitely banned from interacting with Darkknight2149, subject to the usual exceptions. The restriction has been logged here. GiantSnowman 14:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

requesting a two way interaction ban

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Dream Focus 05:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Socking

Please see [[15]].Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• While it's got nothing to do with the above bad-faith sockpuppetry accusation (there was no attempt on my part to mislead or evade scrutiny -- quite the opposite), I should probably point out here that while 124.188.89.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is right on the money when it comes to the substance, they are not me, and whoever it is is far more confrontational than I've ever been. FWIW, though, I do intend to comment on that AFD once this block expires, since it should not be allowed close as "1-1, default to keep" because an editor showed up with a bunch of Googled sources he apparently hadn't read and through them into the discussion apparently in the hopes no one else would read them either. Any decent closer would treat the IP's comment as what it is -- a legitimate rebuttal of a clearly faulty argument, that just happens to be expressed in a gruff manner, perhaps by someone hiding their account name to avoid scrutiny -- and dismiss the faulty argument accordingly, and close as soft-delete since the nomination was neither supported nor opposed in any meaningful way. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

BTW, I don't want to into details, but the above accusation was definitely bad-faith, as were the other two previous SPIs that had been filed on me. If anyone wants the details they can have them, but the basics are here.[16][17][18] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

It's amazing how such a brazenly bad-faith filing can go ignored like this. Slatersteven even quotes you in the filing declaring yourself to be yourself. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Restoring tpa

As you know, Hijiri, you're on a self-requested block until February 2; a type of block that includes revoking tpa access and wikimail when I set it. But after our e-mail discussion and some consideration, I have decided to restore tpa and e-mail Bishonen | talk 09:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC).

@Bishonen: THANK YOU! First off, I should apologize again for not thoroughly familiarizing myself with your standard self-requested block rules beforehand, and for being too proud to walk it back once you told me. That was my bad, and I am terribly sorry.

For everyone else: I should also clarify that, if the community feels that my editing via an IP was disruptive block evasion, I am prepared to accept the consequences. I thought that if I clarified up-front that "I am Hijiri, my block was self-requested, and I hadn't fully thought through the consequences, but I need to respond because I feel I am being hounded" my problem would be understood and it would not be seen as sockpuppetry or the like; apparently, I was wrong, and for this too I apologize.

It has actually come to my attention that a bunch of other events occurred roughly simultaneously with my posting my retirement message. Not only did an editor I conflicted with last year, who had been blocked multiple times for harassing me, return to editing, but another editor who was site-banned last summer partly for conflicting with me was also apparently quite aware of it, apparently because someone has been going around emailing people about me,[19] and another editor I conflicted with back in 2015, who was site-banned in 2017, appealed their site ban within minutes of my most recent logged-in edit before this one.

All of this has me feeling quite distressed, and while I do, now, intend to return to working on Wikipedia from next month, I ... really do not know what is going to be done about whatever has been going on. I hope someone will be willing to help me, but ... well, I'm just afraid. This whole affair has had me feeling utterly miserable, and I don't know what I can do to make it go away; shortly before my block, I emailed an admin with a sincere apology for all the trouble I had caused in the day or so leading up to my retirement, and yet people continued to push for me to be sanctioned specifically because I was supposedly refusing to acknowledge any wrongdoing.

