User talk:Hijiri88

Archives

1

2

3

4

NOTE: If you post offensive, libelous or defamatory material on this page, or anything that violates our policy regarding biographies of living people, you accept full responsibility for what you write. I reserve the right to remove all or part of any comment that I find personally offensive or that others have requested be removed, but I do not take responsibility for "hosting" material on this page posted by others, that yet others find questionable. If someone posts something on this page that you think should be removed, you are entitled to do so yourself per WP:RUC or WP:RPA (or even, in some circumstances, WP:BLP), but please be selective in what you remove. You can otherwise contact me either on this page or by email and request that I remove the offending material. If you decide to blank an entire section of my talk page because you found all or part of one comment by someone other than me offensive, I will likely revert you pending clarification of what you want removed; if you cite BLP, I will likely leave your blanking as is but restore the inoffensive material once you have clarified what you wanted removed.

While I approve of removal of irrelevant personal attacks, I don't normally go out of my way to remove personal attacks against other people unless I personally find them offensive, especially not if they appear buried inside walls of text and I hadn't actually read them. If you send me an email that says "I'm disappointed you didn't erase that yourself", I may take this as an assumption of bad faith on your part, so please take care when making such assertions.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that

I meant to read the syntax to the "no ping" tag to someone. Winterysteppe (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request archived

Your clarification request has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 15:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Ehrman

I was going to post this to the RSN thread until I realized I was dragging back up the inappropriate, generalized discussion. It's a response to your latest post there, and I thought you might appreciate it, so I'll post it here, instead.

The point is that a negative review of that claims that the resurrection is a historically verifiable fact is a WP:FRINGE source that cannot be taken as reliable if we are trying to write from a neutral point of view when they treat the miracle claims of Christians, and only Christians, as historically verifiable.

That illustrates exactly why the study of history, according to every reputable historian I've ever heard address the issue as well as my own opinion, should be done from a secular point of view. Because doing it from a religious POV virtually requires you to assume miracles took place, and as Ehrman himself (and others!) has pointed out, the job of historians is to determine what probably happened, while miracles are by definition, the least likely explanation. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course, history is not a science, but methodological materialism appears to be generally applied across the board. That is why none of Ehrman's critics have teaching positions in secular universities; their methods of doing history simply are not accepted by modern (I wanna say "post-Enlightenment", but I'm not actually sure of the history of the philosophy of history) scholarship. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

This is related to your creation of the "This guy is blocked for battleground behaviour" at Curley Turkey's talk page. Let me remind you that further battleground behavior will result in blocks significantly longer than the one Calvin999 is currently undergoing. Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 25 April 2016 (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:

Exactly which PAG I violated is unclear, as the blocking admin variously cited WP:BATTLEGROUND ([55]) and WP:CIVIL ([56]). I said that a user who deserved to be blocked for battleground behaviour months ago had finally been blocked for such behaviour, and expressed satisfaction at this point; three other users, including one admin, agreed, and actively defended the discussion. Per WP:CIVIL#Blocking for incivility, civility blocks are not supposed to be made without warning, but I was blocked suddenly, several days and around a hundred edits after the purported offense. If I had been told to retract my comments or be blocked, I would have happily done the former; Nyttend apparently assumed I would refuse, and redacted my comments for me, blocking me without warning two days after the fact. Also, no explanation was provided for me alone being blocked for saying the same things as three other users. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This cannot be seen as anything but grave dancing. You decided to participate in the exact same type of behaviour that got another blocked and you found so rewarding. Since you don't seem to realize how this was inappropriate I don't think an unblock would make sense. As for warnings, you have been here for 11 years and have received both warnings and blocks for civility and battleground behaviour in the past so I don't think you were unaware of our expectations of civility. HighInBC 02:29, 28 April 2016 (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.

@User:HighInBC: Please ignore this if you don't want any more to do with this. I've been blocked long enough at this point that I've basically made my peace with not being able to edit for the next few weeks, and do not intend to post another unblock request. This is more of a "request for clarification" of sorts, and if you don't feel inclined to post here again I completely understand.

I've never received a civility block before, and if I received such a warning it must have been a long time ago, as I don't remember it. I received a short block for "battleground" behaviour on an article a few months ago, but my "opponent" was blocked for the same length of time as the then-recent disruption was mutual, and the blocking admin in later comments appeared to express more sympathy with me than with the other blocked user (although I might have read that in). This is not really comparable to expressing satisfaction that someone who caused me trouble a while back but evaded a block has finally been blocked. If at that time my "opponent" had been blocked because of an unrelated dispute, and I posted on someone else's talk page expressing relief that he had finally been blocked, and I had been warned that such behaviour was inappropriate, then the connection would be more apt.

And I am still in the dark as to why neither User:Signedzzz nor User:Crisco 1492 were blocked or warned for engaging in the same Schadenfreude as I? (Curly Turkey did the same, but a message was left on his talk page by Nyttend, so he was technically warned.)

Just for the record, I do appreciate that publically expressing (even justified) Schadenfreude is not conducive to a collaborative atmosphere, and I will do my utmost to avoid such slips once my block expires. The only reason I thought it would be forgiven in this case was because no one who looked at the diffs I included could really think that I wasn't justified in being relieved at recent events. The editor in question made editing Wikipedia miserable for me for quite a while, and ... well, I've said my piece.

I'll be more careful in the future.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I blocked you, and not the others, because (1) as far as I was aware, they didn't begin anything, and (2) as far as I was aware, they don't have a history of such behavior leading to previous blocks. You're allowed to be relieved/happy that someone has been blocked, but expressing that emotion is grossly inappropriate on-wiki; thank you for your "I will do my utmost" statement. However Due to seeming disagreement among several admins, I've requested community review of the situation; see WP:AN#Admins disagreeing on unblock, and if you want to contribute a short statement, write it here and use {{helpme}} to request that it be copied. Nyttend (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

No, both Curly Turkey and Signedzzz have similar block logs to me; the word "battleground" in my most recent block before you blocked me was not really appropriate, as both CurtisNaito and I were blocked for something more resembling "edit-warring; personal attacks and/or disruptive editing on an article talk page". I did not call the blocking admin out for this poor wording at the time, as I did not anticipate having a technical error in my block log directly leading to further sanctions down the road. I appreciate that the admin corps have a lot of shit to put up with, and you in particular have done a lot of good in my past interactions with you, and overall you probably use your admin tools to do a lot more good than harm, which is why I don't particularly want to push this any further than it needs to go. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Re this: I was not involved in the MaranoFan/Calvin999 dispute -- I don't even know who MaranoFan is, except that the name showed up a bunch on Calvin999's talk page, and on ANI when I was also very active there. (In fact, the only mainspace page we have both edited was John F. Kennedy, and our edits were almost ten years apart.) Calvin999 and I had a dispute last August/September over Calvin999 auto-passing a GA review for a friend of his, without seriously analyzing the article's sourcing, and "aggressively" defending this action.[1] I understand that much of Calvin999 and MaranoFan's dispute apparently also involves GAs or FAs or some such, but I may be wrong, as I have no other contact with either editor, and both seem to be focused almost exclusively on western popular music, a topic I have never edited in any volume. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

At the risk of the FTN thread getting archived before my block ends...

I haven't comtributed a lot on FTN for a while, and I don't know how bloodthirsty the archive bots are, but almost ANI threads as old as that Bart Ehrman thread would have been archived by now, but I just wanted to notify User:John Carter re this that, unless the Catholic Church takes the view that the Gospel of Thomas represents a tradition as early as the Gospel of John and that the Gospel of Thomas is not a gnostic text (?), then Elaine Pagels' religious affiliation should have nothing to do with her stance on he Gospel of Thomas and her criticisms of Ehrman and his view of it. I'm not posting this to start a discussion and I don't want John Carter to respond. I am just worried he is going to make an edit to the article based on a misreading of what I wrote, which would in a manner of speaking be my fault, even if I am blocked and unable to revert. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Unblocked

@Nyttend and HighInBC: both expressed to me that they don't feel particularly strongly about disputing an unblock and I'm confident with your comment here that you're not going to be a problem. You've also addressed Floq's concerns. So, I think I'm on safe ground by unblocking you. Take care.--v/r - TP 02:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I will be more careful in the future. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late to the party, but I stumbled upon your name on AN. Just wanted to give you my 2¢; like Nyttend said, it's fine to grave-dance in private, but you probably shouldn't put it on WP (where anyone can see it), although I don't think he should have quashed you like that. Glad to see that it's resolved now! ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chinese influence on Korean culture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Huayan (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) 10:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom case amendment request

Your amendment request has been archived at WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 13:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Pronoun

I have a quick question for you, feel free not to answer if you don't want to. Are you male or female? I only ask because, for some reason, something feels wrong about seeing another editor refer to you using male pronouns. I've stuck with gender neutral ones until now, but that can be clunky. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

BTW, I corrected myself at ANI. Don't take my standoff-ish tone personally, I've just spent too much time at ANI in the past few months to want to get dragged back in. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Male. This actually came up recently here. ;-) And of course I don't mind your keeping a safe distance at ANI. I just wanted someone completely uninvolved in my dispute with John Carter to point out how he couldn't possibly be right in one of his main arguments, so your staying well away from my broader dispute with him actually works. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Context

I believe that you will find the answer to your question in the most recent archive of that talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Your help desk question

You have a response.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joseph Campbell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Watson (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) 10:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Pretty sure this is Veritas2016

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Derekitou Asilah1981 (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@Asilah1981: You were a couple of hours late... But Veritas2016 was blocked as a sock, so opening a new SPI to verify that Derekitou is one as well shouldn't be too hard. Honestly, though, I'm not seeing it: Derekitou was active before DifensorFidelis was blocked, and given that the IP admitted to socking there's a possibility that a roaming CU already checked and if they did they would have almost certainly blocked Derekitou if they were the same person. You'd have an uphill battle proving that Veritas2016 is Derekitou and is not DifensorFidelis now that Veritas2016 has been blocked as a DifensorFidelis sock. If we had evidence of possible sleepers a day ago CU wouldn't have been rejected... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri 88 That's fine. Haven't engaged with that user, have no beef with him/her. Just seemed like similar profile of editing. Good that Veritas was blocked, he was engaging in irrational and destructive editing. Asilah1981 (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Your request for a lede citation on Pennsylvania

Greetings Hijiri88. I noticed that you added a request for a citation to the lede of Pennsylvania, specifically, the part where it says "Independence Hall, where the United States Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution were drafted, is located in the state's largest city of Philadelphia." Note that the sentence says the Independence Hall is located in Philadelphia, which is basic information easily verifiable without citations. You probably meant to add the template after the first comma, to specify that the unsourced information is the fact that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were drafted in Philadelphia–that's what I gathered from your hidden note anyway. The information you sought sourced is mostly verifiable in the '18th century' subsection of the History section, specifically its fourth paragraph as of this previous version, though it is perhaps not written as clearly as it should be, and perhaps wasn't there at the time you added the template? I have added the easily researched, clearly stated, and well cited information to the paragraph, and consequently removed your template and the note. Cheers, WallyWyatt [contact] —Preceding undated comment added 03:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:GAC listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:GAC. Since you had some involvement with the WP:GAC redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 06:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tang poetry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emperor Xuanzong (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) 10:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tang poetry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Li Bo (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) 09:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Gnosticism

You have figured out why the revert - per unencyclopedic language, which is placed in the lede and is not supported by the body. Imperfect and evil - yes, stupid - no. Materialscientist (talk) 09:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

It is supported by the body. The demiurge in gnostic beliefs is almost always an evil or stupid entity. This is just a commonly accepted fact. The word "stupid" is used in scholarly literature on the subject. A quick GBooks search would have told you that. It is obvious that you did not closely analyze my edit and determine that I was adding unencyclopedic and (according to what you just wrote above) inaccurate material to the lead that was not supported by the body -- if you did, you would have simply removed the word "stupid" and agreed with the core sentiment of my edit, that without a qualification before "demiurge" the sentence was nonsense -- and that you are retroactively trying to justify your clumsy (although perhaps not "evil" or "stupid") misuse of the STiki tool. I have actually never seen this tool used on any page on my watchlist or elsewhere to remove legit vandalism, but rather have seen it used to revert good edits on several occasions, so I am beginning to wonder how effective it is and whether its use should be restricted or even outright abolished. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

