Archives

1

2

Hi! It seems that we have similar interests (Japanese art/history). Perhaps we could work together on an article someday or share resources or something (some of the stuff I have access to I listed here). Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you need anything of it or if I can be of any other help with an article. I also have access to questia, credo references and highbeam. BTW, I recently wrote Fujiwara no Hirotsugu Rebellion which I hope to nominate at WP:GAN at some point. It would be good if somebody who knows about the topic could have a second look at it. Also I did not include any Japanese sources such as those listed on top of User:Bamse/Fujiwara_no_Hirotsugu_Rebellion (after "RS:"). If you have the time to take a look or even to expand the article with info from the Japanese sources that would be great, if not that's fine as well. No worries. bamse (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, We had a discussion a little while ago on the talk page of the Hobbit AUJ. I don't suppose it matters terribly much any more, as the discussion seems to have moved on and much of the introductory section of that Article seems to have settled down. Nevertheless, I thought you might be interested in reading this article on Christopher Tolkien's attitude towards the use of his father's works for the big screen, and why he refuses to license those works not sold in 1969. Also, this incredibly rare interview with Christopher himself sheds a little more light on the matter. I hope you had a pleasant New Year. Wishing you all the very best for 2013. Michael --Mja58 (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elvenscout, I thought that it was quite clear that there was an interaction ban between you and Tristan noir. You violated that ban by a. making this edit that violates letter and spirit of the ban; and b. making this edit to an article where Tristan was the last editor. Given the ban, you (both of you) should be extra careful and monitor the history of an article you wish to work on, especially since both of you work in the same area. Please consider this a warning: I will have to block you next time you violate the ban, and so can any other admin. If it turns out that Tristan is also violating the ban, you can let me know on my talk page, which is a free zone, so to speak, where both of you may speak your mind--but not to each other. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I had forgotten that Tristan Noir had edited that page. But it seems he hasn't made a single edit to Wikipedia in well over a month, except to inform you that I "violated" this "ban". I didn't interact with him, all I did was edit a page that he happened to have edited a significant amount of time ago -- I don't see how this violates an interaction ban, and your warning to me effectively means that Tristan Noir "owns" every article he has ever edited. I have edited a few articles since he stopped editing that he had previously been involved in, including renga and haiga, but why was this a problem? I didn't remove anything he had added to any of these articles? It seems that he is not interested in editing Wikipedia, and just watched a sleeper bomb he had laid in an article I was interested in, so that the next time I edited it he could "tell on me". elvenscout742 (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elvenscout, I can't judge Tristan's intent, nor do I wish to. If they haven't edited that many pages, good for you. On the bright side, that means that the rest of Wikipedia, most of our 4 million+ pages are there for you to edit, and that you "own" every article you ever edited. The interaction ban states you all will not be editing articles the other has worked on, and that's all there is to it, I'm afraid. I'm not going to go through your contributions to see where you intersect, but Tristan's complaint was valid given the ban, esp. since that edit in your user space is made in a section where you're ragging on him. I could delete that entire page, and I do wonder why, given your interaction ban, you're preparing something where you're making some serious accusations. Seriously, the way out is to drop this thing like a hot potato. If you like you may file a thread at WP:AN to have the interaction ban modified, but I give you little chance that such a proposal will be successful, a month after the first ban was enacted. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the page you are referring to had absolutely nothing to do with the user in question. One other user, who has been harassing me on numerous articles, went through my edit history and found that I had a prior dispute, and, assuming that I was in the wrong, posted a notice about me in his user space. I see now that he has deleted that page, so my page is also redundant. However, I was merely adding clarification to a completely separate issue. I really don't see how responding to a user who has gone through my entire edit history and rooted out every negative interaction I have had with another user qualifies as violating an interaction ban with that other user. Plus, it should be pointed out that I volunteered to have the "interaction ban" imposed on myself with a particular aim in mind. The user made the same