So I'm going to say this one more time, here, publicly: I AM SORRY. I'm sorry I have brought disputes to ANI and caused trouble to the community. I'm sorry I didn't familiarize myself with the terms of the block I requested. I'm sorry I edited logged out in because I felt buyer's remorse once I realized I was still being hounded, rather than simply waiting out the block. I'm sorry for using for ... everything. Please, just accept my apology.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hijiri, forget all about the past. After the expiration of the block, edit Wikipedia as usual. Wiki-community needs your outstanding knowledge on literature.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to give you some advice, Hijiri, as I do not like seeing people distressed or miserable. If you want all this stuff to go away, you really do need stop bringing it up. That includes mentioning past disputes, perceived hounding, even if you don't name editors and refer to them instead with terms like "a certain editor", "an editor I conflicted with", or "some people", and so on. Each time, you know who you are talking about, they know who you are talking about, it's just carrying on a cycle of feuds. Please use this as an opportunity to let it all go. I'm sure you don't enjoy all this feuding, and while I completely understand the desire to defend oneself, you don't have to do so. Nobody is judging you if, instead of fighting back, you disengage. Eventually everyone just gets tired of seeing the same names over and over again on ANI and escalating punishments get meted out; I don't want to see that happening to good editors. You can do this now, and from Feb 2, when your self-imposed block lifts, please just focus on editing. It's far more fun. If you find yourself wanting to be drawn into a dispute on a talk page about said editing, don't make a fuss, don't tell everyone "I can no longer work on this page because of X Y and Z" or "Certain parties have made this article a bad place to work", or anything dramatic; just quietly, without even an edit summary comment about hounding, put work on that article to one side for a while and find another one of the 6,000,000 or so articles on Wikipedia to work on. Find topics you enjoy working on collaboratively, where the other editors and the topic matter combine to make your editing something to look forward to. If there are real issues with harassment and/or people continuing to badger you after you accomplish this, then please feel free to email me or any admin you feel comfortable contacting, give them the facts, don't draw attention to the fact on Wiki, and allow the issue to be dealt with by someone else; you don't have to fight every battle. In fact, you don't have to fight any battles on Wikipedia at all, this is supposed to be a chilled-out, fun, educational hobby. Whenever it isn't, it's draining. Don't let it be. You'll have seen I have argued and am arguing in favour of interaction bans, this is not so much to punish both parties then it is to protect them from one another. I hope this finds you in good health and that you take this in the spirit it's intended, which is trying to be helpful. Cheers, Fish+Karate 10:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Fish and karate: Thank you for your advice. It's good, I appreciate it, and I will do my best to follow it.

I even, in theory, agree with You'll have seen I have argued and am arguing in favour of interaction bans, this is not so much to punish both parties then it is to protect them from one another. -- that's why I requested mutual IBANs with three editors in the past; the problem, though, is that several members of the community treat it as though it were a punishment for both parties, or at least for whichever one they want to at any given time. I think I sent you some of the diffs of this happening to me in the past (why I have since changed my mind and now avoid IBANs like the plague), but if not ... well, I don't want to talk about it because I would like to put the past in the past, but seriously, I would really like someone to come to my defense when people write things like The guy has a lot of flak with people, especially with [name redacted] and other guys. The amount of Interation bans he has seems to be a bunch...[20] on-wiki, which still occasionally happens from time to time (the last flare-up was last July when I opened an ANI thread about an editor who had written a whole bunch of comments about how I was crazy and paranoid -- I admit I probably seem a little paranoid at the moment, but it's only because no less than four users in the last couple of weeks, none of whom have ever interacted with each other on-wiki, have publicly claimed to be receiving regular emails about me). The problem is that with IBANs, unlike TBANs, I cannot explain the reasons why I am subject to this or that IBAN when other people bring it up. Mr rnddude (talk · contribs) wrote in his response to my initial email two weeks ago that if anybody tries using an IBAN as leverage for some bs sanctions, ping me and I will personally tell them to fuck-off, but having a non-admin promise in private to tell people to fuck off when they harangue me about stuff because they know I can't fight back is ... well, it doesn't help all that much.

