User talk:CurtisNaito

Welcome!

Hello, CurtisNaito, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Dismas|^(talk) 05:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar for You!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring Death toll of the Nanking Massacre to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work!  — ₳aron 09:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

		The Original Barnstar
		Impressive expansion on Iwane Matsui MChew (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iwane Matsui, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Army War College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Sign your posts

You posted a few times at Hijiri88's talk page without signing your posts. You should do that in the future. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcoming obvious sockpuppets who make dubious edits to continue screwing around with the encyclopedia!?

Curtis, one of these days, posts like this might come back to bite you in the lower back. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

His edits were excellent, and you still haven't presented any evidence that he is a sockpuppet.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Only because you have refused to acknowledge all the evidence I have presented. Plus, "his edits were excellent" is only, and I'm using your words now, "your opinion" -- an opinion with which numerous other users have already disagreed. He lied inline about the author of one of his sources; he inserted an internal contradiction into the article, making it cite Ramsey as saying that the relationship between katakana and gugyeol is obscure, but also that katakana was almost certainly based on gugyeol; he referred to Yamanoue no Okura as "a Korean living in Japan". How can any of this be called "excellent"!? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

He didn't lie about the author of the source. He just confused the editor with the author and then immediately corrected himself. Regarding katakana and gugyeol, there was never any contradiction. Nishidani also introduced information on katakana and gugyeol AFTER TH1980 had put Ramsey's version in. There was never any time at which both Nishidani's and TH1980's versions were included simultaneously. Also, there is no doubt that the sources indicated that Yamanoe Okura was "a Korean" and no doubt that they said that he lived in Japan. There should be no problem with calling "a Korean" who lives in Japan as "a Korean living in Japan". His edits were excellent. It was your reverts which were reckless and unnecessary.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

He didn't correct himself; I was forced to correct him. And how could you read an article so closely as to be able to pick out a tiny detail that runs counter to the main theme of the article, and not notice the name of the author? Nowhere anywhere in that book is there any implication that "linguist Ho-min Sohn" wrote it. Okay, I see now that you are right, there was no internal contradiction in the article at any point; there was only the extratextual contradiction between our gugyeol article that says gugyeol started to be developed in the tenth century, our katakana article which (in accordance with near-universal consensus) says katakana developed in the ninth century, and our Korean influence on Japanese culture article which said that katakana was certainly based on gugyeol! And given that maybe 0.01% of English Wikipedia readers have ever heard of gugyeol, and about the same know the history of katakana, what are they expected to do but click the links and learn that our katakana article makes an unsourced claim that katakana originated in the ninth century, but gugyeol originated in the tenth century and the former was derived from the latter? Please explain to me how this is not a contradiction. You said several times on the talk page that it was not. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

You're just pointing out a problem with the gugyeol article, not a problem with the article Korean influence on Japanese culture. Maybe it is true that the person editing the gugyeol article should have done more detailed research. However, that is still no reason to make attacks on TH1980.

Scholars do not know for certain when gugyeol was developed. However, the theory that katakana was derived from gugyeol is widespread among both Korean and Japanese scholars. That information is well-cited in the article Korean influence on Japanese culture and hopefully it will also be well-cited one day in the article on gugyeol. What we can say for the time being is that good edits were made to the article Korean influence on Japanese culture, hopefully to be followed by more good edits to both that article and the article on gugyeol.

Also, I think you should stop calling TH1980 a sockpuppet, because it's against Wikipedia protocol to make such accusations without evidence.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

You're just pointing out a problem with the gugyeol article, not a problem with the article Korean influence on Japanese culture. It's not a problem with the gugyeol article, it's a problem with the Korean influence article. As Nishidani already pointed out, Ramsey stated elsewhere, much more clearly, that the relationship is complicated, in that gugyeol developed later than katakana (something not contradicted by our gugyeol article) but that the similarities indicate that perhaps they had a common ancestor in some earlier (Korean) script. That is not the same as saying katakana was based on gugyeol. When I pointed out that the vague source was being cherry-picked because, being mostly about Japanese influence on the modern Korean language, it didn't actually discuss the point in question in any detail, it could be expanded to say something that the author never meant it to say, I was not wrong. The gugyeol article cites two Korean encyclopedia articles, and given its lack of hard Gregorian calendar dates (instead naming the Goryeo dynasty) I wouldn't be surprised if it's just a direct translation of them -- i.e., it is a straight copy-paste job of a reliable print encyclopedia. That might be a copyright issue in itself, but it also means the article is more reliable than a Wikipedian's dubious reading of another, less specialized tertiary source like the Ramsey article.