action. And while I have not interacted with the user at all, that user has apparently been monitoring all of my edits and when I did something that might remotely be considered a violation immediately went onto your talk page and posted about me. Who was really violating the interaction ban here?? elvenscout742 (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, here's the deal: I just noticed that the user in question has been blocked indefinitely for making what looked like a personal threat, so my response page is no longer necessary. However, the parts pertaining to my dispute with that user are still relevant, because if he gets unblocked, in the future, he may continue making accusations against me and harassing me across those various articles. Therefore, I will delete the section of my page relating to the user I am not supposed to be interacting with, and I would like to request that you expunge the past versions of the page up to the edit I am about to make. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete up to and including this edit. I also just now noticed that since the the user in question had his own page of accusations against me deleted, it might appear that I had posted two separate remarks about the user I am not interacting with. In reality, both were quotes, and my prose was only a short response. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elvenscout, one thread on one talk page is enough. I know that that user page was not primarily about Tristan, but that's beside the point: the point is you are not to discuss them. Simple. The rest is just not that interesting to anyone but you and maybe the other parties; if there is something wrong, it needs to be handled through the appropriate channels but it has nothing to do with your ban. That you proposed it, I remember it well and that's great, but you should have realized that it came with restrictions, and you ran into one of those restrictions now. As for the delete request, I have no intention of deleting the previous versions etc; you removed the offending text, great. Time to move on. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did just see the talk page of that "other editor": I had been looking over their edits and that is a righteous block, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I just checked Wikipedia:Interaction ban, and in fact it specifically states that myself and the user in question are allowed make edits to the same articles as long as we do not interact. I never agreed to simply give up all rights to ever edit an article to which the user had made edits (and certainly not if those edits were made well over a month earlier). Just because he/she was "the last editor" is insignificant -- my edits had no impact on his/her edits, and there was no direct interaction, at least until that user contacted an administrator about me. I never violated any interaction ban, and I take back whatever prior admission I may have made to doing so. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that interested in what IBAN says. Please explain to me what is not clear about this: "No talking on each others' talk pages, no commenting on each other anywhere, no editing an article that the other party has been working on, et cetera." (I cite from Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, where the conclusion of the ANI thread is cited.) Now, your edits to Travelers of a Hundred Ages and The Great Mirror have something in common: they follow edits by Tristan noir, and you have never edited these article before. It is not much of a stretch to call that hounding; it certainly seems clear that your revelation about WP:IBAN has led you to believe that you are free to follow Tristan around. You are not. That you may not like know what you agreed to earlier is immaterial, though you are free to ask at WP:AN to get it scrapped or modified--24 hours from now at the earliest.

Elvenscout, you have in fact violated the letter and the spirit of the ban. You should have known better. You could have asked me. You could have picked a million other articles to edit. I'm going to block you for violating the ban, especially since some of those edits are recent and I have no reason to think there won't be more of them. Drmies (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The letter and the spirit of the ban was that we not interact with each other. I (unknowingly) edited one article that that user had not touched in almost two months, after that user had been almost completely inactive for the same amount of time. That user was apparently monitoring my edits to see when I would "violate the ban" by editing the page, but nowhere was it ever said that I was not allowed do so. That user was thus violating the spirit of the ban by following me, and attempting to "get me in trouble" by "telling on me". The only interaction between myself and that user was instigated by that user, therefore it is completely unfair that I should take the fall here.

I admit that in the past day or so I have edited a couple more pages that that user has edited: but so what? There was no interaction, and I had in fact just recently edited related articles on rekishi monogatari, Heian literature and so on, which that user had never touched.