Also, on a basically unrelated note, I just recently re-read this and noticed you were included in a list of editors I had conflicted with or apparently conflicted with in the past; I honestly don't know, and am sorry for forgetting if that is what has happened, but do you have any idea why that was? If so, I'd really like to apologize to you specifically for whatever bad blood we might have had between us, since I just really wanna get all this stuff over and out in the open and finished and behind us, so if you have any recollection I would really appreciate it.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Everything after "I don't want to talk about it because I would like to put the past in the past" is exactly the sort of thing you need to stop posting. Read my advice again, and then re-read what you posted above. Please. If an interaction ban is brought up and you want to explain it, just post a link to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions; if this is not the end of the matter, then as I said previously, email me or any other admin you are comfortable emailing. The rest of your post is not going to be responded to by me, you need to let this all go. Fish+Karate 13:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I want to echo absolutely everything Fish and karate has said here. GoldenRing (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try follow this advice. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Got nothing to do with my case, but I recall a while back seeing an editor who received an indef self-block with talk enabled from HighInBC; I went to Bishonen basically as a symbolic gesture because she had implemented MjolnirPants' self-block, and deliberately asked her for the exact same expiry date as his. I had always just kinda assumed self-blocks were commonly accepted, if not all that commonly performed, and didn't know that there were specific admins who did them or did not do them and had their own house-rules (yeah, as I said above, it was my bad for not looking closely enough at MPants' block log before asking Bish for the same). There was also an ArbCom case a few months ago (it was quite notorious at the time so I guess you might remember it?) of an admin unblocking himself under illegitimate circumstances, during which case it was brought up a few times that a legitimate use of self-unblock was in the case of admins blocking themselves for non-technical reasons and then changing their minds. I've always just kinda assumed that non-admins asking admins to block them was basically just the non-admin version of the same. (BTW, I'm not asking anyone to unblock me since I'm happy to wait out this block as long as I have talk access back; I'm also still super-busy IRL and wouldn't be able to do much good for the project until February anyway.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to comment (as I have discovered the comments on my talkpage occasioned a number of subsequent discussions, none of which I was alerted to) that although I almost always disagree with F&K's take on (almost) everything, I do fully agree with their advice in this case. And I hope you'll take that agreement in the context of one of the non-admin editors who rather vehemently did defend you in the ANI discussion. Letting it go will benefit you, and your blood pressure, greatly. You'll also find that deliberately disengaging will be to your advantage if/when something ever pops up again; sometimes bringing up perceived insults/slights/whatever, or arguing on your own behalf, is ultimately self-defeating. I wish you the best, and I hope you find ways not to let this stuff get under your skin so much in the future. Grandpallama (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: "at some future date" is wrong, as they are already being weaponized against me. In this case, the other editor is already subject to a one-way IBAN as an unblock condition; making that two-way because he is refusing to abide by said condition is nonsense. That's all I will say until you activate email. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Some memos for later

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_Hearts_III&diff=prev&oldid=879981856 Not sure what the English says (my battle with IGN refs whose official Japanese translations don't say the same thing as other Wikipedians say the English does continues...) but the Japanese says III avoids the stagnant pacing of II, which will probably need to be fixed unless the Japanese translation is just wrong.

Interaction ban

Per consensus of the community, you are banned from interacting with Dream Focus, subject to the usual exceptions. The discussion and decision are recorded here. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Mislabeling a sock?

@Just Chilling: I'm not sure what the logic (sorry...) behind this edit was. I'm peripherally aware of both editors and don't think their behaviour is similar, neither one is apparently mentioned anywhere in the archives of the other's SPI, you have not apparently edited either SPI, you do not apparently have access to CU data that I do not, and even your edit history in the 24 hours around the edit doesn't provide any clue as to what the connection is. Was it a mistake? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

UTRS requests #23642 and #23643 make it clear that the same person is operating both accounts. I am not able to post any content from these appeals but any admin can examine them. Just Chilling (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, okay. That ... somehow casts ATL in an even worse light than before. Anyway, thanks for clearing that up, anyway. Cheers! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019 at Women in Red

February 2019, Volume 5, Issue 2, Numbers 107-111 Happy February from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual editathons. February events: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/109|Social Workers]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/110|Black Women]] February geofocus: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/111|Ancient World]] Continuing initiatives: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/107|Suffrage]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/108|#1day1woman2019]] Help us plan our future events: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas|Ideas Cafe]] Join the conversations on our talkpage: Socialites Twitter - Forgotten African American Suffragists Women in Red image uploads to Commons Image attribution: Johntex (CC BY-SA 3.0) Subscription options: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/List|English language opt-in]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/International list|International opt-in]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/Opt-out|Unsubscribe]] --Rosiestep (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