You are getting unduly excited about a small glitch. Materialscientist does an astonishing amount of clean-up work to prevent the flood of crappy edits that would, if unopposed, overwhelm the encyclopedia. It's a shame there are occasional glitches but it is easy to understand how an edit which inserts text like "an evil or stupid entity they called" (diff) could be mistaken for the usual nonsense. A more reasonable response would be to laugh about the stupidity of Wikipedia and life in general. You may have a point about the way some editors sometimes use STiki, but articles would suffer greatly if these tools were not used. I monitor some error tracking categories and often see that an error in an article (which put the page in the category) has been reverted by Materialscientist because it takes a while for the system to remove such articles from the category. Johnuniq (talk) 10:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure he does an astonishing amount of clean-up work to prevent the flood of crappy edits that would, if unopposed, overwhelm the encyclopedia. But Recent Changes and good users keeping pages on their watchlists is, in my experience, a far more effective means of stopping vandalism. I encountered an abuse of STiki a few months back and checked the page, where it was claimed that every single edit reverted using STiki was in fact vandalism or otherwise unconstructive despite also telling users that they are responsible for edits they make using STiki. A few months later, one of my own edits is reverted by someone carelessly misusing STiki and not paying attention to the content of the edit they are reverting (or the edit history of the editor making the edit, or the edit summary, or literally anything other than the use of a word that sometimes appears in vandalism edits and is somewhat rare in constructive edits). I assumed that last time there was some problem with the revertee being a new account and not providing an edit summary, but I am not a new account and I provided an edit summary. There is clearly something wrong with the tool. I am as annoyed with people editing the lede sections of articles to add material not supported by the body as anyone (I have probably added Template:Citation needed lead more than anyone else over the last few months), but I recognize that this is not the same as "vandalism", and an anti-vandalism tool probably should know the difference. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, I agree that I overreacted. The reason for this is simple. I was pinged because my edit was reverted, but the first thing I saw was the template placed on my talk page. I do not use STiki myself for the reasons explained above (and the fact that anti-vandalism bots seem to do an overall better job), so I do not know if this was automatically placed on my page without the consent of the human Materialscientist. I had forgotten the content of the edit that was reverted, let alone the exact wording I used, so all I had was the gut reaction to the lazy and wrong-headed template on my talk page. It looked more like some POV-pusher attacking my editing than a good-faith editor who made a blunder with faulty software. If I had directly called Materialscientist a POV-pusher I would retract this claim and apologize, but I merely let this misunderstanding colour my tone as I stated factual information about how Materialscientist made a bad edit with an editing tool whose description tells him he must take full responsibility for edits with which it assists and how he did not understand the content of my edit. No long-term damage done this time, mind you, so I would like to drop the matter for the time being. Ultimately something will need to be done with STiki to prevent misunderstandings like this (was I automatically templated without Materialscientist's explicit consent?), but this will need to be done by users with more understanding of the software than me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Bey Logan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bey Logan 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/Bey Logan until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. MSJapan (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The Great Wall film

Hi. We had a conversation on the talk page there. Do you know which time period the film is set? I keep seeing conflicting reports about that being either the Song Dynasty or the Ming Dynasty. It can't be both of them, it is either or, since it's certainly not the Yuan or Qing led by Mongols and Manchu, respectively. Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@PericlesofAthens: Well, the article currently says "Song", and that's sourced; I have not heard "Ming" myself (haven't been following it so closely), but it seems questionable, because it looks like it might be adding the "1700 years" of the tagline onto the 200+ BCE of Qin Shi Huangdi. If I'm right, then the Ming option is unlikely because no one said that the film is set at the end of the 1700 years and the number is kind of arbitrary anyway. But there is also the fact that the film is almost certainly a bizarre fantasy romp with the historical setting not being especially clear. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I read the Yahoo News article that made this statement (i.e. that it takes place during the Song), although they did not elaborate about it at all. I also read another news article somewhere that said basically the same thing. I haven't bothered looking at the Chinese Wikipedia version of this article. Perhaps it has something to add on the matter. Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@PericlesofAthens: The simple fact is that we know virtually nothing about the plot at this point. The people who are saying "it's based during such-and-such dynasty" have not actually seen the film, and even if they had the chances are overwhelmingly that the name of the dynasty will only appear in an opening crawl a-la Star Wars that the director and editor could easily change at the last minute (this was basically the case with several of Zhang's other historical films -- the only one I've seen where the historical period was actually important to the story was Hero).

My opinion is that since we cannot actually write anything about the film except to regurgitate publicity from the film's creators until after the film has been released, the article should not even exist as an independent mainspace page at this time, but WP:FILM disagrees with me, so them's the cards we're dealt. The "controversy" thing, as I said on the talk page, has exactly the same problem. Just like a bunch of people ignorant of the Marvel Comics source material said before Iron Man 3 was released that "Ben Kingsley is playing a Chinese character -- whitewashing!!", and then when the film came out they essentially shut up because they were embarrassed once the film itself pointed out to them that it was satirizing racist stereotypes rather than the alternative of actively engaging in said stereotypes, a bunch of people largely ignorant of Chinese history are now having the same gut reaction to this film's casting (or, rather, the way the casting has been described in publicity from the film's marketers -- again, I don't know that Matt Damon is playing the film's protagonist, only that his face is on the U.S. poster and that virtually no one in the U.S. has heard of Andy Lau), so all we can write in the article at this point is speculation and rumour by people who are just as in the dark as random Wikipedia editors.

But I digress...

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Searching for Falun Gong bans

Hello Hijiri88. You asked about bans. Bans issued under discretionary sanctions are no longer logged at the bottom of the arb case. You now go to WP:DSLOG and search for Falun Gong. Bans issued directly by Arbcom are different, I think, and you usually find them in WP:RESTRICT as well as in the case or the relevant arb page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Users with COI editiong religion statistics article

Hello Hijiri88.

I think you made a wrong evaluation here. The discussion was precisely about sources, not about a dispute about me and Jobas. Surely the claim of COI was a secondary issue.

What I put into discussion was the reliability of tabloid and journalistic articles from agencies like The Guardian, The Economist, etc. I think they are biased and unacademic sources, and should be avoided in Wikipedia, if WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is still valid. Those articles are also a violation of WP:NOTCHANGELOG.--151.68.153.125 (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I like academic sources as much as anyone, but WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is about what Wikipedia is not, not about what sources Wikipedia should not use. The Guardian and The Economist have both been discussed on RSN before, and the result has usually been in their favour. The fact that you titled this message the same way you titled the RSN thread indicates that this is about "COI editing" as you call it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: my topic ban

I travel regularly between Australia and a country where Wikipedia is censored, and I wasn't able to log onto Wikipedia until today. I notice that the appeal was archived, but I'd let you know that I initially lost interest in editing Wikipedia in 2011 after enduring years of POV pushing in the FLG articles, and getting the topic ban enabled me to get on with my life instead of wasting time in a project I lost faith in. Furthermore, the ban I was referring to was in November 2011 [2], which is for at least 8 months, and can only be lifted after appealing. The earlier ban from February 2011 was only 4 months.

I pretty much only read articles nowadays, and I initially filed a complaint against a user who was being incredible disruptive in the China articles, which led back to FLG. He was pretty much given free reign due to the lack of outside interest in the FLG articles, which is why I documented his behavior and filed the case in the first place, and that user was initially blocked then overturned due to a technicality. I have no wish of having to do with FLG, so to see people accusing me of wanting to continue edit warring is ridiculous. If there was another way of getting someone else's attention towards the user's behavior without appealing the ban, I would have.--PCPP (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Jesus

I don't think you should leave the article. But maybe don't be drawn into protracted arguements? Just my thought. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

You're right, but Wikipedia policy is usually on the side of people who deliberately bait others into protracted arguments. I put up with that shit for three years with a certain user, and I don't have the energy to do it again. At least one of them is a pro. If he doesn't want a particular edit made to the article, he will demand that prior consensus be sought on the talk page, and then filibuster any talk page discussion. He flagrantly insults other editors' intelligence and when called out on it issues insincere apologies before continuing to do so, and hypocritically tells anyone who calls him out on it to focus on content. He's been at it for years, but has only received four short blocks for edit-warring. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I see that exact behavior over and over again...the strongest-willed editors (or perhaps more accurately, those who are strongest willed AND have a lot more free time than the rest of us) often get their way on contentious articles. It's one of the fundamental weaknesses and fatal flaws of the WP Project, and can only be partially remediated through policies that have been put in place. I saw this exact behavior recently on several GMO and medical pages, and I see it here too. Heck, I've even seen it happen to a lesser degree on seemingly uncontroversial pages like Amelia Earhart or Monopoly. I can't blame you for being tired of it; frankly, that's the main reason I don't contribute much anymore. Well - that, my lack of free time, and that I'm a non-confrontational person by nature. But every article needs to be tensioned for a balanced, accurate, viewpoint, and if you leave, the Jesus article will swing further out of balance. And the fact I'm saying that despite being a conservative Baptist Christian should say something about how much I believe it. In short, I too hope you don't leave the article.

Two other thoughts - have you considered voluntary mediation? WP:DRN might be worth pursuing. And, I have to wonder if I know the editor you're talking about - I have two good guesses. :) Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jtrevor99: Darn. Sorry for not noticing your message for over two months. DRN doesn't work, and should probably be shut down. Look through the archives. They have a handy colour-coded closure process that tells you whether they succeeded or failed. They virtually always (something like 80-90%) fail. On top of that, my concern with the article in question was not any particular content dispute but just the impossibility of covering a topic that very few editors know a lot about but virtually everyone has some kind of opinion on. It's not something that could be fixed even if "fixed" meant "conformed to Hijiri88's opinion and Hijiri88 had the power to unilaterally ban everyone who disagreed with him", so a venue with such a high failure rate is not going to accomplish anything anyway. I don't think that such an article should ever have been declared a Featured Article, because there will always be people woth legitimate grievances about it one way or the other -- even on a short scan of the "other religions" section I was able to find a place where an Irish guy who raised Catholic was disingenuously referred to as "some Hindus", to give just one example of a problem that should have automatically disqualified it from FA status.

The editor in question is mostly civil and relatively easy to work with (especially compared to the one I referred to above who hounded me for three years), and I don't want to name him on here because that's not something you can easily walk away from. If you look back through all my edits to Christian/Biblical topics over the last four years, you'll notice the same name cropping up several times, and the one where he called me ignorant stands out pretty clearly. But that's all I'm gonna say.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Wagner

Dear Hijiri88, I am writing about issues arising for your edits to the Richard Wagner page. The trivial issue (alleging, incorrectly, that the use of 'unproved' indicated the original editor was unfit to edit Wikipedia), was a piece of simple and unnecessary rudeness, which you seem now to have accepted. The more serious issue is an allegation of WP:OR. The article states there is no evidence for the use of Wagner's music in the Nazi death camps, and cites two sources to support this. The citation of a source is not WP:OR, and it is unhelpful for you not to assume good faith by asserting, without evidence, that there has been some partiality in sourcing. If you have a reliable source that demonstrates that Wagner's music was indeed played in the camps, then of course you are fully entitled to supply it. I also remind you that this article is classified as featured - that is, that it was intensively reviewed by a number of editors before being awarded that status. In these circumstances one should be doubly determined to stick to standard WP procedures and good manners. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

It is not "rude" to see what one believes is a grammatical error and correct it. You misunderstood my edit summary -- I never said anything about being "unfit to edit Wikipedia". I was alluding to my past experience with another editor who constantly added "based off of" to articles, and also constantly misread his sources (he once wrote "Japanese poetry" where he should have written "Chinese poetry", and insisted that a phrase that all sources call a neologism appeared in an eighth-century document because of his own misreading of a tertiary source). That user was apparently a native speaker of English: the problem is worse when we come to non-native speakers who can't even form a vaguely grammatical sentence in English: how could anyone assume that such a user has accurately interpreted and summarized a scholarly article written in English?

In summary, it most certainly is not "rude" to allude to the possibility that a user who made a grammatical error may have misinterpreted their source.

And then we get to another issue: you reverted two edits, one a completely trivial spelling change and one adding a maintenance tag, but your edit summary referred only to the spelling change. This is definitely disruptive.

Your claim that I did not assume good faith by speculating that it may constitute OR to cite an article on a certain topic that supposedly didn't mention Wagner is without merit, as is your own assumption of bad faith in the completely bogus that I "assert[ed ...] that there has been some partiality in sourcing". I never said anything about partiality.