Scholars do not know for certain when gugyeol was developed. However, the theory that katakana was derived from gugyeol is widespread among both Korean and Japanese scholars. That information is well-cited in the article Korean influence on Japanese culture and hopefully it will also be well-cited one day in the article on gugyeol. Sources, please? Which scholars "do not know for certain when gugyeol was developed"? Among which Japanese scholars is the theory that katakana was derived from gugyeol "widespread"? The gugyeol article's citation style (including a bibliography that would probably verify 80-90% of its content but no inline citations) is problematic, but at least it has one -- you are just pulling facts out of your lower back and expecting me to buy them.

Also, I think you should stop calling TH1980 a sockpuppet, because it's against Wikipedia protocol to make such accusations without evidence. I have evidence he is a sockpuppet, and I have presented it to you numerous times. He showed up suddenly on an article he had never edited before, and reintroduced text that had been removed months earlier, during a period when under his present account he was not actively editing Wikipedia at all, let alone that particular article. Jagello, KoreanSentry and TH1980 are all very obviously either sockpuppets of, or engaged in off-wiki collusion with, the editors who had originally introduced this text years ago. That this area is rife with sock-/meat-puppetry is not something I invented: User:Canterbury Tail broached the subject over a year ago, and more recently User:SamuelDay1[1] User:Hipocrite[2] and User:Eurodyne[3] agreed that the behaviour on this particular article since the AFD is suspicious -- were they also in violation of "Wikipedia protocol"?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

If you had evidence, then TH1980 would have been banned. He will not be banned, however, because you have no evidence. Just because someone makes reliably sourced, accurate, and relevant edits to the article Korean influence on Japanese culture, as TH1980 did, does not somehow make them a sockpuppet. Let's be clear, you have no evidence whatsoever to support your completely baseless accusations against him.

According to the article Korean influence on Japanese culture, "many in Japan as well as Korea believe that the beginnings of katakana and the orthographic principles they represent, derive at least in part from earlier practices on the Korean peninsular." And of course, Ramsey is already on record as arguing that this connection "seems certain". All you are really doing here is quibbling with the scholarly viewpoint. TH1980, by contrast, made edits in accordance with the scholarly viewpoint. His edits were very solid and ought to be praised.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Curtis grow the hell up and learn to listen. Just because someone makes reliably sourced, accurate, and relevant edits to an article, does not somehow make them a sockpuppet, this is true. But when someone makes the same edits that other users made months or years earlier, that had been reverted months before that user under his/her current account had ever shown any interest in the article, does provide very valid cause for suspicion of sockpuppetry. I do not "have no evidence whatsoever to support my completely baseless accusations". I have a large enough body of evidence to make me and the vast majority of other good-faith Wikipedians highly suspicious of either misuse of multiple accounts or inappropriate off-wiki collusion. By the way -- "no evidence whatsoever for completely baseless accusations"? Redundant much? Your argument that "if I had evidence, then TH1980 would have been banned" is a red herring -- the only way to get an account blocked for sockpuppetry is to open an SPI or ANI thread on them: for an SPI, I would need to know the identity of the sockmaster/main account (something I have never claimed to know, and which would be very difficult to establish under the circumstances); for an ANI thread, the account would need to have been engaging in a longer-term pattern of disruptive behaviour than has taken place already (the fact that I've never opened an ANI thread on you yet should be evidence of my high degree of tolerance for disruptive behaviour); I did this with Jagello and KoreanSentry in February, but because both of them stopped editing the thread got archived with no result -- the next time one of those accounts edits suspiciously it will probably result in them getting blocked as probable sockpuppets. Jagello got one chance back in October before the first ANI thread was opened, and I will grant TH1980 the same courtesy; next time TH1980 does something sock-ish I will report him on ANI, everyone else who comments will say "Yeah, it does look super-suspicious -- TH1980, what other accounts have you been using? Who told you off-wiki to edit that page?" like they did last time. If TH1980 doesn't respond and goes quiet for another few months, the thread will again get archived with no result; then on TH1980's third strike he will most likely be blocked.