@Rosiestep: Thank you very much for the notification! I'm gonna have more free time next month, and also not be blocked, so I'm gonna get working on some of the entries in Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Writers - Japan. That said, I'm a little concerned about some of the entries in Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Politicians - Japan: a quick Google image search appeared to indicate that 2 近藤喜衛 and 6 大森玉木 are both men (their names look masculine, but also like names that someone with a rudimentary knowledge of Japanese names so they know that names ending with certain sounds are often feminine, but not enough knowledge of the Japanese writing system to tell that these names really don't look like feminine names, might think are girls'women's names). I'm not sure what the procedure for removing them would be, though; my check was not exhaustive, and I might be mistaken. I'm also not sure how they could have gotten on the list; the page history indicates it's mostly an automated collation of Wikidata info, but the ja.wiki articles don't imply they are women. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hijiri88. That list is based on a Wikidata query. Somehow, those two entries were tagged as gender=female. I have changed that to gender=male, so they won't be on the list the next time the bot updates it. Thank you for noticing and for mentioning this. Glad to hear you'll be working on some Japanese women writer articles! Why were you blocked? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

General unpleasantness. I asked for some IBANs way back in the day (2012-2017) because I was being harassed and figured two-way IBANs would solve the problem with minimal drama; the editors in question mostly either got themselves indeffed or (essentially?) left the project, but editors who are still and have some bone to pick with me started pushing for me to be site-banned because I had been subject to bans for my "disruptive attitude" (or something; ironically, the claim seems to be that I love drama, when the whole reason I requested the IBANs was to minimize drama). The whole experience was stressful as hell, so I decided to leave the project. After a week or two my feelings changed, but I've decided to leave the (self-)block in place anyway. Also, super-busy IRL until Friday. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: [21] "boy's names" and "girl's names" is pretty standard for talking about the names that parents give their sons and daughters, regardless of what age the historical people in question lived to. I didn't actually call the women in question "girls". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

You were talking about "men" with "girls' names", girlyman. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

But a "girl's name" is a name you give to a girl. :P In all seriousness, I don't see discussion of "men's names" (like "Jonathan") and "women's names" (like "Cynthia") as opposed to gender-neutral (like "Michael") very often; they're usually called boys' names and girls' names. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

A real man doesn't father girls and boys—he sires redblooded men and women! Listen to your elders and stop being such a disputatious fuck. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

SPI (not about you :))

I opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikibreaking. I would appreciate it if you could comment on the case after the expiration of your block. Thank you.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Lorne Green

Hello, it's just a thought but I suspect most of the links would have been from the police and crime commissioner template at the foot of the page so there probably wouldn't be all that much to change. This is Paul (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Email

I got your email of 29 Jan, thanks. It was in my spam folder, hence the late spot. I should check it more often but it is rarely false-flagged. I'm still having issues re: CIR matters - we seem to be crossing paths. - Sitush (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Medieval Japanese literature GAN

Hijiri88, I adjusted the nomination time on your new GAN for this article; since you withdrew your previous nomination over a month ago, you need to start afresh in terms of seniority.

One thing you'll want to do with the article is expand the introductory paragraph into a three- or four-paragraph lead section, since Good Articles are expected to meet the GA criteria including MOS:LEAD, which includes the length criteria and what should be included in a good lead. Your article is about 40K prose characters at the moment. Since it does generally take a while for nominations to find a reviewer—it's typically months rather than weeks or days, though it can be days if it's something a reviewer is particularly interested in—you should have plenty of time to do the expansion. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thanks! Also, yeah: I've still got a little work to do on the body, then I'll summarize the whole thing in the lead (which'll give me an opportunity to copy-edit my own work) -- I've already done the vast majority of the work that I personally find more difficult and time-consuming, though, and I'm aware that it normally takes quite a while for these articles to find reviewers. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

March 2019 at Women in Red

		March 2019, Volume 5, Issue 3, Numbers 107, 108, 112, 113 Happy Women's History Month from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual events: March: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/112|Art+Feminism & #VisibleWikiWomen]] Geofocus: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/113|Francophone Women]] Continuing initiatives: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/107|Suffrage]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/108|#1day1woman]]
		Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas|Ideas Cafe]] Join the conversations on our [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red|talkpage]] Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/List|English language opt-in]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/International list|International opt-in]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/Opt-out|Unsubscribe]] --Rosiestep (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

April 2019

April 2019, Volume 5, Issue 4, Numbers 107, 108, 114, 115, 116, 117 Hello and welcome to the April events of Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual events: New topics: Gender studies / United Nations / Dance Geofocus: Portuguese-speakers Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: Opt-in (EN-WP) / Opt-in (international) / Unsubscribe

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

(Please excuse this post if it is a duplicate!)