The article's FA status is irrelevant, as the page has changed significantly since being promoted. Jesus was also promoted to FA status in 2013, and right now includes an abundance of misrepresentation of sources, POV claims, and (until last week) at least some bullshit about how "Hindus believe" things about him because one Irish Catholic who adopted Hinduism in adulthood wrote something like that. I will admit that the Wagner FA was clearly more in-depth than the Jesus one, but that doesn't change the fact that FA status that hasn't been revoked yet is not a reason to oppose any changes you don't agree with. Removing the one reference in a footnote to an article that didn't mention Wagner would be extremely minor change; if the FA review failed to recognize that the article was missing an "influence on cinema" section, you can't claim that the FA review qualifies as consensus against removing one sentence in a footnote. The only mention of the claim was by User:GabeMc who called the sentence to which the note is attached "editorialising", but the sentence survives unaltered in the present version. You did not respond to GabeMc's criticism, and it seems the editorializing wasn't removed. You responded to the review by saying that you had added comments inline, but you didn't touch the bit about camps.It turns out I was wrong -- at the time you responded to Gabe, the bit about camps had not been added to their review; it is their now, but it is undated, so without going through every single edit Gabe made to the FAC page, I won't be able to establish the exact date it was added or whether you missing it was a serious oversight on your part. Sorry for the misunderstanding. However, without the claim that the sentence is editorializing, the sentence is not mentioned anywhere in the FAC, so it is an argument from silence that all the (other) reviewers must have been providing their tacit approval to the sentence and the footnote attached. Basically it appears that the article passed FA despite still containing a (minor) flaw that had been recognized by the FAC. Fixing this flaw is not running against consensus -- it is addressing a criticism that had been essentially ignored in the original FAC.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

10,000 Asia Challenge

Hi, I wondered if you'd be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge? The idea is to showcase the work being done on wikipedia across the continent, and inspire more people to create and work on countries which might not usually get much attention and then possibly running some contests to bring in new editors. I know it's very existence will definitely make me more likely to contribute more on Japan and other countries. Could be a way to highlight work needing doing for Japan and draw in new editors! Or perhaps set up a 1000 Challenge for Japan feeding into it? Not sure, but if interested add your name to the participants and I'll consider setting something up later in the month.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on edits

I use Wikipedia every now and then for a bit of information when needed, however i tend to read amusing "encyclopedias" a lot more, with Conservapedia my number one choice. I happened to come across a comment you made on here about an editor, RJensen. As soon as I saw the name I knew who it was (I laughed in all honesty), and it's not from anything on here given how unfamiliar I am to Wikipedia. You may or may not know but he is (or at least has been) a major editor on Conservapedia, and in a discussion page a few years back editors talked about rewriting Wikipedia. Judging by his work on Conservapedia I'm wondering what damage he has done on here. Conservapedia gets next to no views and Wikipedia provides a bigger platform to throw ones views out there (that's not what you are meant to do of course, but that's what Conservapedia does). Are senior editors on here aware of his Conservapedia agenda? Imboredsenseless (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2016 2016 (UTC)

@Imboredsenseless: I have no idea if people are aware of other users' Conservapedia activity. I have encountered many users on Wikipedia who appear to be working to make English Wikipedia look more like Conservapedia (look at any of my edits to articles on Christianity-related topics, look at the editors who reverted them, and then look up the same topics on Conservapedia, and you'll see what I mean).

That said, I am not sure of the general appropriateness of speculating on such-and-such Wikipedia editor actually being this or that Conservapedia editor. I know this guy (who is thoroughly site-banned) has explicitly stated his Wikipedia ID on Conservapedia, but even in that case I'm reluctant to give details. Usernames are not reliable, because if I wanted to attack another Wikipedia editor, there would be nothing stopping me from creating an account on Conservapedia, Metapedia or some other site using their user name, and making strawman edits in their name. If I was a reactionary and wanted to defame a Wikipedian on "the other side" I could do the same on RationalWiki (I am roughly 70% certain that's how "RationalWiki" came to support the intrinsically irrational Christ Myth Theory near the bottom of its article on Jesus). I'm not implying you did this, mind you -- I'm just saying that accusations like "this user is promoting a racist/creationist/paleoconservative agenda and their unironic use of this external website proves it" require a lot more evidence than just a username.

That particular user's interaction with me has been coloured more by sloppy use of sources and simple DICKishness in not responding to talk page comments, and in the most recent instancehe/she was actually making apparently "anti-conservative edits" ("lynchings were a thing") whose only problem was that they were unsourced. I suppose one could read something into the [buchanan.org/blog/did-hitler-want-war-2068 Pat Buchanan-like] "Yeah, but white people of European origin were also the victims of vigilantism" tones of some of his edits, but I don't really want to go down that rabbit-hole.

I'm actually kinda curious about what "comment [I] made on here about [...] RJensen". Do you watch Curly Turkey's talk page or something? Or did you mean a comment I wrote to Rjensen?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

That said, this effectively means that any attempt to connect them with a specific Conservapedia or Citizendium account is not in itself a violation of WP:OUT, as they already explicitly connected themselves to those accounts on Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

It's him. http://www.conservapedia.com/User:RJJensen I had a look at his home page on here and it's the one and the same. (just seen your second response on this). (Personal attack removed) He's in my top five reads on Conservapedia as I get a kick out of ludicrous viewpoints. Apparently he hasn't posted on there for some time - I just checked before posting that it's about five years - and that after some issue with the site founder. The material doesn't get updated that often on there and hasn't for years, so even the most recent edits could be from about three years ago. He's among the worst I've read: he's been lampooned on other sites for his work. He's among a small group (and in my view he's the worst of them) of Conservapedia editors (admin in his case, a head honcho) that stated their displeasure at Wikipedia and that they would rewrite it. He's a bad egg who has no interest whatsoever in an encyclopedia. Imboredsenseless (talk) 02:10, 14 November 2016 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I very quickly found that page, and I'm also fairly certain they are the same person. If there is in fact someone actively editing Wikipedia who is also an admin on a competing Wiki whose whole reason for being essentially boils down "Wikipedia is biased and is operated by liberal scum" then I intend to monitor their edits closely from now on.

However, the more immediate concern is -- who are you? It seems almost certain you have edited Wikipedia before. Pinging User:Rjensen to ask if they have any ideas better than the one I've already presented. Imboredsenseless, you may well be right about everything, and I think you and I probably have similar political and social views, but sockpuppetry is not allowed. You should tell me which other accounts you have used, or, if you are going to claim you have edited anonymously for years and only created an account today, you should point to some edits you made under an IP. (Note that my saying this has no force: I am not a CU and cannot directly link your account to an IP -- I am saying you should voluntarily connect your account to an IP as I did early on in my account's history.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Also: (edit conflict) please refrain from tweaking your comments on my talk page. I know what you meant, and people make misprints all the time on here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh the comment you made on here about RJensen was on Curly Turkey talk page about a week ago that's where I saw the name. Curly had been making edita on an article which I was reading so I clicked on his page yesterday and that's when I saw your comment. Conservapedia promotes non encyclopedic work: for example denies science, and gives fundamentalist opinions on every topic. And who am I, I'm a Canadian expat living in rainy Ireland (the northern part) and had nothing better to do. And yes I made two comments yesterday on dribbling https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dribbling&action=history that's my ip address at the top before I decided to actually put in a username. Imboredsenseless (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2016 2016 (UTC)

Okay i asked you if you has seen him exhibit Christian fundamentalist views on here (he was an admin on Conservapedia as I said). This is the kind f content Conservapedia promotes, http://www.conservapedia.com/Sexual_immorality with homosexuality and pedophilia in the same sentence. Imboredsenseless (talk) 11:58, 14 November 2016 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to Women in Food and Drink editathon

November 2016
	An opportunity for you and your country to contribute to the Women in Food and Drink online editathon Faciliated by Women in Red

--Ipigott (talk) 10:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Content dispute

I don't think it's limited to a content dispute at all. It's the attitude propagated by Tvx1 where a legitimate source is disregarded because it's inconvenient under certain circumstances. How are we supposed to constructively edit an article when one editor can hold it hostage based on nothing more than their subjective opinion of the source? If you read the source, there is nothing objectionable about it, and the content of the Wikipedia article reflects the source. This has nothing to do with a content dispute that hasn't gone my way, and everything to do with the way one editors subjective opinion undermines the article by refusing to acknowledge legitimate content because of personal preference. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: It may be the case that Tvx1 has an attitude "where a legitimate source is disregarded because it's inconvenient under certain circumstances", but everyone except you seems to think that while the source is reliable, it is reliable for the claim that there is a rumour that such-and-such is the case. Should Wikipedia be repeating such rumours? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The standard set by WP:F1 is that in order for a source to be considered legitimate, it must contain a direct quote from somebody who is named and in a position to have authority on the subject—that is to say a team principal, the driver themselves, or their manager. In thise case, we have Lawrence Stroll telling a reputable newspaper that his son Lance will race in 2017. It has been well-documented that Lawrence has brokered every deal that has driven his son's career—he purchased Prema, the team Lance raced for in 2016, and oversaw a deal to give Lance testing mileage in a Formula One car. For all intents and purposes, Lawrence is in a position to comment on Lance's career, and he is saying "Lance will drive in 2017" to a reputable, reliable source. Furthermore, the content that Tvx1 finds objectionable only repeats what is in that source—it does not add or insinuate anything that would fall afoul of WP:OR the way he claims it does. There is nothing in the article that is a rumour.

So in the end, we have legitimate content that has a place in the article, but is being removed because of one editor's subjective opinion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Prisonersmonkey: I don't care whether a source is "considered legitimate". If the source is being cited for the type of information that doesn't belong on Wikipedia, the "legitimacy" of the source doesn't matter. At least two other users have already pointed this out. I couldn't care less about Formula One or this specific content dispute. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: Re-pinging you because I misspelt your name. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

You don't have to re-ping—you can just fix the typo and as long as you re-sign the comment the ping will register. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to re-sign my comment. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

That same source—not the specific article, but the publisher—is frequently used on other, related articles. Doesn't it bother you that a source is considered valid under some conditions, but not under others, and the only thing that decides it is the purely subjective opinion of an editor? Especially since Lance Stroll has a very negative reputation among the fanbase (rich kid who used daddy's dollar to buy success in junior categories and now threatens to undermine the image of a storied and iconic team) in a sport with a reputation for very partisan opinions. The potential for bias to seep in is enormous. We have to judge the value of a source consistently. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: Try to understand this. No one cares whether the source is reliable. No one cares whether the publisher is reliable. No one cares if either is "valid" or if they are used in "other, related articles". The content you want to add is a rumour, and Wikipedia doesn't spread rumours because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia cites sources that aren't necessarily encyclopedias and do report on rumours. WP:NOT is not dependant on whether a source is reliable. If you do not understand this at this point, I think you cannot be helped. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what Wikipedia is and is not. I just dispute that the content of the source constitutes a rumour. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

How can it not constitute a rumour when the source reports it as a rumour? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Invitation from Wikipedia Asian Month

Wikipedia Asian Month

Based on your interests here on Wikipedia, you've been invited to join Wikipedia Asian Month!

Wikipedia Asian Month is an annual online edit-a-thon aimed at enhancing the understanding among Asian Wikipedia communities. Taking place through November 2016, the purpose of Asian Month on the English Wikipedia is to improve the quantity and quality of articles about Asian countries and regions. Last year, over 7,000 articles were contributed in 43 languages in Wikipedia Asian Month.

As a symbol of friendship between Wikipedia's Asian communities, each participant who create at least Four (4) articles that fulfill the criteria will receive a special designed Wikipedia postcard from Asian participating countries.

Wikipedians who create the most articles on each Wikipedia will be honored as "Wikipedia Asian Ambassadors".

Sign up now

Thank you for considering! AddisWang (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Dropping the stick

@Hijiri88: First of all, let me greet you a 'konninchiwa' :). I would like first to discuss about the latest issue. I have realized that the 'gender mainstreaming', which caused the award to be given to Davao City, is not only because of the then-mayor Duterte, the overall chief, but also because of other officials and constituents. Like Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore and Park Chung-hee of South Korea, their leadership would not be successful without the help of their constituents. So I think that it would be inappropriate to include it on Duterte article. Now about the ASEAN Cooperation on Environment, I have included it because the source simply states, "The Gender Mainstreaming Program of the Davao City Government chosen as one of the Top 10 Most Outstanding Programs in the Galing Pook Awards in 2004" (you can use the CTRL+F) so I thought it may be a source too. I am now about to 'drop the stick' and move on to contribute in Wikipedia. After taking meditation on what have happened since past weeks ago, I have realized that it affects my contributing routine on the wiki and it seems like I have only focused on our issues. Honestly, it makes me almost leave the Wikipedia, because of the depression of being accused of death threatening, which I really do not meant. Because of that, I chose to raise it immediately on ANI, hoping that Signedzzz would be blocked. I have successfully defended my second created article on this AfD during my first month as a Wikipedian, so I thought it would be the same on the ANI I have raised. But it had been different, actually. For the recent tags, I really apologize. I was frustrated then.