Where in the quote you provide is gugyeol even mentioned!? You seriously need to stop editing Wikipedia if you genuinely think that quote supports what you were claiming above. Ramsey is on record as saying the modern Korean language shows strong Japanese influence; the article you are misquoting is about Japanese influence on Korean culture; you are cherry-picking one truncated statement near the start of the article and misrepresenting it as putting him "on the record" that "katakana was derived from gugyeol".

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, you've accused a lot of people of sockpuppetry relating to this article, but it's really no surprise that you haven't managed to ban any of them because you don't bother to present any actual evidence. You certainly have no specific evidence against TH1980. The material TH1980 was adding to the article was original. The citations and the wording of the text were completely different from what had been in the article before. This information was clearly worth including. If that's all the "evidence" you have then, as I said, you need to stop calling him a sockpuppet. That is NOT even remotely sufficient reason to make personal attacks on other users. What Ramsey is on record as saying is that the Japanese language shows strong Korean influence, including the possible or likely influence on gugyeol on katakana. The relevant portions of the text have been quoted to you many times so it makes no sense that you keep on denying the quotes that are placed directly in front of you.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

you've accused a lot of people of sockpuppetry relating to this article, but it's really no surprise that you haven't managed to ban any of them because you don't bother to present any actual evidence Please stop throwing around the word "ban". The word is "block". Also, that's a pretty outrageous allegation, that I have presented no actual evidence. Care to elaborate? The folks over on ANI seemed pretty convinced that my evidence was adequate...

The material TH1980 was adding to the article was original. Again -- pretty extraordinary claim. Care to elaborate? Maybe provide some evidence? It looked to me like he was restoring the same anachronistic material that had been removed previously, in at least one case using almost the exact same wording.

This information was clearly worth including. Your opinion, with no bearing whatsoever on whether sockpuppetry has taken place. Again, the reason I posted here was that you seem to be encouraging sockpuppetry solely because you agree with the sockpuppets' POV in this case. This is pretty outrageous behaviour.

If that's all the "evidence" you have then, as I said, you need to stop calling him a sockpuppet. Again, it's your opinion, and an opinion with apparently the majority of other Wikipedians disagree.

That is NOT even remotely sufficient reason to make personal attacks on other users. Again, it's not a personal attack to speculate based on extremely suspicious sockpuppet-like behaviour that an account is a sockpuppet. The fact that TH1980 has not even attempted to deny this is yet more evidence. Your bad-faith accusations of personal attacks, on the other hand, veer very close to NPA-violations themselves.

What Ramsey is on record as saying is that the Japanese language shows strong Korean influence Sources, please? The book currently cited in the article is about the Korean language, not the Japanese language, and the article TH1980 was misquoting is all about the heavy Japanese influence on the modern Korean language -- if you are too stupid to understand that ... well ...

including the possible or likely influence on gugyeol on katakana. Wait ... what!? "likely influence on gugyeol on katakana"? Do you mean "likely influence of gugyeol on katakana"? Again, please cite a source that says this. The currently-cited Lee/Ramsey source appears to say that katakana (which dates to the 800s) and gugyeol (which dates to the 900s) appear to be related and may share a common (Korean) ancestor, but that the relationship is obscure. That's not the same as what you are claiming.

The relevant portions of the text have been quoted to you many times so it makes no sense that you keep on denying the quotes that are placed directly in front of you. I don't see any place where the relevant portions of the text have been quoted. I went and tracked down the text on GBooks, and fortunately the whole essay was available for me to read for free. I read it. It was about the Japanese influence on the Korean language, with a single, obscure reference to gugyeol and katakana in the introduction. You on the other hand do not appear to have read it.

AND HOW DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE SOCKPUPPETRY ISSUE!?!

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Continuing to accuse TH1980 of sockpuppetry without evidence is clearly a personal attack on him and clearly a violation of Wikipedia protocol. The material TH1980 was adding to the article was not even close to the previous version of the article. Both the citations and the text were completely new. No one except you has ever accused TH1980 of sockpuppetry, and unsurprisingly no admin has been convinced enough of these absurd allegations to actually issue a ban.