Deletion of most Episode infoboxes images

After the discussion here, I started a discussion at WP:TV, thinking it would be easier than nominating several hundred images for deletion separately, but as you will see, only one other editor has contributed (but I think described the images in question quite nicely). I'm posting this message because a) I thought you might be interested and b) I was wondering if you knew any editors who might be interested in the discussion that can be notifying in a way that isn't WP:CANVASSING. --TedEdwards 22:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

On this point, I've removed most of the images of Game of Thrones episodes, bar Mhysa and The Lion and the Rose (for these two I've changed the purpose of using the image at File:GOT-S03-E10 Mhysa.png and File:Game-of-Thrones.S04-E02.Purple.Wedding.jpg respectively). Just thought you might want to know (unless you do know because I've cluttered up you watchlist in the process). --TedEdwards 21:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

May you join this month's editathons from WiR!

May 2019, Volume 5, Issue 5, Numbers 107, 108, 118, 119, 120, 121 Hello and welcome to the May events of Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual events: New topics: "May" women / Mayors / Environentalists Geofocus: CEE countries Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

From Japanese to English

Request translation: ja:烏丸家 (Karasumaru family), ja:山本顧彌太 (Koyata Yamamoto), ja:亀井重清 (Shigekiyo Kamei), ja:片岡常春 (Tsuneharu Kataoka), ja:伊勢義盛 (Yoshimori Ise), ja:駿河次郎 (Jirō Suruga), ja:富樫泰家 (Yasuie Togashi), ja:大社駅 (Taisha Station), ja:村田勝志 (Katsushi Murata), ja:藤井恒久 (Tsunehisa Fujii), ja:宮根誠司 (Seiji Miyane), ja:諸國沙代子 (Sayoko Shokoku), ja:世界一受けたい授業 (THE MOST USEFUL SCHOOL IN THE WORLD), ja:にっぽん丸 (Nippon Maru (1990)), ja:馬場元子 (Motoko Baba), ja:生ハムと焼うどん (Nama Ham & Yaki Udon), ja:さわかぜ (護衛艦) (JDS Sawakaze), ja:いず (巡視船・2代) (Izu (PL 31)), ja:かめりあ丸 (Camellia Maru), ja:京都府警察 (Kyoto Prefectural Police), ja:柳川次郎 (Jirō Yanagawa), ja:花形敬 (Kei Hanagata), ja:小林楠扶 (Kusuo Kobayashi), ja:毎朝新聞 (Maiasa Shinbun), ja:田中六助 (Rokusuke Tanaka), ja:日本赤十字社医療センター (Japanese Red Cross Medical Center), ja:角田 久美子 (Kumiko Tsunoda), ja:安村直樹 (Naoki Yasumura), ja:三枝夕夏 (Yūka Saegusa), ja:少年ケニヤ (Shōnen Kenya), ja:チャンピオン太 (Champion Futoshi), ja:ジャイアント台風 (Giant Typhoon), ja:引田有美 (Yumi Hikita), ja:松岡巌鉄 (Gantetsu Matsuoka), ja:鈴木理子 (ホリプロ) (Riko Suzuki), ja:谷内里早 (Risa Taniuchi), ja:尾崎仁彦 (Kimihiko Ozaki), ja:アーサ米夏 (Aasa Maika), ja:ミスター高橋 (Mister Takahashi), ja:吉村道明 (Michiaki Yoshimura), ja:沖識名 (Shikina Oki), ja:芳の里淳三 (Junzō Yoshinosato), ja:SAKI (SAKI), ja:MIZUKI (MIZUKI), ja:万喜なつみ (Natsumi Maki), ja:篠原光 (Hikaru Shinohara), ja:沖野ヨーコ (漫画家) (Yōko Okino), ja:徳住有香 (Yuka Tokuzumi), ja:源義経 (1991年のテレビドラマ) (Minamoto no Yoshitsune (1991 television drama). Thank you very much, if you can help me. --95.252.62.78 12:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.252.62.78 (talk)