As I drop the stick, I think, I will temporarily get rid myself of editing the article Rodrigo Duterte and instead, focus on creating articles I will pubish on Wikipedia Asian Month. I also promise to be more constructive on debates. I am also withdrawing the recently-archived ANI discussion as it will not make the Wikipedia world better, instead, a waste of precious time. ~Manila's PogingJuan 15:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hijiri88. You have new messages at Walter Görlitz's talk page.
Message added 13:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Asian Month!

Hi there! Thanks for joining Wikipedia Asian Month. Here is some information about participating in the event:

1. Please submit your articles via this tool. Click 'log in' at the top-right and OAuth will take care the rest. You can also change the interface language at the top-right.
2. Once you submit an article, the tool will add a template to the article and mark it as needing review by an organizer. You can check your progress using the tool, which includes how many accepted articles you have.
3. Participants who achieve 4 accepted articles will receive a Wikipedia Asian Month postcard. You will receive another special postcard if you achieve 15 accepted articles. The Wikipedian with the highest number of accepted articles on the English Wikipedia will be honored as a "Wikipedia Asian Ambassador", and will receive a signed certificate and additional postcard.
4. If you have any problems accessing or using the tool, you can submit your articles at this page next to your username.
5. Wikipedia Asian Month is also held in other language Wikipedia and count independently. Check for language editions.
6. If you have any question, you can take a look at our Q&A or post on the WAM talk page.

Best Wishes,--AddisWang (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

That ANI thread

Oh, uh...I was editing in Chrome with that Trump/Voldemort extension enabled, so...sorry about that. (please i'm a desperate american) Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 11:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I understand. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Since the thread has been closed on ANI, I'll reply here. My "nail in the coffin" comment was basically my way of endorsing the indef block that was already levied on Ellomate. If other editors are editing with that extension enabled, I would agree that they should be blocked. Blackmane (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Hijiri88. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

That is not him

He stopped editing soon after he logged out. I know his IP. He lives closer to the east coast of the US. QuackGuru (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, it could have been a proxy regardless of who it was. I'll take your word for it that you don't think it was him, though -- I feel much more comfortable thinking it was the currently-blocked one because that means it will stop as soon as his block expires and it means I have one less long-gone user stalking my every move. By the way, it's a minor point but you should probably have posted the above before reverting me on your talk page. I was in the middle of writing an email asking you who "him" was before I noticed you'd already replied to me here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The admins who supported him were a drain on the project's energy. I collected all the diffs. This is bigger than any controversy this year. QuackGuru (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Which admins supported him? I know some admins have criticized me from time to time and so were in essential agreement with him on at least one point (since he disagreed with everything I did), but I don't recall any admin explicitly encouraging his more disruptive edits. He messed up a bunch of RFCs he closed, and made my editing career just a bit more miserable (and presumably did the same to others), but I don't see how him making a WP:CLEANSTART could be called the biggest controversy of 2016. By the way, why haven't you told me the name of his new account yet? Is there a concern about outing or disclosure of personal information? I emailed you so you be more open. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't tell you the details. It would be better if a reporter disclosed the sock account. He is no longer socking but there are others who are using socks. After he was accused of being a SPA he started editing other articles. The sock account won't be blocked because it is stale. He stopped editing soon after I mentioned the IP was a sock from another dispute. It is a controversy when admins were protecting multiple editors. They deleted entire notable page without any AFD. They replaced sourced text with original research. The MEDRS violations are still in multiple articles. QuackGuru (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I almost never touch the kind of articles that reporters would care about having misleading information. My only involvement with medical articles is when it comes up on a noticeboard and when a medical SPA like the White Weasel suddenly starts hounding me because I challenged his right to close RFCs in areas he has never edited in. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The only reason the WW was editing other articles and closing RfCs was to not look like a SPA. After a reporter spills the beans then I can answer your questions. Hopefully by May or June 2017 I can talk to you about it. I can't tell you why I am waiting. After the beans are spilled you and others can share your experiences. The Signpost paper is a very powerfully tool on Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thing is, though, I don't know enough to say whether his activities as a SPA were disruptive or whether Wikipedia would have been better off with him staying a de jure SPA or him pretending not to be a SPA and then leaving the project. I know my life would have been better if he'd never tried his hand at closing RFCs, and I know he really, really overreacted to my criticizing him for one RFC close (a full year of constant hounding), but it's not clear if any of that would have happened in the first place if he wasn't trying to pretend not to be a SPA, or if his original SPA edits were problematic in and of themselves. I would be very happy to finally see him get some kind of sanction for the behaviour that he is still liable to continue if he has an active sockpuppet account, and I hope that what you say happens, but I am not sure how much help I can be. Right now I'd really rather just keep improving our encyclopedic coverage of Chinese poetry.Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Some of the evidence is public. Here admins did nothing. QuackGuru (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, as far as I'm concerned what he did to me was much worse than simply being an SPA or making disruptive edits to one article (which is all he could have been guilty of at the time of that discussion), and I know the admins didn't do anything about that. I hope he never harasses me again, and if he is socking at the moment I hope he is blocked. I'll keep an eye on The Signpost anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

If I know there is going to be a Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost article I will let you know. Other things must be done first. QuackGuru (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Quick WP:REMOVED note

Hey Hijiri88, just wanted to let you know: Users can remove warning notices and block messages from their talk pages. The only things that can't be removed are declined unblock messages, templates marking deletion of that talk page, and current shared IP notices. Happy editing! -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 02:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah okay. I got those mixed up, it seems. I was looking for it after I was challenged but couldn't find anything to either confirm or (unambiguously) disprove what I thought. I wasn't sweating over it (as in, I wasn't planning on asking anyone about it) since the block was already expired before I started looking, though. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Myth

After reading your recent comments about the Rommel myth and the inaccurate use of the term myth, I realized that our main article myth was still a mostly unsourced stub and failed to explain anything meaningful. I searched for sources on the use of the term in ancient Greek texts, particularly theatre, to better describe its meaning.

I expanded the article a bit and added a few sources, though they are all academic ones by classicists. I could not find a decent primary source. Could you take a look at the article? It still needs a lot of work. Dimadick (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Shitty

Hijiri, I admit that I skimmed that first paragraph, and now I see that you are indeed named in there, and not in a positive way. My apologies. You have my blessing if you want to remove the whole thing per NPA. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Obviously no one's going to hold it against you that you didn't blank someone's talk page. Honestly I just wrote that last part about blanking his comment or leaving mine to preemptively counter anyone who might accuse me of be "grave-dancing" or, worse, call me a serial grave-dancer. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

No gravedancing that I see, Hijiri. But perhaps blanking is the better option, if it hasn't happened already. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It has. Good. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Address Collection

Congratulations! You have more than 4 accepted articles in Wikipedia Asian Month! Please submit your mailing address (not the email) via this google form. This form is only accessed by me and your username will not distribute to the local community to send postcards. All personal data will be destroyed immediately after postcards are sent. Please contact your local organizers if you have any question. Best, Addis Wang, sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Activity on ANI thread "Admin accountability and involvedness"

You have been very active at ANI lately. Please consider withdrawing from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admin accountability and involvedness because that issue deserves to be examined on its merits. Introducing commentary on admins in general with over-the-top observations is only going to derail what should be a serious discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I have been very active on ANI for years. With the exception of one thread which has been draining most of my energy for the last week or so, I have actually been less active than usual. Part of my motivation for looking for another thread that I was qualified to comment in was to get away from that mess -- I have been trying for days but I keep getting dragged back in by two or three users who continue to post outright lies about me that I can't allow to go uncalled out, and I don't need people who are not involved telling me that I should go back to getting harassed in that one thread rather than trying to contribute to other threads.

As for the thread you are referring to, I replied to the OP post (I had an edit conflict with most of the rest). I don't think there is anything that can be done to discipline admins between a slap on the wrist and a defrocking. If an admin abuses their admin tools on any kind of unilateral basis, such as using them in an issue in which they are INVOLVED, any other admin is allowed to undo them, so if they are legitimately in the wrong then there is (in anything beyond the very short term) no harm no foul. Disciplining an admin for something that has already been resolves because some other admin disagreed with them, and has not been demonstrated to be a recurring problem, also strikes me as WP:PUNITIVE. Since I don't think anything can be done to discipline admins for anything that doesn't merit defrocking, I don't think an ANI thread that doesn't propose this is going to resolve anything.

Anyway, I hope you don't mind, but I changed the title of your thread. I have seen a lot of abuse, both on- and off-wiki, for supposedly being too active on ANI, and having a section on my talk page with that title would just invite more.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Yul Brynner

Hi. Brynner was born in Vladivostok, not in Sakhalin as you stated in your edit summary. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@JackofOz: It doesn't matter where he was actually born, since the article text I edited immediately followed a description of his imagined story in which he was born in Sakhalin. If he had actually been born in Sakhalin any time between 1905 and 1945, then he would have been born in Japan and not Russia. The reason for the parenthetical clause in my edit summary (which admittedly suffered from character count problems) was to clarify that if his claim was accurate then saying he was of Russian descent would probably not have sounded weird to me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, ta. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Cedric tsan cantonais

Cedric tsan cantonais has asked you to stay away from his talk page - please do so, or I will consider it harassment and will take appropriate action. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Read everything he wrote both about and at me (including the messages where he pinged me and apparently sought a response and then immediately deleted his own messages before I could respond) and you'll see why I wrote up to the last message. I have no interest in ever interacting with him again, and so I would appreciate it if he would stop talking about me on his talk page. If he refrains from doing so, I will happily stay the hell away from there. (Note that this means that I will not post there again unless something changes, and that I have read and understood your above caution.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

If he deleted his own message before you could reply, then it is withdrawn and that's fine, and you should simply have dropped it at that point. Thank you for agreeing to keep way from him. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It's unreasonable to expect me to "drop" a message I spent 20 minutes of my life writing just because I had an edit conflict with the user "withdrawing" the comment to which I was trying to reply. I specifically told him that he could blank my response if he liked. Anyway, we're done here. I don't want to think about this again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Gita Govinda‎

There's a lot of nationalist controversy about Jayadeva's birthplace, that was there to avoid editwarring. If you really don't want it there, perhaps a note with the text and sources on the talk page would be appropriate. Doug Weller talk 16:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I could tell that there was nationalist controversy (at least on English Wikipedia) just by reading the first sentence of our article on his poem. But the point is that that article is on his poem. His birthplace should be discussed in the article on Jayadeva himself. If there is edit-warring, we shouldn't change the text of the article so that our readers can tell immediately that there was edit-warring; a proper solution would be a WP:COMMENT similar to the lead of Saint Peter. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Hijiri88's postcard from Wikimedia Taiwan.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Hijiri88's postcard from Wikimedia Taiwan.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

ja:LTA:DARUについて

初めまして、Hijiri88さん。Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Tegboから参りました。en lv1ですので助かりました。

問題のja:LTA:DARUなのですが、この編集者はボクシング関連に執着する著作権法に無理解な問題編集者であり、既に日本語版で無期限ブロックかつIPレンジブロックを受けておりますので日本語版上でアカウントが作成出来ないためか、今回英語版上でアカウントを作成、編集回数を稼いだ上でLTA:DARU対策に編集半保護措置を取られている日本語版の複数ページに編集を行う、という言語版をまたいだブロック破りを行いました。

既に日本語版ではja:user:Tegboはソックパペットとして無期限ブロックされておりますが英語版上では未だウィキペディアとは相容れない自身の思想に沿った活動を続けており、日本語版のボクシング関連記事は大半が英語版からの翻訳で成っております故、このユーザーが英語版でルール無理解のままで（特に著作権法関連、他WEBサイトからの転載を平気で行う幼稚さ）自身の思想に沿った内容の編集を続けると、その内容をそのまま日本語版に翻訳持ち込みを行う善意の第三者が現れる懸念を危惧しグローバルブロックの必要性が在ると考えたものです。--Nami-ja (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nami-ja:それはそれは。著作権を破ったりした投稿があったかどうか調べてみます。確かにダルメーター (talk · contribs)は英語版でも投稿したことがある（回数は少ないけど）ので、ソックパペットなのですね。日本語版での元のブロックの理由は著作権問題ですか？英語版でも同じようなことをしているかどうか確認してみますね。日本語版でも英語版でも同じ記事に投稿したことがあるかどうかご存知でしょうか？Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: 日本語版での無期限ブロックは管理者の裁量短期ブロックからの延長依頼に依るもので、ja:WP:BLOCK#コミュニティを消耗させる利用者（ja:Wikipedia:投稿ブロック依頼/ダルメーター 延長）です。英語版で該当するものはWP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVEでしょうか。著作権侵害その他の問題点は無期限ブロック後の全投稿履歴精査中に発見が続いているもので、まだ精査途中なのですがja:Wikipedia:進行中の荒らし行為/長期/ダルメーター/新規作成された記事群の方にソックパペットも含む全投稿記事一覧があり、全投稿記事の大多数で著作権侵害投稿があり日本語版ボクシング関連分野の編集者は修正作業に追われています。