elvenscout742 (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed not long after getting blocked that someone marked this classical Japanese text that was discussed by Keene and numerous others, and is part of a series with the other Kagamis, as potentially not meeting WP:N! This is why Wikipedia can't afford to block me... :P elvenscout742 (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that Drmies above appeared to have taken this comment as an "essay" listing my complaints and inappropriately using emoticons. The first sentence was meant as a reminder to myself to fix that particular article as soon as I get unblocked. The second sentence was a silly joke. The latter may or me not be relevant to Wikipedia (I notice, though, that the user who nominated Man for deletion has never been blocked); the former, though, cannot possibly be taken as unacceptable. I do thank Drmies for the advice provided in the latter part of his above comment, though. Regards. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elvenscout, I see you have taken this to AN where things appear to be going your way, with a lot more involvement than at the original ANI thread (and that was the problem, in my opinion). Please note that I never doubted your good faith, and if you get your way in the end I'll (try to) be the first to congratulate you. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know you didn't [doubt my good faith]. Thank you for your good faith. Honestly, I think the reason for the lack of involvement last time was partly that user's fault for overloading the discussion with misrepresentations, but mostly my fault for not knowing how to use diffs. I re-read it last night, and, honestly, I think I've got a lot better at that than I was two months ago. Thank you so much for your advice, and happy editing! elvenscout742 (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was indeed rather unusual and suspicious that such an important historical text would be nominated for deletion. As you know, it may be a "classical text", but it was an unofficial text, and perhaps written as a reaction to Okagami--the first in the so-caled 'mirror series'--presenting a more superfluous version of life at the court.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Elvenscout742. Please see a discussion at WP:RM/TR as to how these ronin-related titles should redirect. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Current practice is what Mysterious Island said to do, so I undid your original move. If you still favor that move I suggest opening a formal move request. The debate from WP:RM/TR has been moved to Talk:The 47 Ronin#Material copied from the technical move request. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elvenscout, I've started an ANI report on the sock problem. For the time being, you need to cool it with the reverts at Tales of Moonlight and Rain, you don't want to be caught up in the edit warring problem.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. elvenscout742 (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for archiving your Talk, it loads properly now - there must have been something triggering my erratic filter. Sorry to see you dealing with various socks. But Cúchullain's advice to keep cool is sound (his advice usually is). One way of relaxing would be to move around a bit more and look at MOS, AfDs, RMs, outside area of personal expertise. Many of the same problems you've noticed hitting Japanese topics are actually sub-problems of wider editing issues. Anyway, the main reason for this message is I was quite surprised to see a full clean DVD cover has been accepted into http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ed/Uzak.jpg (it would not be accepted at Commons I think). Maybe this provides a model of improving images on Japan film articles too (and Vietnamese ones if I can get around to it). Best regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Also see WP:EGG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: as per this close at AN, you are not subject to a topic ban or an interaction ban related to User:Tristan noir. That said, take great care: poking the bear or "grave-dancing" will not be tolerated (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know, and that is why I haven't posted anything substantial or got involved in the last week or so. But Tristan noir won't stop harassing/undermining me until something is done, and if the discussion closes before that gets resolved then I'm only going to wind up having to post the same thing a FIFTH time in another few weeks. elvenscout742 (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just noticed that you did resolve it. Thank you very much. elvenscout742 (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you online? Would you mind doing me a favour paste the missing piece of bot code and add "WikiProject Writing systems". My firewall is playing up. Thanks! In ictu oculi (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hijiri88. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel#Japanese-Jewish_Common_Ancestor_Theory.