At any rate, here once again is the relevant quote from Ramsey. "It also seems certain that the simplified Chinese characters known as Kugyol, which were used by Koreans to annotate texts, influenced the development of the katakana writing system in Japan." My view here is simply that the opinions of leading scholars outweigh the opinions of Hijiri. TH1980 is not sockpuppet, and since he was just quoting the opinion of leading scholars you can't say he had a problematic bias. Like I said, I think it's better to rely on scholarly opinion, as cited by TH1980, then to simply go with Hijiri's own personal opinion that has no sources to speak of to back it up.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "here once again"!? I searched the talk page and that quote appears nowhere. It looks like I had to go and hunt down the reference, and you are now taking credit for it and looking down your nose at me for not reading the quote that was never presented to me. Why would I need to read it out of context on the talk page, anyway? I found it on GBooks before you even joined the discussion.

As for the sockpuppet issue: it is not a violation of policy ("protocol", as you keep somewhat bizarrely calling it as though that was the standard lingo) to point out that another user is engaged in highly suspicious behaviour typical of a sockpuppet, and given that other users have explicitly supported me on this point, and TH1980 has seen fit to dodge the question every time, you are way out of line telling me what is and isn't appropriate.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you already knew what the book said then I shouldn't have had to quote it for you. However, the more important issue is that repeatedly calling another user in good standing a sockpuppet, based on the "suspicious" behavior of constructively editing an article in a way you personally disagree with, is clearly inappropriate behavior.CurtisNaito (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Curtis, would you kindly refrain from making spurious accusations like that I accuse other users of being sockpuppets just because I disagree with them? When have I ever done that? If I did that, why have I never accused you of being a sockpuppet? You and I have almost never agreed on anything, and on top of that you sometimes come across as being someone's "bad hand", the way you show up suddenly and revert me in articles and entire areas you have never shown any interest in. But I have never accused you of being a sockpuppet because (1) you and I disagreeing is entirely irrelevant to the question of sockpuppetry, which even if you can't understand I most certainly do, and (2) on a balanced weighing of the evidence there is no rational reason for believing you to be a sockpuppet. I accuse accounts of being sockpuppets only when the balance of evidence indicates that they are sockpuppets, like when they lay dormant for months on end and then show up suddenly and restore material/text that had been removed a long time ago from an article they had never edited before, in a topic area that a large number of other editors have already pointed out is rife with sock-/meat-puppetry and has been for years.

You have no reason whatsoever to believe that accuse other users of being sockpuppets because they make edits with which I disagree, and given my history with other users making completely bogus/ignorant-of-WP:QUACK-behaviour, bad-faith accusations of me being wrong about sockpuppets (they were always very wrong, I might point out) you can see why I might find your accusations disturbing.

As for TH1980's edits being "constructive" -- I'll just point out that of five or six (User:Sturmgewehr88 didn't really express an opinion on TH1980's edits, but...) other parties who have commented on his "Korean influence" edits, you are the only one who thought they were "constructive". So stop posting your personal opinion and pretending like it is a factual datum off of which to base accusations against other users.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The material he was adding was original and contained original citations. The sources were clearly reliable and the text he was adding matched the sources. Accusing another user of sockpuppetry without evidence is just a personal attack and is very inappropriate behavior. When you disagree with someone's edits you should accept it as a legitimate content dispute and not make it into an excuse to defame them. I'm asking you to abide by basic civility and assume good faith.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Curtis, when you say, essentially "He couldn't possibly be a sockpuppet because his edits were well-sourced and excellent", and then turn around and accuse me (yet again) of defaming people with sockpuppetry claims just because I disagree with their edits, you do know you are throwing stones in a glass house, right? Whether or not you like his edits is just as irrelevant to the question of whether he is a sockpuppet as whether or not I dislike them. You have said in this thread now at least a half dozen times "I like his edits, therefore he couldn't be a sockpuppet", which (given the very likelihood that he is a sockpuppet) is just as unacceptable as "I don't like his edits, therefore he must be a sockpuppet". And you are still failing to recognize that no one has actually said "I don't like his edits, therefore he must be a sockpuppet". If you continue to hurl such baseless and offensive accusations against me, it come back and bite you in the lower back. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