現在活動中のTegbo (talk · contribs · count)がリバートに執着しているJulius Indongoはja:ジュリアス・インドンゴがLTAの執着記事として作成半保護されている案件で、今後別のソックパペットで日本語版の方へ英語版から記事を移入するためにまず英語版記事内容を自身の思い通りに改訂しようとしている工作行為であると考えています。存命人物ですので無出典の戦績表（恐らくBoxrec.com上にあるページ内容の転載）は英語版でもWP:BLPREMOVEに従い即時除去で問題ないと思いますし、要約欄でも会話ページ上でも対話要請に応えないのであれば対話拒否でしょう。--Nami-ja (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. John Carter (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Hijiri88's postcard from Wikimedia Taiwan.jpg

I changed the license. BUT please blank the stamp, unless it is over 50 years old - I assume it's a Japanese stamp. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Rohnjones: It's a Taiwanese stamp, but I'm guessing that doesn't change anything because it's new. I'm out at the moment but I'll blank it and re-upload when I get home tonight. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: I tried. I really tried. I have no idea what went wrong. It seemed fixed and them OgreBot (apparently?) reverted me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Did you try reuploading it from English Wikipedia or from Commons? If you didn't do it at Commons, that may be the issue. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 06:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Well I didn't upload it to Commons; if it is there it's not because I put it there. I don't know why anyone would want to use it outside my user page. I seriously have no idea what's going on at this point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Well I can confirm that a bot moved it to Commons if that helps. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 11:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

If you want to keep it off Commons, you can use {{Keep local}}. Otherwise, anything with the proper licensing is fair game to being moved to Commons. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The fact that the stamp has been franked, and thereby partially obscured, therefore annulls copyright concerns? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 12:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I completely blanked the image so that all that was still visible of the stamp was the price (?) and the name of the country in Chinese and English.[3] I honestly don't know how to revert back to that version, and I don't know why the process is so difficult. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks OK now - As above, free images get moved to commons, even user images. I've added the "user image" template for you - helps stop deletions. It's always possible that you might edit another wikipedia (now all accounts are global), so you could use the same image on another user page (or even your commons user page). P.S. Taiwan stamps are 50 years as well. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

AN and AN/I

Adding this separately to my response on AN. Sorry about the TBAN, I had it in mind when I went to remove the entry but it just dropped out. Rookie error. On top of that, it occurred to me post close that my involvement on your AN/I thread might lead some to think I have a conflict of interest, given I am supporting a two way IBAN between you an JC and the point of the AN thread was to remove the misleading entry that was causing conflict at AN/I. Probably for the best that you undid my close for those two reasons. It's not important, nothing for me to take offense at. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 10:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Meh. No one would criticize you for COI-closing something everyone agrees to. I just think it should be a job for an admin. Especially since, even if you had implemented the change exactly as I suggested in my request for closure, you may well have forgotten to link the 2017 discussion that established that wording. The currently-cited diffs would not be appropriate for the amended restriction. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I already knew what he would say

This is copy-pasted from something I probably shouldn't have posted on ANI just now. It's basically off-topic for that thread. If anyone wants to reply, best do so here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Full disclosure, I was concerned about BU Rob13's initial !vote, as I was concerned it might result in a backlash against what I thought he clearly intended, and e-mailed him about it. His response clarified in pretty much the same manner as above (In fact, if the alternative is a "do nothing, send to ArbCom" approach, consider me supporting the IBan.), so I knew in advance that he would say that. That is why I was so bothered by Snow Rise and Lepricavark saying "per BU Rob13" before expressing the opposite opinion: I was already certain they were misquoting him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Interaction ban

I've closed the ANI discussion. Nobody is getting blocked today. You and John Carter are indefinitely banned form interacting with one another. [4] Any violation can lead to an immediate block without further warning. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Thank you. That was a good close. I will be careful about keeping the community's civility norms and patience for the kind of behaviour I displayed there in mind going forward. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

TN interaction ban rescinded

• Your IBAN with Tristan noir has been rescinded.[5]. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

One last question

The canvass argument aside (I think we can agree to drop the stick), I have to ask out of curiousity - What exactly did I do before this? You said you got involved when you saw my name. Whatever it is, I'm not going to argue it, but are you holding a grudge over the disagreements we had at Mr. Freeze and Vulture (Marvel Comics)? I'm not holding any grudges against you for those discussions. DarkKnight2149 22:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I linked the discussion on the ANI thread, but you downplayed the influence of the 1960s Batman TV show on the creation of the Mr. Freeze character. I don't remember our disagreement on the Vulture article, but if I recall correctly it was about whether the character's appearance in an as-yet upcoming film was confirmed or not. I might have been reading such a discussion that was already going the way I wanted and so I didn't weigh in, but left a drive-by comment on some other discussion. Apologies if I am misremembering. But either way, given the insignificant "appearances" of that character in non-comics media to-date, no discussion on that article could have been related to the recent Joker (character) dispute. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

No disruptions took place at the Mr. Freeze discussion, though. I'm not trying to start another war and I don't know what you remember happening, but there were conflicting sources (hence why the discussion didn't go anywhere). All I did was present an opposing point of view. DarkKnight2149 23:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

No disruptions took place at the Mr. Freeze discussion, though. And that's why I didn't report any disruptions. My point in bringing it up during the recent dispute was that it seemed to be indicative of your attitude toward non-comics media's relationship with characters originating in comics, which CT had brought up and been accused of "personal attacks" for that reason. If you look carefully, that was basically the only point I made in my first several comments on ANI; I added a little addendum that paid lip service to the main topic of the thread. (I'm really not comfortable going into too much detail on this point, the reason for which will be obvious if you read to sections up on this page.) I still personally think that the sources you cited that directly contradicted my sources should have been thrown out as unreliable (they were biased for very clear economic reasons; until quite recently the TV show in question was the subject of a decades-long rights dispute, and sources published by one side that ignore the other side's clearly significant contributions are not reliable), and the non-biased sources you cited didn't directly contradict my source (both of us were reading them in light of our other sources). I don't deny that my source was biased too: MovieBob is quite famous for his fondness of the 1960s TV show, his dislike of the post-DKR "dark" version of Batman, and his view that Batman was cheesy and campy before the TV show and so that the popular view is "revisionist"; but he's at least a third party, respected critic whose view is not apparently motivated by economic motivations. On that point: I don't know how it happened, but the article currently cites a broken link or three about the TV show that don't seem to explicitly address the origin of the character at all. Sorry if I'm missing something. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Logged-in disclosure ("disclosion"?) of logged-out edit

So no one thinks I was "socking" by logging out to post something that I don't want on my record, this was me. I'm not trying to hide it from anyone who's monitoring my edits. I just wanted a clear answer to my question without people saying In this particular case you were right due to mitigating circumstance x or In this particular case the other user was right due to mitigating circumstance y. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

That said: Unlike some other users I could name, I don't usually like to post commentary on my own talk page, so I will probably blank this section shortly as opposed to archiving it. Or I might do the latter. I'm like GRRM: I like to keep you guessing. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you ask an admin, they can move edits like that to your Hijiri88 account's edit history. Oh, fuck you, by the way. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Woah. Holy incivility, Turkeyman. (Poor taste reference to the TV show that spawned the Mr. Freeze character, given the circumstances?) I don't necessarily want it that way anyway. I just don't "not want it". Or, rather, I don't want people I was actively trying to keep it out of my account's edit history. I don't care enough -- I just wanted an answer. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

If it went in your edit history, nobody could accuse you of trying to hide it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but I have a roughly-coincident edit connecting me to it, and the edit itself made my logged-in ID clear. If anybody ever accused me of trying to hide it ... well, it would be nice if all trolls and hounds were that obvious. It would make them a whole lot easier to catch. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

ARCA archived

Your clarification request has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3#Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (February 2017). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 16:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Old-fashioned doughnut/1

Hijiri88, please don't forget to post notifications of this GAR on the talk pages of the major contributor(s) to the article, the original GA reviewer, and all the relevant WikiProjects. It is part of the reassessment process. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thank you for reminding me. I'm sorry for not doing it earlier -- those instructions are extremely verbose, and they are somewhat overwhelming. I followed steps 1 through 4 to the letter, and then when I looked back to the page the fifth time my eye skipped step 5, I read step 6 and got angry at how it completely misses the point that a lot of GARs are initiated because the initial GA review was insufficient and so is in conflict with the core principles of Wikipedia that it is written by volunteers, and saw that steps 7 through 9 were not relevant to me as the OP. I really think the instructions should be run through, split up into sections on how to initiate a GAR / contribute to a GAR / close a GAR, and at least some of it rewritten to more accurately reflect the reality of GAR. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah ... it turns out I'm not the only one with a problem with the guidelines as they were rewritten last March. I don't have a specific problem with the requirement to notify the nominator and reviewer in the cases of recently reviewed pages, but I do wonder if the removal of the word "Please" turned it from a recommendation to a mandatory step in the process. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hijiri88. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Old-fashioned doughnut/1.
Message added 09:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have edited the article to address your concerns and have provided commentary at the discussion. A matter is that aspects of the topic you mention at the discussion have received very little to no coverage in reliable sources. My goal is to improve the article to convince you to withdraw the nomination. Please provide commentary at the discussion about any concerns you have at this point. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Respond

Hey how are you?. I withdraw my proposal. There is a point should be clear, since you misunderstanding my edit agian: here was my edit in the article religion in Singapore :A Pew Center study about religion and education around the world in 2016, found that between the various Christian communities, Singapore outranks other nations in terms of Christians who obtain a university degree in institutions of higher education (67%),(There is no mention here about Hindu and irreligious communities in Singapore), you misunderstanding this edit with my comment in comment in User talk:Lemongirl942. Thanks and have a nice day, and please assume good faith.--Jobas (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I withdraw my proposal. Good. There is a point should be clear, since you misunderstanding my edit agian I don't care if I was wrong on one of the minutiae of your Singapore edit, as I wasn't the one who reverted it, and there are about a half-dozen other reasons it was right to be reverted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Well It's important even if you don't care, when you claim in the ANI that I imply that Christians in Singapore are more educated/intelligent than non-Christian in that artilce, and you repeat it again and claiming "No, you added the claim that Christians are more likely to hold university degrees than adherents of other religions", when my edit wasn't stating in any place Christians in Singapore are more educated/intelligent than non-Christian, So the claims where false and I try to make it clear. Thanks.--Jobas (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Well It's important No, it isn't. Your edit was bad for a number of reasons. My having been wrong about one of them doesn't mean your edit should be restored. when you claim in the ANI that I imply that Christians in Singapore are more educated/intelligent than non-Christian in that artilce, Your sentence is a fragment. What happens when I claim that? I didn't propose you be TBANned, although I think that might be a good idea. The reason I'm not proposing that is because there aren't enough hours in my day for it to be worth the effort. The random, unrelated edits I checked were bad for a bunch of reasons, and the edits you made in that thread were even worse. You should just consider yourself lucky that I have better things to do with my time than worry about articles related to contemporary Christianity; I noticed you didn't post your withdrawal on the ANI thread yourself, so I actually did you a favour by doing it for you and thus discouraging more diligent editors from the proposing the BOOMERANG that I implied I would. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Well I didn't ask that my edit should be restored, User talk:Lemongirl942 did answer me in her talk page, and she gave satisfied answer, after that I moved with editing as you see. See here i did post my withdrawal on the ANI, Anyway have a nice day, still hope you will assume a good faith.--Jobas (talk)

I didn't ask that my edit should be restored You did; that was exactly what you posted on Lemongirl's page. And it's difficult to read the edit [accurately] compares between Singapore Christians and other Christian communities around the world as not saying "I didn't violate NOR; my edit was fine". See here i did post my withdrawal on the ANI I apologize for not noticing that. In my defense, you poorly formatted it in a manner that most commenters would not notice and would not discourage further !votes on your proposal. If you say this was a mistake I will believe you, but that doesn't change the fact that a mistake that causes significant disruption is not much better than a deliberate trick that causes significant disruption. still hope you will assume a good faith And your again accusing me of not assuming good faith when I have jumped through as many hoops as I have in an attempt to assume good faith is noted. Anyway have a nice day Goodbye. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Christian right/arianism

Hi, I read with interest your comment on this topic. The christian right article makes no such mentions on the use of arianism as term of disparagement, it would be helpful if you could workup some details & add it? Even if if you don't care to do this I'd be interested in some links to relevant material or reading your expanded thoughts on the matter here on your talkpage, I don't see how that would breach BLP. NB Endercase's edits seemed reasonable to me, but perhaps they are different when viewed through the peculiar prism of conservative USA christianity. rgds--79.71.0.201 (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, you might be right. I'd frankly like to see Endercase himself defend his edits in a rational manner, but that seems unlikely to happen. I only brought up Arianism because, on a brief scan of his entire edit history, it appeared to be his second favourite topic. I merely wanted to point out that he could still be engaged in disruptive POV-pushing on the part of rightist groups on that page as well.

