User talk:Hijiri88

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)

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)

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)

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)