Message added 07:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already posted on the relevant noticeboard here but was this the right way to go? elvenscout742 (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly be very wary of continuing to change the article. Whilst the accusations of scokpuppetry may or may not be valid, the information being added is pretty well referenced (I've looked up the actual refs, which annoying aren't linked, and they do support the text). The references may be wrong about jigai being a specific form of suicide for women, but they certainly meet the standard for reliable sources (I've used all three myself from time to time). Persisting in the same vein could backfire on you rather badly, I fear; you're basically edit-warring to remove sourced information with which you disagree - and you know that never looks good! Yunshui 雲‍水 11:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are faulty. No Japanese dictionaries give the definition the IP is trying to enforce, so the "sourced information" is factually inaccurate. How does one go about removing "well-sourced" information that is not true? elvenscout742 (talk) 11:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, regrettably, the short answer is that you don't. Providing sources that claim the opposite (that jigai refers only to suicide) is pretty much the only appropriate course of action. Thing is, the English Wikipedia is concerned primarily with the use of terms like this in English; whilst I don't for a moment dispute your claim that "自害" refers to suicide generally in Japan, the fact is that in English, jigai appears to have the primary meaning of "suicide by samurai-class women" - leastways, that's what English-language sources appear to support. To offer a vaguely related example, whilst our article on Gung-ho explains the term's original Cantonese meaning as "work together", the primary definition in the article is "dedicated or enthusiastic", because even though 工合 has a different meaning in China, that's what "gung ho" means to English speakers. Jigai, being a far less-common term, is harder to call, but the fact remains that we do give precedence to the concept as it's expressed in English sources. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was coming here to say the same thing about reverting. Elvenscout, you really don't want this to come back on you, and it most certainly will. In the future, I suggest contacting an admin as soon as you see a new IP hounding you or acting up. Then they can block the sock and semi-protect the article if need be. You can let me know, though my involvement with Joshu at Ugetsu means I shouldn't do the blocking or protecting myself; TParis and Salvio giuliano have been helpful in responding to the issue, and of course you can go to ANI.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. On the Jigai issue, I made the mistake of thinking I could discuss the problem myself. And as I have said a few times already, I still was not completely convinced of sockpuppetry, and I have a habit of taking AGF a bit too far: I didn't want to request any assistance until after the IP had made a blatant 3RR violation. elvenscout742 (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That show of good faith is commendable. However, this is clearly Joshu evading his block through sockpuppetry, and he's using those socks to engage in further disruption through edit warring and stacking RMs. Even if blocked, if the IP really isn't Joshu they'll have a chance to explain themselves or create an account. Additionally, some folks (like Salvio) will have additional tools they can use to determine one way or another. I'd just operate on the assumption that an IP that shows up behaving like Joshu is probably Joshu.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Elvenscout742. The Forty Martyrs article has a template at the top of the edit page that says Use British English. Sorry 'bout that, Chief! --108.45.72.196 (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hijiri88. You have new messages at Talk:Ore no Imōto ga Konna ni Kawaii Wake ga Nai.
Message added 06:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Evidently some longer term solution to sock RMs will be needed than answering them. As regards the Haiku in English article, how are you now with the solution worked out? I saw you merged Estonian. Perhaps leave a sum up so it can be closed. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shokushūi Wakashū, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kameyama (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) 10:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You have my full support in this matter, and I hope this troll sorts their priorities out and leaves you alone in future. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You evidently have the support of all sensible editors, hopefully now that can be behind WP Japan. I have commented at jigai AfD and made a start on changing the article into something more sensible. I'd be happy with what was a good-call AfD turning into a move, and happy with the title you redlinked. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. I found a clear source from Joshua S. Mostow saying that Hearn had misunderstood the meaning of jigai - and have used that as justification for relegating the terminology stuff to end of article. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Your new username really threw me off, when I saw it - but I'm glad to see that the Jigai article may now be sorted. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that would happen. But for the past few months I've been hounded constantly by JoshuSasori and Tristan noir, so no matter what time I changed my name there would always be some kind of dispute or the like that I was involved in. IIO, regarding the "jigai" thing: kudos! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Purple Barnstar
		I hope that this helps, in some small fashion, to make up for the harassment that you have endured here the last few months. Your efforts to improve various articles is much appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 22:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, I've started a ban discussion on JoshuSasori at AN. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To which this this edit was made. (and for the record this notification follows a request to User who made this post to notify you himself, but he believed the above from Sjones23 was enough). Incidentally I note today that you have been editing since 2005, award yourself something, cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm disappointed that you're retiring, or semi-retiring - if you were to return full time, and I'm still here, I'd be more than happy to try and help you defeat the vandals! Lukeno94 (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see you go. I hope you will continue to edit when you can.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind, but I mentioned this situation at AN here. Again, I've very sorry to see this happen.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • I fully second this barnstar. Thank you for everything you have contributed to the project. Best wishes, AGK [•] 20:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Hey Elvenscout (I kind of liked the old name, and you can't teach an old dog a new trick), I hope you're doing alright. You've had more than your fair share of crap to deal with here; there does seem to be a lot of crap around here these days. Anyway, I hope to see you around again, and I wish you the best. Drmies (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Satō Tadanobu 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/Satō Tadanobu 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. jcgoble3 (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iwate Prefectural Assembly, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mie (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) 11:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I think I was blocked automatically based on a mistake I made while using my original account to e-mail another user. My "current" account doesn't have an e-mail. I have been completely open about my use of multiple accounts. ArbCom got involved, and determined that my use up until now had been justified and had not been "abuse", but that I needed to stop. I did stop. But I accidentally posted from my old account once while logged in. I contacted Salvio by e-mail and explained this immediately.