If an active user is a sockpuppet, you should deal with it through administrative action. Otherwise continuing to accuse them again and again is just a personal attack. You obviously didn't agree with the material being added, but apart from that you provided no reason to believe that these edits were somehow evidence of sockpuppetry. In particular, it was very inappropriate of you to make such false accusations against a fellow Wikipedia user right in your edit summaries. You never proved that TH1980 was a sockpuppet, and you've never managed to convince the admins that any of the other users editing the article are sockpuppets either. Making these spurious accusations is hardly constructive. I'm telling you that you aren't assuming good faith or acting civilly, and issuing threats doesn't help your case here.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not continuing to accuse them. I'm keeping an eye on them for any more suspicious behaviour. If I am given a reason to seek a block (again, the problem with sleepers is that they go dead for months on end, making it difficult to make an ANI case against them while they are asleep) I will do so. Right now I am not accusing anyone of anything except you of making somewhat offensive claims about me and the other users who disagree with you. And I don't need to convince the admins that the other users who edited the article are sockpuppets: they already know. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess you're already convinced, but you are alone there. At any rate, as long as you are no longer accusing TH1980 of sockpuppetry then you are no longer violating Wikipedia policy.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Hijiri 88 What is going on here? You are acting so irrational, you are crashing through this page like a runaway train. I am not anyone's "sockpuppet." Give it a rest already.TH1980 (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Iwane Matsui

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Iwane Matsui 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Iwane Matsui

The article Iwane Matsui you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Iwane Matsui for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ways That Are Dark

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ways That Are Dark 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 Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Japan Echo

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Japan Echo 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 06:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Japan Echo

The article Japan Echo you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Japan Echo for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Iwane Matsui - The Class-A war criminal

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. STSC (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Japan Echo

The article Japan Echo you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Japan Echo for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ralph Townsend

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ralph Townsend 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ways That Are Dark

The article Ways That Are Dark you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ways That Are Dark for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ways That Are Dark

The article Ways That Are Dark you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ways That Are Dark for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 03:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ikuhiko Hata

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ikuhiko Hata 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 BenLinus1214 -- BenLinus1214 (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ikuhiko Hata

The article Ikuhiko Hata you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ikuhiko Hata for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BenLinus1214 -- BenLinus1214 (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ralph Townsend

The article Ralph Townsend you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ralph Townsend for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Ganser

To quote review: "The result was no consensus. Discussion about the potential to convert the article to focus upon the subject's book can be discussed further on the article's talk page, if desired. NORTH AMERICA1000 04:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)"

The clear implication, and simple reading of the discussion leads to the conclusion that this should be merged. In fact, six months ago the merger was proposed. No one has disagreed. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The merger is a de-facto deletion. Four votes were against deletion and only two votes in favor. You should not be implementing a proposal which is opposed by double the number of people who support it.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Merger isn't deletion and we don't just count vote numbers. Absent a solid reason to merge this should be completed. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The votes against deletion gave very persuasive reasons. You are unilaterally merging the article in spite of clear consensus against.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ralph Townsend

The article Ralph Townsend you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ralph Townsend for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of Japan, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Satsuma and Chōshū (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of History of Japan

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article History of Japan 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 Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Ralph Townsend has been nominated for Did You Know

Your GA nomination of History of Japan

The article History of Japan you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:History of Japan for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar for You!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring History of Japan to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work!  — Calvin999 19:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of History of Japan

The article History of Japan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:History of Japan for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, CurtisNaito. You have new messages at Talk:Infinity (Mariah Carey song)/GA1.
Message added 17:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've done everything.  — Calvin999 17:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

and Talk:Christmas Time Is in the Air Again/GA1 too. Thank you.  — Calvin999 17:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I've made further corrections.  — Calvin999 17:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar for You!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for the reviews :).  — Calvin999 18:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Curtis, what is it you want?