FLC

Hi, Hijiri. The FLC had been open for four months without attracting any support. Unfortunately, we can't leave candidates open indefinitely in the hopes that reviewers will come along if no support is evident. Even if there had been no opposers, at a certain point there isn't much us closers can do in this situation but close the FLC as unsuccessful. In my eyes we had reached that point. Having had little activity for the last few months due to real-life work, I'm only now getting back up to speed and wish I had had time to have a look at the situation earlier. The featured list criteria do mention that lists should have "a minimal proportion of redlinks" in criterion 5a. I've seen varying interpretations of what constitutes a minimal proportion in the past, but having a majority of poets red-linked in a list of poets strikes me as a violation of that criterion. My best advice to you is to consider whether all of these poets are truly notable enough to have separate articles. If not, you can just remove those links, as there is never a mandate for links to non-notable topics, and that should resolve this particular concern. I do hope you bring the list back to FLC in the future if the red-link issue can be fixed, as I find the topic fascinating and it would be a nice change of pace from what usually earns FL stars. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Hijiri. The FLC had been open for four months without attracting any support. Wait, so candidates need bold support !votes rather than people saying they wouldn't be opposed to promotion if it meets X criterion? I put a whole bunch of work into specifically to answer the request of those who chimed in in the first month or so.

Anyway, yeah, I'll keep working on creating articles on all the poets (I still don't agree with TRM's "if you think the topics are notable, you need to keep them linked, even if that isn't an actual FL criterion", mind) and renominate once enough of that is done. It'll probably be this December before I get around to that, though; WP:WAM would be a better time to mass-create mid-length articles like these than the spring.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the first sentence of your comment, that is what is required for an FLC (or FAC) to pass. Reviewers not returning to an FLC after commenting is an issue that pops up from time to time; I've found that the best thing to do in such cases is to leave a message on the reviewer's talk page asking if they have any more comments. That brings it back to the reviewer's attention while avoiding the appearance of canvassing for support. Best of luck with the future work. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Feminism

Please accept my apologies for misinterpreting your comment! Polyamorph (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Polyamorph: No trouble at all. Honestly, it's probably me who should be apologizing: I had an edit conflict, read the wrong line in the edit window as your sig, and thought you were the same person who had been blatantly trolling me immediately above. Yeah, I probably would have reacted similarly even if I knew you were someone else, but part of the problem was that posting a reply in several stages would make it nearly inconceivable that it was a good-faith misunderstanding, as it would imply multiple rereads of my comment. Your statement that you misunderstood my comment as referring to someone else, though, is perfectly reasonable. Thank you for having the guts to come here and apologize—that's rare these days—and in the spirit of reciprocity I hope you will accept my apology for my own embarrassing gaffe. Cheers, and happy editing! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Chaosdruid#"misquoting"

Hi

I did reply on my page, though after reading your comment again just now, I realise I may have misunderstood your comment.

To be clear, from my end, I have copyedited many articles, so am familiar with the end punctuation in or out. Am I correct in thinking you were saying that you thought I was doing it by context of our article rather than original quote?

If "yes", then no.

My intent was to remove a full-stop (period) at the end of the quoted material if it was not there in the original; and to move the ending punctuation to the end of the sentence, after the quote marks, if the quoted material was at the end of a sentence and was not the only material in that sentence.

E.G. In 2060, McDuff did say that "he had been in a right stew."

If the original ref/quoted material was "in a right stew.", I should have left it in there.

I also get annoyed by refs in the middle of sentences instead of after punc. You may have seen me correcting both types a few times in an article, if the article was full of them.

I would be grateful if you could remember roughly where you might have seen it, as the worst mistake is a copyedit that makes something worse!

Cheers Chaosdruid (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Japanese honorifics

Please, someone can help me with this discussion? Thank you. --87.14.25.141 07:51, 8 may 2019 (UTC)