In short, ArbCom has already determined that I was not "abusing multiple accounts" and my main account should not be blocked. Please unblock me.

Accept reason:

Unblocked; user has been up front with their use of multiple accounts and clearly did not intend to abuse them. However, from this point please be careful not to edit using multiple accounts. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's outside of your usual scope, but can you find and translate any good Japanese language sources on the Daihatsu P5 article I wrote? There's a real dearth of English sources. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's good to be back. :D Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm up for that once I have a bit more free time. For the next little bit it looks like most of my Wikipedia time will be taken up by dealing with User:Someone not using his real name's continuing assumptions of bad faith. He seems to have declared war on me, and is unwilling to listen to reason. My phone's IP is obviously shared, because this banned conspiracy theorist is on the same IP (the autoblock has prevented me from posting a number of edits from my phone, even while logged-in), but he has now taken it so far as to accuse me of saying that the same IP was JoshuSasori, which I never did... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've got both your talk pages on my watchlist, so I've seen it building. I think the pair of you just need to try and avoid each other as much as possible. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He had never dealt with either Tristan noir or Syngmung before he hijacked threads on them in order to try to "catch" me. I can try to avoid him, but he won't try to avoid me -- and as long as I have anything to discuss on AN or ANI he can use the excuse that those are just places he hangs out... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hijiri, please. They're blocked now, they're under an IBAN--and they've told me you're not welcome on their talk page. Drmies (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Just pointing out to him that his IBAN precludes him from bringing up prior disputes with me, is all. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although why he gets to insult me (no "bait") and revise history and I'm the one who gets told off is beyond me ... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't really you had created the Woodward article; I looked at the user page of the account that made it but didn't quite understand the reasoning--the person is not notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment at the AfD. I made it safe in the knowledge that it might well come to AfD, and I don't really have an argument in the page's defense. It's my opinion that anyone who meets GNG is notable enough for their opinion to be noteworthy for inclusion in Wikipedia, and I spent a lot of effort keeping his opinion from being presented as fact here. 'Nuff said. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jeffrey Woodward 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/Jeffrey Woodward (2nd nomination) 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. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion here is linked at Talk:Konoe clan#Requested move. Please consider adding a comment or opinion. --Enkyo2 (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. And thanks for needed comment on the Vietnamese kings, there have been several like that percolating down the WP:RM listing. At some point your input in repairing the VN MOS will be welcome. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I didn't even know there was such an MOS -- if I did I would have quoted it -- so if I do anything it will be to add provisos to UE and COMMONNAME that specifically specify that they are not meant to be used as some users have been. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, look forward to it :) the draft (a distorted draft) is at WP:VIETCON but it basically needs resetting to zero and starting from scratch. Thanks again. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I don't like the use of Latin tags to browbeat other editors myself, and in particular when it isn't easily recognizable as his use of Argumentum "vocatis ollam ollæ nigra" was - I couldn't find that anywhere until he said it meant "physician, heal theyself", usually Cura te ipsum or medicus cura teipsum - any comments on this or ideas as to where his version came from? Looking at some of your other comments, at Talk BVM I agree with you but Johnbod's a good editor, I doubt that was a personal attack. As for your problem with 'most scholars', I've had that problem also. It is often very obvious but also hard to source when challenged, as it frequently is. Dougweller (talk) 05:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, in the recent cases I have a Yale professor directly stating "most scholars believe (Peter didn't write either of the epistles attributed to him)". Anyway, regarding the Latin tag: I of course had little difficulty figuring out what M... thought he was saying, but it still didn't apply to half the arguments he was using it to dismiss. The phrase was apparently "coined" by a particular online advocate of Jehovah's Witnesses within the last few months (you can check my Google links for the