What do I have to do for you to get Calvin999 to leave me alone? Do you want me to drop my concerns about the History of Japan article? Will you tell him to stop it if I do that for you? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You should drop it anyway. What is your problem? You're going to find yourself blocked from editing indefinitely if you persist in continuing to harass editors, edit war on articles, violate the 3RR, and abuse the use of warning templates. I better not see you name on this talk page again, or you will have to face the consequences imposed by senior editors.  — Calvin999 16:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Why should I "drop it anyway"? There is a problem with the article. Threatening me with blocks is not the way to discuss content disputes. And not that it's relevant, but I am by far the most senior editor in this discussion -- I have been editing since 2005. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. There is a problem with the article. It's you.  — Calvin999 16:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Curtis, seriously, what is the problem? Why I am receiving block threats, and ceaseless personal attacks, for disagreeing with you on a talk page? Why are all the other five users who disagree with you not being treated in the same way? What have I done to deserve personal attacks and serious threats like the above?

The simple fact is you rewrote the History of Japan article, your rewrite had serious sourcing problems, you nominated it for GA, the GA assessment didn't touch on whether the material was "verifiable with no original research" at all, and the GA assessor was a user with whom you apparently have a much-too-friendly relationship, and for whom you did the favour of assessing several of their GA nominations.

Why does pointing any of this out merit the kind of abuse I've received over the last 24 hours?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I have never given you any abuse. My few posts at the administrators' noticeboard were mostly collections of quotes from all the other users who have noticed some of your behavioral issues. However, there were no sourcing problems with the article History of Japan, nor were you able to find even a single one on the talk page. The good article reviewer checked into such matters and did not find any problems there either.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You have refused to discuss with me on the talk page. You reverted any attempt by me to edit the article directly. When you and I both approached 3RR, you got your friends to revert me. Your friends posted extremely intimidating threats and personal attacks against me, and when I asked what I needed to do for you get them to stop, you not only allowed the personal attacks and threats to pass on your own talk page, but started badmouthing me on ANI and disrupting a thread that was meant to be closed several days ago. Surely simply disagreeing with you on article content does not merit this kind of abuse? The good article reviewer either did not examine the sources, or did such a poor job of it that within a 24-hour period about half a dozen users had to come in and fix just one of them. Your rewrite misquoted Henshall in at least one place, and may have done so anywhere up to 84 times. Did Calvin999 read Henshall before passing the nomination? Where is the evidence that the GA review examined the issues of sourcing at all? There is no mention of it in the review itself -- or indeed in the GA reviews of Iwane Matsui, or any of the other GA nominations you list on your user page and you bragged about on ANI while insisting that I had never contributed anything of value to the encyclopedia. You clearly had not read either Kenji Miyazawa or Ariwara no Narihira. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

They're not really my "friends" and I don't control anything they do, but I suppose they thought that your editing constituted harassment, and I found it hard to disagree with their assessment. Henshall was cited correctly in the article, as were the other sources. You were only quibbling with a few vocabulary words and not actually making any substantive criticisms. In the talk page a full four users expressly disagreed with your concerns. Maybe you just don't know the difference between a high quality and a low quality article. None of the two articles you just mentioned have ever passed good article review. Accuracy in content and correct sourcing are important for writing a good article, but quibbling endlessly over the nuances of meaning within the very same vocabulary words used by the sources themselves is just time-consuming and hardly productive.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You are responsible for your own talk page, and when other editors use your talk page to issue threats and personal attacks, you are not only entitled but encouraged to tell them off for it. The fact is that I came to you for help -- Calvin99 was engaged in a series of attacks against me, apparently either because you had asked him to, or because he thought you wanted him to, and I wanted you to request that he stop -- and you not only didn't request that he stop, but actually joined in in his harassment of me, posting an extremely long post in the same ANI thread. The thread has been overdue for closure for days, and everyone involved had consented to the close; Calvin999 and you disrupted the close. Both of the articles I mentioned would easily pass a GA of the level of critical scrutiny that was applied to the Iwane Matsui and History of Japan GA nominations, the latter of which didn't address sourcing at all, and the former of which was reviewed by a user who doesn't read the language that 90% of the article's sources are written in. The fact that I want my articles to be not only well-written, but properly researched, sourced, and complete and neutral in their descriptions of the topics, and care significantly less about wracking up extra notches on my belt, is the main reason I don't have three times as many GA's listed on my own list as you have on yours. Ask any of the other users who have looked at the pages in question. Any of them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri, plenty of other users have looked into those pages, and yet you are for some reason the only one who consistently manages to invent "problems" which are actually just bizarre quibbles with wording. I don't think that you can tell me that the reason you have not produced more quality articles than me is because your standards are higher. You have never attempted to put your articles up for a quality review, whereas I do seek input from other users and with the exception of you they don't find a problem with it. Similarly, when Calvin999 and I posted information about you at AN/I, plenty of other users concurred that it was relevant and concerning. You were the only one who didn't think there was anything wrong with it.