Our Christian right#Views section is focused on hot-button political issues that the Christian right is interested in. Arianism is not really a political issue in contemporary America. What I meant is that there is a significant overlap (close to 100%?) between the Christian right and Christian fundamentalists who think that "Arians" and "Gnostics" are still a thing. As for the particular scholar I'm getting this from, Google "Ancient Aliens Debunked". The guest scholar in that documentary gave a series of lectures about a decade ago about The Da Vinci Code, in which he gave a great overview of the scholarly consensus on the issues regarding the book, but synthesized it with a brand of conservative Christianity that Jack Chick would likely have found appealing. "Buddhists are Gnostics" and all. Also lumping Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman together, and bizarrely stating that since Craig Evans was on the National Geographic Gospel of Judas team he must be a top-notch scholar, while dismissing Ehrman who was the one originally approached by National Geographic and who apparently suggested putting together the team. He also basically implied that since Arius lost among the bishops at Nicaea, his views must not have been very compelling. Even though for centuries after that the Arians were much more successful than the orthodox Christians at converting the German pagans. The conservative view espoused in that lecture is not one shared by the majority of secular scholars, it seems.

So I can totally see Arianism being a topic conservative Christians might want to fight over on Wikipedia. I don't know that that is what Endercase was doing. I just wanted to point out that the fact that he was editing those pages is not in and of itself evidence that he is HERE. If you say his edits seemed reasonable to you, I'll believe you.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

PS, I edit only infrequently and have no account/talkpage, but shall lookout for any response by you here. tks--79.71.0.201 (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Understood. I didn't do a WhoIs check on either you or the other IP. I saw two IPs showing up on the thread, one making a weird argument that seemed kind of tangential and might have been meant to "zing" me, and the other clearly trolling, at basically the same time. If you say you are a different person, I'll buy that. Apologies for the misunderstanding. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request archived

The Committee has closed and archived the Catflap08 and Hijiri88 clarification request. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not talk about me behind my back and lie about me. [6]. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about the generally toxic environment at WER and how it generally functions as an on-wiki venue for people to say the kind of things that belong on Wikipediocracy and Conservapedia. I have been on WER a lot longer than you, as I have already told you.[7] Your comment shows yet another complete failure to understand how AGF. Please drop the darn stick already. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I saw a link to MP's talk page and assumed you were talking about my recent comment.

But no, I will not stop talking about your failure to fulfill your mentoring responsibilities as long as you continue to shirk them. You took on the mentoring of Endercase as a condition to his not being blocked or TBANned, something virtually everyone except you was calling for. You cannot refuse to talk to him when other users express problems with his behaviour and use the fact that you are not an admin as an excuse. It's really frickin' obvious that Endercase will be more amenable to listen to third parties saying "don't say that to him" that people saying "don't say that to me", so you were the obvious person for me to go to. The only reason to go to an admin would be to request a block.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Can will let this drop too, by either striking everything or deleting it? --David Tornheim (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Gladly Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Cool. I struck the above, including the title. Never seen that before. If you want to make the below a new section, you could then delete all of the above, and then there is no warning on your talk page. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: If you look up, you'll see I've still got a block notice on my talk page. The block was because I said something bad about someone who got blocked, who I felt should have been blocked seven months earlier, and the user was still blocked and so was unable to "defend himself", which some admins thought was inappropriate while other admins egged me on. I promised not to do it again, and the block was removed. I hadn't removed the block notice while it was active, and once the block was repealed I didn't care anymore.

What I'm trying to say is that once an issue is dealt with, I don't mind what nonsense is left here and/or properly archived.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Needless to say, this whole experience has been very draining on me. I may or may not take a few days' wikibreak, but I probably won't be mentoring Endercase anymore. Regardless of how new and inexperienced he is, there was absolutely no excuse to repeatedly force someone to talk about a topic they are not interested in, and then pretend they are the ones bringing it up. For what it's worth, I think you should talk to Endercase about that. The way he treated me over the last few days would easily earn him an indef if I wanted to go that route, especially after Bish threatened him, he struck the initial offending comment, then kept doing it. As long as I stay away, I'm assuming I won't have to put up with any more of that, so I'm content; but I'm telling you now that your mentee will be blocked very soon if he doesn't improve.

That said, creating the mentoring subpage is super-easy, and at this point I'd rather do it myself than explain it, so leave that to me.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Me too. there was absolutely no excuse to repeatedly force someone to talk about a topic they are not interested in. I'm not certain I know which topic you mean. Are you talking about various claims that you are focused exclusively on right-wing media that I have seen being brought up? (If it was a different topic, please let me know what it is and where that discussion happened) I wasn't able to follow why he and I think another editor said you were doing that or what evidence was brought to the table for such strong claims. If you can tell me where that was first asserted against you (especially if there was no evidence backing it up), I can address it to him and possibly even other editor too. The reason I never said anything about that is I really just don't know what the evidence is and there was nearly endless back and forth on that. If we had more of a jury system in AN/I and people presenting evidence were separated from those judging the evidence, if I were on the jury and couldn't make sense of it, I would interrogate accuser and accused to find out the evidence and defenses if it were not clear. In this case you are the accused and you are saying that the accuser is more guilty that you are. (Do you see how my logic works in talking about accusers?)

I agree Endercase is on thin ice. I did notice that his improvements to the ad hominem diff are still very accusatory and he seemed to be saying he won't back off. That's not a good sign. Recalcitrant.

And last, I hope you don't think his poor behavior is a reflection on me. If he continues to behave poorly and gets blocked for it, that's fine by me. I just want to make sure he knows good and well what is coming and what is expected of him to work here, so he can't plead ignorance of the rules and cite WP:BOLD or WP:IGNORE as defenses, or claim it is unfair or that he wasn't warned first. I think he has really pushed it, and I think Bishonen was quite reasonable with him and right now I am tending more to let her words sink in that hounding him each time he continues. I'm not convinced he responds well to repeated criticism from the same people, but he does respond better to positive reinforcement. I think this new voice of an admin. should add teeth.

On a good note, I think he is incredibly intelligent, and his ability to bring up and quote WP:RS here at Talk:Argument_from_authority/New_introduction makes me believe he might be able to do some good work for the encyclopedia. I want to see more of that. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The topic I'm not interested in is right-wing news media, in general. I just don't care. Re-read all my comments on the ANI thread and check how many times I brought it up, compared to how focused that IP and that other user with an account were on it, and how much they were convinced I was focused on it. Admittedly, Ender was not the worst culprit, but he did back up the other users who kept bringing it up, and insisted (right down to the diff I linked above) that they were not wrong to say I was focused on it. I really just don't care. Check my ten most edited articles or my recent edits to the mainspace -- none of them have anything do with it. I just want to write about Chinese poets, but my having posted once in an RSN thread and then followed through wih an editor who expressed a weird opinion in said thread has caused me to have to spend all of my on-wiki time over the last three weeks defending myself against the claim that I'm a POV-pusher focused on attacking right-wing news media.

Anyway, I'm done with it now. I am no longer Ender's mentor. He hasn't done anything especially outrageous since Bishonen's warning. If he does, I'm afraid it'll have to be your job to clean it up. I'm just gonna tell you that you should look out for warning signs, since his not-entirely-egregious-but-not-especially-promising-either comments since Bish's warning are showing some indication of the same WP:IDHT he engaged in after the ANI thread closed with the same warning. Keep an eye on it, and bear in mind that at this point that bunny might have been given a few too many carrots already. Normally, new editors who misbehave and receive a warning, say they have understood the warning, and then misbehave in the same way again don't get a third chance. You really need to make sure he understands that this time, because Bish is one of the more forgiving admins (see for example her first involvement in the issue when I notified her of the IP troll on the ANI thread).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Good advice. I agree based on the evidence you provided that you are not primarily or exclusively focused on right-wing media. I never actually believed that by the way--but I do allow accusers the right to bring their evidence if they make a claim. This offer from me still stands: If you can tell me where that was first asserted against you (especially if there was no evidence backing it up), I can address it to him and possibly even other editor too. I'm not going to search for where it was said or look for diffs. If you give me diffs, then I can say something to them; otherwise, I'll assume the issue is either resolved or not that important to document in a way that someone can look into it. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I just saw this. So I will assume you are letting this issue drop. striking my offer in lieu of that. In the future, specific diffs and/or links to the specific area of dispute are key to getting me to look at anything that is going on. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

As I said, I'm done here, but I did notice this. Also, I previously did ask you to address it to "the other editor", to which you responded. I'm honestly not sure how you could have forgotten this already; I'm not criticizing you, mind you, as I just thought it was amusing. I'm not asking for anything more to be done (as you said, I'm letting it drop); I just don't want this to be left on the record with If you can tell me where that was first asserted against you (especially if there was no evidence backing it up) without me actually providing the diffs. It started with this comment on ANI and ramped up a notch on WER. No idea if those two were in any way connected, but in both cases your mentee commented rather inappropriately. (Note that I say "your mentee" rather than naming him because, as I said above, I want nothing more to do with this, and I know how he feels about being mentioned but not pinged. This advice/no-longer-formally-under-request-evidence is aimed solely and exclusively at User:David Tornheim.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the diffs. After looking at those and thinking about it further, I understand why you feel I let you down. I'm sorry for that. Mostly it comes down to a different approach on how to deal with editors who believe right wing sites are good RS. Since the heated disputes have died down, I will wait to discuss more fully why I chose not to get involved when you felt I should. Also, I have other pressing work to do.

I do think this issue will come up again soon from either these editors or new ones, and that will be a good time to talk to you about how we can work together to keep out bad RS and hopefully avoid the recent drama (especially between us who agree that those sites are not good RS).

My ultimate goal is to convert them into productive editors that are willing to accept begrudgingly that they can't get their preferred sites in the articles, and to understand that if they keep pushing on that, they will lose privileges. And even better, I am hoping that if they are forced to use good RS that they come to learn why we won't let those sites in. That may be grossly unrealistic and be an unnecessary time drain on me with limited results. I can't say I have had any luck convincing my friends who like Beitbart and Infowars that they are wrong. Time will tell on that. Happy editing.