"when other editors use your talk page to issue threats and personal attacks, you are not only entitled but encouraged to tell them off for it." If this statement is true, then I should be telling you off right now.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri, plenty of other users have looked into those pages, and yet you are for some reason the only one who consistently manages to invent "problems" which are actually just bizarre quibbles with wording. If that is the case, then why does no one else take your view on the History of Japan article? Can you name a single user who examined the sources on each of "your" GAs and found no problem? Numerous users have called you out (Nishidani, Curly Turkey, Phoenix7777, Sturmgewehr88...) for your consistent sourcing problems, and for your refusal to engage in talk page discussion, over the years.

If this statement is true, then I should be telling you off right now. Where in any of the above was there either a threat or a personal attack from me? Under the definition of "personal attack" on WP:WIAPA, a core conduct policy, "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" qualify as personal attacks, so unless you can provide evidence of me engaging in personal attacks or threats on your talk page "right now", you are yourself engaging in a personal attack.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, the claims you are making are manifestly not true, and that is something numerous other editors keep pointing out to you. By sharp contrast, neither Calvin999 or TH1980 made any personal attacks against you. NONE of the users you mentioned above ever said my use of sources in the article History of Japan was incorrect, and my use of Jared Diamond as a source was supported by a greater number of editors than those who opposed it. If all you are planning on doing on my talk page is repeating the same things over and over again, claims which have been refuted by myself and numerous other editors already, then there is probably no point in you continuing to post here.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

"By sharp contrast, neither Calvin999 ... made any personal attacks against you." Don't make me laugh.

Deliberate harassment of Curtis by Hijiri88. I won't tolerate harassment of editors like this, as you have repeatedly been doing.

I won't tolerate non-sensical and immature editing done purely out of spite in order to try and antagonise other editors.

Hijiri88 has harassed CurtisNaito on a closed good article review

[Hijiri88] has been involved in further hounding on the Talk:History of Japan#Article should not be citing Jared Diamond talk page

I believe he also crossed the 3RR (posted on a noticeboard for requesting blocks of other users, therefore a threat)

The only reason you haven't reverted me to re-add you unwise addition of source tags is because you have created an edit war in which you are solely responsible for, and which other editors have also reverted you, meaning you can be blocked for edit warring with others and for crossing the 3RR.

What is your problem? You're going to find yourself blocked from editing indefinitely if you persist in continuing to harass editors, edit war on articles, violate the 3RR, and abuse the use of warning templates. I better not see you name on this talk page again, or you will have to face the consequences imposed by senior editors. (a threat so disturbing I felt the need to email an admin)

There is a problem with the article. It's you.

Don't you dare revert other editors comment. Who the hell do you think you are. (note that he reverted my comment on an "already-closed" GA review -- why is reverting his comments on an already-closed ANI thread any worse?)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. (there was no hint of AGF-violation in my reversion, which was policy-based -- his baseless assumption that I am only editing the article as part of a "harassment campaign", on the other hand...)

Just so you know, you're assisting in the harassment of Hijiri88 against other editors. He has only placed the tags on the article out of spite to irritate CurtisNaito.

Because he's cropped up on every article and nomination CurtisNaito works on and nominates since Curtis commented about the course of action that should be applied to him on ANI. (how many articles have you edited since May, Curtis? and how many have I cropped up on?)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

And yet, when he posted that on the administrators' noticeboard, everyone agreed with his interpretation. A factual description of behavior is not really a personal attack.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