Please feel free to archive this section. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks by Nishidani at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Y'know, Cyrus, that's one way to offend people: to sarcastically "Welcome" established editors. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Dammit, Curly. Please don't respond to nonsense like this on my talk page. I prefer to blank these "welcome" templates (coming, interestingly, from a new user to someone who's been here for twelve years), but once another user has made a good-faith response I can't really blank the section, and have to archive it. Anyway, Cyrus, if you want people to stop accusing you of being deliberately antagonistic, stop templating the regulars, and stop making accusations without evidence. You claimed on ANI that Nishidani was a disruptive user with an anti-IP bias, and when I corrected your (rather laughable) "mistake", you struck the "mistake", but kept requesting sanctions against Nish anyway. That's pretty clear battleground behaviour. Drop it, and go build the encyclopedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Not when others agree with me that there's a clear problem. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Those others are POV-pushers who don't like Nishidani. You are trolling a user whose talk page has 193 watchers, and not all of them are watching it for reasons on the up-and-up. None of the users who claim to agree with you are ANI regulars acting in good faith, as I explained here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to leave that for an admin to decide. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Leave me alone, and stay off my talk page. I don't know if you are here to build an encyclopedia, but you're obviously not on ANI for that purpose. You either are trolling me and Nishidani, or you have an incredibly poor understanding of our policies. I am busy in real life at the moment and haven't been able to do much work on articles for the last two weeks or so, and have mostly been watching the drahma boards and chiming in when I think it's worth the (relatively limited, compared to researching classical Chinese poetry) effort. But I find it unlikely that you have the same excuse (if you had been busy in real life for the last two weeks, you wouldn't have started editing three weeks ago). So go build articles. You have a poor understanding of our conduct policies, but maybe you can write decent articles. I don't even really care. Just stay away from me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

You've been here 12 years, Hijiri? Jesus, did you even have pubes when you started editing? Cyrus has an entertaining talk page history, I notice ... Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Now you're going to get a warning for offensive language, lol! Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

It's kinda funny that I had an edit conflict with you saying that and an edit in which I again used the word "shitty". Just in case any one is watching: "shitty" here describes my edits from when I was a child; I am being self-deprecating; the fact that there are probably users claiming to be adults still making edits similar to mine is irrelevant; I am not using "offensive language" to describe anyone else. (笑) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Whoa!—we can cuss around here without the language police shitting a load of blocks on us, as long as it's directed at ourselves? So if I say, like, "I have an awfully shitty opinion of you, Hijiri."—it's all legit, because it's my opinion I'm calling shitty? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was sixteen when I started editing. When I created an account I was going on seventeen. I made some pretty shitty edits, as did virtually everyone who was editing back then. I don't know if policy has changed all that much, but certainly my understanding of it has, and the overall quality of the encyclopedia('s highly visible articles' sourcing) has skyrocketed. But my memory of how shitty an editor I was back then has certainly coloured my attitude about letting teenagers edit Wikipedia (or at least letting them run the show). That, plus the fact that around the time I initially stopped editing I was in my first year of college, and I had to take an obligatory class (with credits!) on "academic writing", because apparently in years before mine a bunch of people who had dropped out or had had to repeat classes had complained that no one told them how to write. My faith in 99% of humanity's ability to write in a manner appropriate to an encyclopedia has plummeted, ironically alongside Wikipedia actually getting better than it used to be. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Fucking Christ, but if this horseshit doesn't seal Cyrus's fate ... Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Super Fishy AN/I

I believe they are socks of either Bonadea or Nsmutte. Widr had to throw on SEMI for 9 hours today, and the page has been protected off and on nearly every other day for the past 2 weeks. It's annoying me as well. I hope the boffins cook up a range block or something; perhaps an abuse filter which allows IPs yet disallows un-autoconfirmed accounts. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 01:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Archieving a non-closed discussion at WP:ANI

The thread "WP:HOUND" of WP:ANI has been (apparently disruptively) archived. As an active editor in this discussion, you may want to restore it. D.Lazard (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Huh. I actually noticed the thread was gone on ANI and proactively unarchived before I saw this notification on my talk page. That's disturbing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	We've never interacted on here, but I've been keeping up with that discussion on WP:ANI, where editors hiding behind IP addresses have been giving you serious flack. That is certainly not right and needs to stop! Here is a star for you! Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: Thank you!

Actually, I'm fairly used to bullshit like that, hence why I have a particular admin who I know is normally willing to deal with it. The ironic thing is, the editors were clearly familiar with my editing history, and yet appeared to be accusing me of having some kind of "anti-IP bias", which is pretty ridiculous in light of this, as well as the fact that I had been editing as an IP in that very thread due to technical difficulties. And the fact that they thought Floquenbeam (talk · contribs) (courtesy ping) -- who two years ago blocked me for a "harassing" message I left to someone requesting they stop hounding me (something I really wish I had asked ArbCom to formally recognize when I had the chance, since later, after they posted their final decision, it became really obvious that they would have been more amenable to that than I had thought), more recently suggested to another admin that a good solution to my reporting hounding by someone else (who I actually suspect might have actually been related to the IPs) would be to block both of us for a month, and even in their comment the other day made a somewhat harsh criticism of my recent involvement in several ANI threads (with which I think a plurality of other editors would likely disagree) -- was in some way "biased" in my favour was also pretty funny.

Anyway, thank you again! I'm going to steer clear of ANI for a while. Hopefully there won't be any more incidents like that.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Reception description at Iron Fist (TV series)

Hi, Hijiri88. Just letting you know that I have again challenged the critical reception description in the lead of Iron Fist (TV series), including by taking the issue to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. So if you would like to weigh in, please do.

And for anyone seeing me comment here, my alerting Hijiri88 is in compliance with WP:Canvass. Since I'm not sure if Hijiri88 is watching the article, although I am sure that the others are, I have alerted him. 72.213.205.141 (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive edits on my talk page

This is your final warning. STOP doing disruptive edits on my talk page. I can see that you have been warned before, so stop accusing me for false claims, it's harassment. - AffeL (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

What? What disruptive edits? No one has "warned" me against placing warnings on editors' pages when they violate our vandalism policy by throwing around vandalism accusations willy-nilly, as you have been doing.

Pinging User:Widr again here since I worry they will be confused having been pinged in a message that got blanked. Widr, please read this and click through the links. Note that two of them are by me, one issuing a warning to AffeL, the other compiling a list of edits in which AffeL made bad vandalism claims. If you click the diffs inside those diffs you will see the edits to which I am referring and how it simply isn't true that I had to make stuff up as AffeL claims.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

You have been warned and blocked not that long ago and the person I accused of doing vandalism was doing vandal, for that reason he or she got blocked. The person was removing sourced content on wikipedia and was not willing to discuss on the talk page. He was warned by myself and other users for 3RR and constantly disrupting the article. Is that not the definition of vandal? Then what is? - AffeL (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@AffeL: My last block was well over a year ago, and my last warning about being blocked (excluding bad-faith haranguing from non-admins who were themselves quickly blocked) was before that. And no, the person you accused of vandalism (today) was blocked for "disruptive editing", something I don't disagree they were engaged in. Violating 3RR is not the same as vandalism, nor is "removing sourced content" (when better sources disagree with the content), nor is manually inputting some piece of data because the template screws it up, nor is ... well, any of the other stuff listed in the diffs I cited. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri, don't play with AffeL. You're treating them as if they're acting in good faith. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: With all due respect, last time I "made a very big mistake" and took your (off-wiki) advice not to engage in someone harassing me because they were acting in bad faith, it didn't work out well. Your advice here is perhaps a little more helpful, in that I am under no obligation to waste my time dealing with AffeL when I could just walk away from the GOT articles and pretend that our GA and FA lists are not getting flooded with unsourced garbage, but still... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

By "don't play with AffeL", I didn't mean "disengage"—I meant stop talking to him like he's acting in good faith, when he obviously isn't. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

And you are? Are you a friend of his that is gonna pile against me? Explain what I did wrong in this situation? - AffeL (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@AffeL: AffeL, you are making it painfully obvious that you didn't read the warnings I left on your talk page, as I explicitly named (and pinged) Curly Turkey. He pointed out to me on his talk page that you had made a bogus vandalism accusation against him. I did a bit more snooping and found you had done the same thing at least 16 times in the last six months (I only checked your edit summaries, so I say "at least"). That is why I left that second warning on your page last night. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I call out people who are being disruptive on wikipedia. So could you please explain how that is wrong in any way? - AffeL (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

There's a big difference between being "disruptive" and engaging in "vandalism". Vandalism is, by definition, deliberately disrupting the encyclopedia solely for the sake of disrupting it. Users who actively engage in bona fide vandalism generally get blocked indefinitely, as vandalism is by definition deliberate. (Technically, even pranks and jokes are not "vandalism" if they are made in good faith and limited to one day a year.)

POV-editing and removal of material that one says is incorrect is, by definition, not vandalism. The user you reported on AIV made it clear in his/her edit summaries that they believed the "£2 million" thing to be an incorrect rumour, and frankly, given the conflicting news reports and the fact that the budget for the show is USD, it looks it looks like they were right. Edit-warring is disruptive, but it is not in itself vandalism (and Softlavender told you last year that WP:ANEW, not AIV, is the place to report edit-warring).

And then there are the people who, like Curly Turkey, engage in constructive editing that you don't understand and/or don't agree with, and don't edit-war or otherwise violate any of our policies -- don't ever accuse these users of "vandalism" again.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

This is what I'm saying, Hijiri—you don't seriously think AffeL's saying "I call out people who are being disruptive" with a straight face, are you? Come on, you've seen his comments on Dinklage's talk page. This isn't a "difference of opinion" we're dealing with—or even an honest misunderstanding. He's fucking with people. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: (This is partly in response to your comment further up that you posted two minutes earlier.) Meh. The way I see it, the longer we treat AffeL as though he is acting in good faith and the more individual warnings we give him (each time linking to all previous warning and preferably a few of the offending edits as well) the smoother things will go if/when we finally report him for his repeated policy violations. You know how difficult it can be to get admins to listen sometimes -- if you or I could just say Hey, I have literally issued the guy a dozen warnings<DIFFS> and he blanked all of them<DIFFS> without reading them. See for example where I specifically named and pinged one of his victims,<DIFF> then when said victim showed up he was confused as to who they were.<DIFF> He was indef-blocked a few years ago for his disruptive behaviour, then after a year he was given a WP:STANDARDOFFER and some WP:ROPE. But he doesn't seem to be learning. (His article edits are crap too -- cf. BLP-violations,<DIFFS> OR,<DIFFS> edit-warring,<DIFFS> and yet more repeated warnings about each of these<DIFFS> that were blanked before being read.<DIFFS> it would be about the shortest discussion ever. Also, please remember that two years ago (actually as little as four months ago) I was a good-faith editor with someone gunning to drive me off the project -- I don't have any sympathy for the "I want this guy banned"-type crowd, and very much want to avoid seeming like I am one of them. Best keep giving more and more ROPE for the time being, I say. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I can see now that I have used the word wrong, next time I will use the word "disruptive" instead. Also I have the right to blank my own talk page, I have been told this by an admin user. - AffeL (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

You do have the right to blank your user page, but gaming that right to get the last word in discussions is generally seen as inapropriate, and you don't have the right to ignore warnings as you did with my first two warnings about "vandalism". Your right to blank your talk page assumes you have already read the messages you are blanking, but your above not knowing who Curly Turkey was is a clear indication that you had not read the messages you blanked.

And while calling edits like CT's "vandalism" is a clear violation of the vandalism policy, you must understand that even calling such edits "disruptive" is not a good idea unless you fully understand what they are doing and the policy behind them. The same goes for my recent edits to the Kit Harrington and Game of Thrones articles. You should also familiarize yourself with WP:3RR. You are allowed revert bona fide vandalism as much as you want, but not "disruptive" edits; if someone is being disruptive by edit-warring, your responding edit-warring back is just as disruptive.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Me, again

I like to take back what I said and apologize for misjudging you and thinking you where a troll and all, did not mean to cause offense, won't do it again. So this would be a good time as any to put this mess behind us. - AffeL (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, okay. I'm not going to hold a grudge against you for your earlier attacks on me. This doesn't change the problem with your article editing (the dodgy sourcing and the edit-warring), but we can work on that later. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you commented on

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you commented on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Star Wars Holiday Special. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. SummerPhD^v2.0 01:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@SummerPhDv2.0: Please do not re-add unsourced material that has been challenged. You need to find a reliable source. I COMMENTed out an unsourced and highly dubious claim, and gave my rationale within the comment. This is generally not seen as inappropriate, and in many cases is preferable to simply blanking the content. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

If another editor wishes to respond to your comment and you answer that and a discussion develops you might eventually resolve the issue. That can't reasonably happen in the article. This is what the talk page is for. Further, once the issue is resolved, the discussion (or lack of discussion) will be preserved on the talk page, rather than disappearing into the black hole of an ever-growing edit history.