No, no one agreed with him. Two users who have just as much of a personal vendetta against me as he does (both users have been hounding me across multiple articles and noticeboard discussions) said that I should be blocked for saying the thread should be closed; another user who clearly isn't fond of me but is acting in good faith and is a good, productive user actually agreed with me that the thread needed to be closed. Everyone who has actually looked at my interactions with you, and the recent dispute on the History of Japan article, has agreed with me and disagreed with Calvin's gross assertions about my motivations. Additionally, I don't recall ever interacting with him before -- how did he know that I had "followed you" to the GA review of the Iwane Matsui article? Or to the several other articles on which you and I have interacted? A close examination would reveal that on most of those articles, I edited first and you followed me there. This makes me think that it's almost impossible that he went back and trawled through edits I made back in May. Did you tell him somewhere that I was "hounding" you and that I need to be "dealt with"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

No I did not. However, at the administrators' noticeboard other good faith editors, none of whom have been harassing you, tried to explain to you what you were doing wrong. Naturally you can chose to listen to or to ignore what everyone else is trying to tell you.CurtisNaito (talk) 10:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. But which users are you talking about? At least two (the two who you claim agreed with Calvin) most certainly have been hounding me -- every single time we have interacted, it was because they randomly joined in an article or noticeboard discussion in which I was part, and posted something along the lines of "he should be sitebanned" or "he should be blocked". One of them has been widely criticized for (to quote another user's description of his treatment of me) "being a dick", going so far as to make spurious accusations of copyright violations against me and starting frivolous ANI threads to that effect. Which users on ANI are you referring to, when you say "none of whom have been harassing me"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

There is not a single user anywhere in that administrators' noticeboard thread who has been harassing you, and no one has said anywhere in the thread that the opposite is the case. Maybe this is just the paranoia issue John Carter mentioned. Most other users try to give you good advice, but I guess you interpret that as harassment.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi CurtisNaito. Just out of curiosity, why are you still replying to Hijiri88 here? Hijiri doesn't know anything about how to properly cite sources and enough users have already pointed that out to him. You're not going to gain anything by politely answering all his nonsensical allegations.TH1980 (talk) 04:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I thought maybe there was a small chance of a productive discussion, but perhaps there was not.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Stop responding and he'll give up arguing with you and you two can move along. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Ralph Townsend

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI

With the results of the ANI thread you opened against Hijiri88, and this suggestion by another editor in said thread, I'm going to start occasionally combing through your contributions. The instant I find a policy or guideline violation that fits with your previous behavior, I will report to Dennis Brown or another admin. I'm not threatening you or "attacking" you, I'm simply giving you your WP:ROPE. After all, if you edit constructively and follow the policies and guidelines that you've previously broken, then there won't be any problem and we can both get on with ourselves. Cheers. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 14:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

We would be better off monitoring Hijiri's edits because far more users agreed that it was his edits which were the problem, not CurtisNaito's.TH1980 (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Nope, Hijiri's edits were fine; it was his incivility that people weren't happy about. "Far more" editiors thought that CurtisNaito's editing was the real problem, and the closing admin noted his IDHT behavior on talk pages. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

GA reassessment for History of Japan

History of Japan, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Re:ArbCom

I realized too late that I can't reply to you directly there per word-count restrictions, but it needs to be said that that is not what I said. I specifically stated that ArbCom probably wouldn't reprimand you (not least because it has nothing to do with you), and so I will likely be too busy to respond to Cebr1979 until sometime after this case is resolved. What I meant was that, regardless of the outcome of the ArbCom case, I will still have any number of users campaigning for me to be SBANned, and will likely still be too busy to respond. Please learn to read other users' comments more carefully. And while you're at it, please stop following me, as your closely reading a comment on my talk page addressed to another user indicates you were. As for the first half of your post -- the reason I am interested in your edits is because in the last five months you have made requests on ANI for me to be de fact SBANned no less than three times, and on at least two of these occasions you have justified this by claiming that the number of pages you managed to sneak past the GA review process exceeds the number of GAs I have produced. Your making bad article edits usedn't be that big a concern for me, except where you directly revert my good article edits. But once you started using the number of GA reviewers you have managed to trick into thinking you didn't misquote sources as justification for trying to get me blocked/banned, I suddenly had a massive incentive to bring to light the fact that the so-called GAs you advertise on your user page all contain serious sourcing errors.

But don't worry -- I won't post any more GA reassessments for the foreseeable future (even though I have half a dozen already drafted off-wiki) as long as you cease your campaign to get me removed from the project.

Immediately.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)