An unsourced "highly dubious claim" is exactly the kind of material that should be removed, not commented out. I'd suggest you do exactly that. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello

Greetings from another fellow Wikipedian that's also in Kansai. Hope everything is well. Alex Shih^Talk 17:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Message

System said you sent me an email but it never came through. Glitchy system me thinks. Legacypac (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Huh. Weird. I'll try resending it momentarily. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Got it. Spot on. Legacypac (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Question regarding your claim about ANI notifications

This section was originally titled ANI notification. I changed it because I don't like having sections on my talk page with that title, for obvious reasons. I'm not sure if I'm technically violating TPO by writing the new section title in the persona Yintan, so I'm clarifying that this is not impersonation by spotlighting it in this manner. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

"The requirement to notify editors that they are being discussed on ANI is based on the assumption that you are asking for said editors to be blocked (or banned)", you wrote on Pyxis Solitary's Talk. Is it? That's news to me. Where does it say so? I always thought it was just a common courtesy thing. Regards, Yintan  19:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Yintan: ANI was originally meant for requesting that editors be blocked (that's even how it's still named on some foreign language versions of Wikipedia, such as ja.wiki). The requirement to notify someone that you are discussing them on ANI is meant to allow them to defend themselves. Notifying every random user whose comments are linked to in an off-handed way just to demonstrate that the one doing the linking has a valid reason for believing that what they are saying is accurate is not a requirement, and an OP deliberately inviting comments from several editors whom some random third-party commenter might not want to deal with, while refraining from contacting anyone else vaguely alluded to by said commenter, is canvassing. I went into considerably more detail on Pyxis's talk page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

In short, it's not written anywhere. It's your interpretation. Okay, thanks. Yintan  23:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Yintan: Umm... no? It's really difficult to interpret When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. the way Pyxis did. For one, I didn't start a discussion of anyone -- I linked to a diff as the quickest possible way to back up my claim that someone has been going around emailing people with whom I have brief spats on ANI. It wasn't even about the user Pyxis "notified", but at the unnamed user who emailed them. (To be fair, though, I guess it's possible that there is a sinister cabal of comic books- and sci-fi-focused editors who are all in off-wiki contact with each other about me and other editors they don't like, and so ATW was actually referring to something he had seen months or years earlier as a member of this sinister cabal rather than an email that had been sent to him almost immediately after he engaged in a spat with me on ANI in May. I guess.)

And it's really unclear what you want from me -- I tried to explain why (1) I think ANI is traditionally for requesting blocks of people (this opinion is not unique to me -- I saw it expressed by an admin a couple of weeks back, but I forget who it was; I'll try to dig it up if this is what you want), (2) I think notifications are meant to allow editors to defend themselves against such block requests, and (3) I think notifications are not required for editors who are not being discussed on ANI, and whose comments were only linked for an entirely peripheral purpose.

If you could clarify exactly which "interpretation" you want backing for, I would be happy to oblige, but I think virtually every experienced Wikipedian would agree that I was under no obligation to notify ATW that I linked his diff in my comment on an ANI thread and that Pyxis was wrong to invite a response from him but not any of the other editors vaguely alluded to in my comments, so the precise reason why either of these is the case is kind of immaterial. I have more talk page stalkers (most, I believe, Wikipedians in good standing) than one current Arb (and almost as many as three or four others), so if any of the above three opinions were highly controversial I am sure someone would tell me about it.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

No need for further clarification, it's not that important to me, I just wondered about your original blocked/banned argument. It sounded as if that was a Wikipedia policy, so that's why I asked. I don't agree with your view because I think that even an editor whose lines are only quoted in passing should be notified. One, as a courtesy, and two, it wouldn't be the first time somebody quotes an editor out of context, or cherry picks a quote, to make a different point (for example). The orginal editor should know that, I think. Anyway, our opinions differ. No problem. Yintan  06:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

earlier

Hiraji, it was the OP I might have blocked, not you. DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@DGG: Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but can't admins block and unblock themselves, making the action of blocking an admin purely symbolic? As I understand, admins can be desysopped by formal decision of the Arbitration Committee, but two Arbs can't do that, so at best it would have essentially been a unilateral action by either you or Drmies as a single admin with one other admin unilaterally approving of it.

Anyway, as long as that user we were discussing has more admin eyes on her than she did before, we're pretty much done here. Assuming you don't drop a bombshell about how I'm technically wrong in either of the above outsider assumptions about admin powers.

(P.S.: I'm 99% sure it's just a misprint and you are not doing it to make fun of my username, but my username is "Hijiri". "Hijiri" means "saint" or "god" in the context I use it, while "Hiraji" I'm pretty sure is meaningless but it kinda looks like something else, which in turn is similar to a very immature pun someone made a few years back. And I'm still trying to figure out why one of the other users I asked Drmies to look into has been consistently spelling my name "hiriji", so there's also that.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not symbolic. Any admin who unblocks themselves is not likely to remain an admin much longer. see #NEVERUNBLOCK. My typing & spelling--are so bad it embarrasses me. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to White Walker: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. When you told Ggbmbr to ignore what TAnthony said, TAnthony was only using a template similar to what I am currently using. Please read up on the templates before calling out editors for using them. PUNKMINKIS (TALKYTALK) 11:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Punkminkis: What? "the recent revert [I] made to White Walker"? Seriously? I haven't edited that article in ten months!

In all seriousness, you are abusing a talk page template without regard for the actual content of the message you are sending; the same was true of TAnthony when he made this edit. He was explicitly backing up a couple of equally inappropriate edit summaries made by AffeL when he reverted the edit here and here. Both of them were wrong.

The content in question was inappropriate for Wikipedia, regardless of whether it could be sourced. I provided a detailed analysis of the problem in my polite, carefully reasoned, and original message to the user in question. I am not sure if you have actually read and understood that message, but it's clear that's the one you are "warning" me about. Put simply, "Wight Walker" is a misspelling that almost certainly exists and has been used in a number of "reliable sources"; but unless we have third-party reliable sources specifically discussing the misspelling (not the reliable sources either user requested, mind you), it has no place on Wikipedia.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Dude, the Twinkle template I used is a polite way of saying "prove it" without having to write a detailed/lengthy explanation. There is no way of knowing what an editor may be thinking or if they plan to persist with "bad" edits. Was he misspelling "white", or confused about wights? Don't know, doesn't matter. Most times these one-shot editors move on to the next thing. Now obviously as he kept restoring the edit we should probably have been more specific, so thanks for explaining the issue on his talk page. But from his own edit summaries and persistence, it didn't seem like Ggbmbr was getting it anyway.— TAnthony^Talk 14:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@TAnthony: You're missing the point. We don't want the user to "prove it". They almost certainly can, but that would only make the problem worse. And no, they were not simply misspelling "white". That's an absolutely ridiculous suggestion. My fifth-grade students in Japan know "white" and they know less than 100 words of English; "wight" on the other hand is a super-obscure word. There is like a 1/8,000,000 chance that it could just be a coincidental misspelling of a word to look like an unrelated word that happens to occur close by in this particular context. If you think Ggbmbr is a vandal/troll, that's fine in theory; I thought that myself, which is why I reported them on AIV. But advising them to find sources that would only make their edits worse is not helpful. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

My point is, you probably wasted your time thinking about this random editor's intent, explaining to him why you think his addition was incorrect, writing up a vandalism report, revoking it with a detailed explanation, etc. I prefer to waste my time on mindless Wikignome tasks LOL. We can assume he was confusing wights with the Walkers or whatever, but challenging him to provide a source for his addition has essentially the same effect because he presumably can't do it. And BTW, he only had 2 edits, which (warnings or not) does not warrant being actually reported as a vandal.— TAnthony^Talk 15:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

If you look at my contribs, you'll see that I tried reporting them on AIV. If I hadn't thought about their motivations, I would have been in violation of AGF, and probably would have been TROUTed for a bogus AIV report. The main reason my AIV report was bogus, I realized, was that your comment on their talk page had not been a vandalism warning when it really should have been. There is nothing in the AIV guidelines about the number of edits, but there is a requirement to issue a warning first. The only way I could know the user had not been warned was by reading your notification to them, and when I did so I noticed you made the same bad request that AffeL had twice. Most random, non-vandal, new editors would probably respond to that request by hunting down a source like this one, which you or AffeL might think solves the problem because the spelling appears in a "reliable source" and so could be noted in the article, but would not help improve the article because it's just a frickin' misprint. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The editor created a username and this was obviously not real vandalism, and we do not do AIV reports after giving only a single, first-level warning. And I think you know that there is no way AffeL or myself would have kept "Wight Walker" in the article, citation or not.— TAnthony^Talk 22:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Monsters and Critics

Hi, I saw your tag on the article, and am wondering what if anything to do about it. The article already mentions the translation; neither of the two (very good and detailed) articles cited in the mention say anything that would cause me to wish to revise the article; I wonder if there are sources you have in mind that specifically must be mentioned? Given that the translation does not impinge directly on the essay, I'm far from sure why you thought the tag necessary, but am happy to hear what you think. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: My understanding (based mostly on viewing "JRR Tolkien's Beowulf with Dr. Tom Shippey" lectures 1 and 3 on YouTube) was that, in the 1936 lecture, Tolkien was mostly interested in "reclaiming" the poem from philological and historical critics who used the poem for historical and linguistic data, and treating it more as a literary work, and that this has led to Tolkien having a reputation as someone who was only interested in treating the poem as literature and didn't appreciate the work of the philological critic, but that this situation has been reevaluated since the 2014 publication of Tolkien's own translation and commentary, with folks like Shippey coming to see it as Tolkien arguing against a particular status quo among scholars in the 1930s and speculating that if Tolkien were writing today he would have taken the polar opposite position. The only reference our article currently makes of this is in its very last sentence, Tolkien's own translation of Beowulf, published posthumously in 2014 as Beowulf: A Translation and Commentary, has been linked to the essay. It's entirely possible that I am misinterpreting Shippey and reading something into his lectures that he didn't actually say (I've seen people on Wikipedia make worse mistakes with sources outside their own field of expertise), but that's just how I read it. If you could watch the lectures and tell me how I'm getting it wrong, I would be happy to reconsider. That said, I think your evaluation of the two sources cited for the above-quoted sentence is somewhat off: Garth couldn't possibly be "very good and detailed" as he hadn't read the as-yet unpublished translation and commentary, and Acocella (a staff writer at The New Yorker and not a scholar of either of either Tolkien or Beowulf) may have read it, but was still writing much too early to have assessed how Tolkien scholarship had been affected by the publication. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, not very keen on citing YouTube (close to forbidden, actually, I think a bot removes such links), but Shippey is a respected (if partial and controversial) Tolkien critic, and I'll see if I can find some recent writings of his on the matter. One thing I can say immediately - it's not news that Tolkien was arguing against the status quo among critics, nor that he was passionate about philology. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, not very keen on citing YouTube (close to forbidden, actually, I think a bot removes such links) The parenthetical bit is mistaken. I added a YouTube link to the lead of our Saint Peter article four or five years ago, and it's still there. COPYVIO links, including bootleg YouTube uploads, are WP:ELNEVER, but that has nothing to do with the actual contents meeting WP:RS or not. As far as I know, the videos I linked above are not bootleg uploads (there are definitely legit copies of the lectures on YouTube, but I copied those links from the Google search results because I didn't want to open the videos and use data). YouTube (actual "online video") is more of a "medium" a "publisher" or a "source". The lecturer in this case is, as you said, a respected critic, and the YouTube channel (the "publisher", if you like is ... a university, I think, but again I don't want to click the links while outside, and if not that then some authority third party that invited the respected critic to give his lectures.

As for Shippey being partial and controversial -- that's kinda the whole point. Shippey is a philologist and has been arguing against the very powerful "literaricizing" status quo of the post-Tolkien era, and in his opinion Tolkien would probably do the same if he were writing today, pointing out that, in private, Tolkien engaged in the same kind of "historicizing" and "philologizing" he criticized in his famous lecture. Shippey seems to be saying (again, correct me if I am wrong) that Tolkien was more interested in balancing the scales than in positioning himself on one side or the other.

(On a much less serious note, you won't convince me that Seamus Heaney, who gets his own subsection in the article, wasn't at least as partial and controversial as Shippey! I read Heaney's translation when I was 15 or 16, and I think I looked into it at the time, but I have not been able to establish whether Heaney was doing the Ezra Pound thing and collating various previous translations into languages he could read, or if he actually translated the Anglo-Saxon text -- our article on him doesn't mention either "Old English" or "Anglo-Saxon", meaning the language, once.)

And I think you misinterpreted me: I wasn't saying that it was news that he was arguing against the status quo among critics, just that the new (2014) publication -- and, if we're being honest, Finn and Hengest: The Fragment and the Episode, but no one talks about that -- is evidence that he was arguing against the status quo specifically because it was the status quo, rather than because he preferred one side over the other. (Note that I haven't actually read Tolkien 2014 yet, and if I have read "Monsters" it was long enough ago that I don't remember it, so I'm completely reliant on Shippey for this information, which is why I would welcome evidence that I am misreading things.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

No worries, I'll do what I can. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

About Goguryeo

おっしゃった通り英語上手くないんで、日本語でもいいっすか？英語版のウィキペディアでも誰でも編集出来ると思ったんですけど、韓国では高麗を帝国ってよく呼ぶんですよ。本のソースとか付けたら編集ができますかね？そして写真は僕が博物館で撮ったものなんでちょっと消さないでほしいっすね。Richeaglenoble (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)