evidence). To explain much further would be outing the now indeffed user, so I'll hold back, but I'm apparently not the first person to make the connection between the username "M..." and this person, as a Google search of the two names will indicate. (He used "M..." as a pseudonym on other forums than Wikipedia.) Note I did no "opposition research" here: I was confused as to whether this phrase actually exists, and when I Googled it the only results were all tied to the same named Jehovah's Witness. Regarding BVM: yeah, Johnbod may be a good editor but responding to "We should use secondary sources rather than expecting all readers to accept conservative Catholic interpretation of primary sources" with "You're one of those nut-jobs who thinks it's all just based on Isis-worship" shows at best a lack of good-faith. It would be understandable if I was just some anonymous troll who appeared out of nowhere and started attacking articles on Roman Catholicism (although I'd say my edit history is friendlier to Catholics than to, say, Evangelicals), but I've been on Wikipedia longer than him.[1][2] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait: forgot to answer what now seems like your main question. I don't speak Latin myself, but GTranslate is telling me he's saying "Pot kettle black". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.haephrati (talk • contribs) 14:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your AN thread has been merged with another at ANI, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Michael Haephrati. GiantSnowman 15:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per your latest post on ANI, you id publish his email, but I believe it to be inadvertent. (although, really, not a tough one to guess) [3] Gaijin42 (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. So we've found ONE thing he technically wasn't lying about, although I did just accidentally copy-paste too much of his public forum post, and he did lie to me a bunch of times by claiming he wasn't still canvassing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have been lying about many issues along the way, just to support your claims and personal war against me, I suggest that you stop and avoid using such bad language. I never lied to you, by the way. Michael Haephrati (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The irony of someone who keeps whining about being accused of lying, and then making the exact same claim, is astounding. Someone needs to drop the stick and stop beating the dead horse, and a clue; it's not Hijiri. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and yet, you must add your saying... (clue: maybe it's you). Michael Haephrati (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.haephrati (talk • contribs) 19:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enough; I thought we'd made it clear yesterday that it is time to stop sniping at each other. Disengage from Michael, please. I appreciate his behaviour violates a number of our guidelines, but he is a relatively new editor and you've taken exactly the wrong approach to educating him. Continuing to post lengthy messages like the one at AFD has two affects. a) it will mean the closing admin is less likely to read your comments in full because they are so time consuming and b) all it will do is create more drama to sidetrack the AFD. You've made your comment, let the community decide. Walk away and let others sort this mess out, please. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't read my comment closely enough. I needed to specify that I was not being pointy by !voting delete. Additionally, I suspect I've done more than everyone else combined to educate him, despite his constant attacks against me. You haven't seen the vast majority of my interaction with him because he first insisted on exchanging several e-mails with me. I explained calmly and coolly why a bunch of things don't fly, and he continued to do them anyway. I'm getting pretty sick of it. I don't blame you for not knowing what went on in my e-mail exchanges with him, but I'd appreciate you acknowledging that that's his fault, not mine. I have actually been more patient and careful with him than I was with a number of other users who consensus has already established I was far too nice to. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could have done so without sniping at Michael. And more to the point, you didn't need to do so at all. Just walk away, especially if you are sick of it :) There is plenty else to do! Disengaging is the best medicine - just unwatch a few pages and forget about it for a bit. There are plenty of eyes on now. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ano baka na kutsushita no hito wa ima inai/kinjiru. Ishou ni dekimashta. omedito. mah, watashi no nihongo wa honto ni heta ni narimashita. Tango ya bunpo ga zenzen oboemasen! Gaijin42 (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri approves. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although honestly I would have liked to see a CU on HarmonySoft to settle that issue as well. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hijiri88. You have new messages at Eleassar's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Whatever happens, it is an absolutely no go to call your opponent a "goddamn idiot" [4]. I did not block you only because I do not see warnings at your talk page, and possibly you have never been exposed to the corresponding policy. Next time, you can be blocked indeed, by me or by another administrator. Even if you strongly disagree, this is not a way to proceed. Please take this into account.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question has been openly lying about me on ANI, and when I asked him to stop and calmly explained why what he was doing was wrong, he continued. I think any good-faith user who looks through all the evidence would agree that I am not the one who was in the wrong. I do apologize for my aggressive tone. I was sorely provoked, but that is not an excuse for lack of civility. Can you please take a look at the context, though? I'm beginning to get very frustrated of virtually everyone in the admin corps ignoring me when I ask for help, and the only people who get involved being random ANI-junkies who like to stoke up drahms. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri, I do understand your frustration, and I hope the current ANI thread has a better outcome from your point of view than previous threads. But I think you know it's not appropriate to talk like that to another user, no matter how irritated you are with them. Please don't do it again. (And I'm afraid I don't see the point of apologizing to Ymblanter, you hadn't attacked them, had you?) Bishonen | talk 19:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Fromn this I noticed I just noticed this. Let it be reverted. Even when a RM has been messed about the close should be respected. You could and still can leave a message on WP Japan for another editor to put in the same RM again - preferably without disruption. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why, though? No one opposed the move. I wouldn't mind appealing the close, but it's been 6 months. And it was not my fault it took me so long... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know, hounded off with real life threats, but all the same best to keep things as clean as possible. Ask for a sponsor editor to RM at WP Jap. If no one else comes forward I will. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, there is a request for arbitration involving me. One of the things I hope to see happen, if the arbitration is accepted, is that we might maybe be able to get some sort of guidelines regarding religious content together, and, maybe, get some form of sanctions available for the particularly problematic articles and topics, which seems to include a lot of early Christianity. If the arbitration request is accepted, as I hope it is, I think you might be able to offer some valuable information and input regarding those matters. So, if you want to watch the pages, or the Signpost, because they tend to cover ArbCom matters there, and maybe offer some evidence or input in proposed decisions, when and if it gets to that point, I think that would be very welcome. John Carter (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just be clear and even stronger than the two other editors who already commented--your comments at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JoshuSasori were wholly out of line, and, in fact, pretty near likely the opposite of what Toddy1 intended. I get that you feel pushed on from several sides, but due partially to bad luck but partially due to your way of talking, you're 1) making each legitimate complaint you have less likely to be listened to, and 2) putting yourself in danger of being blocked. You may want to consider voluntarily either walking away from Wikipedia for a few hours/days, or just focusing on aspects of Wikipedia that aren't going to cause you stress. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it is worth, I am on your side in this. Some of these editors are a little trigger happy and fail to discuss differences. Keep up the faith, bro! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.37.195 (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88, deeply disturbing behaviour in last 72 hours by JoshuSasori. I have left a note with Cuchullain to hide history. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fujiwara no Muchimaro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nanke (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) 12:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, supported, but probably not a good idea to have all that background in the intro, just speak on merits. Also "insinuated" isn't good to use ever, even if it's the case. Cheers and all the best. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on this question I've posed? I could really use your thoughts on the matter. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Lafcadio hearn wife son.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're back, or at any rate someone very much like you is back. Meet User:Shahwould. 80.79.127.130 (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Susumu Nakanishi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Japan Academy Prize (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, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On Talk:Emperor Jimmu you said: "Note also that Necrothesp posted on seven other RMs in the 30 minutes preceding the above !vote, and his last post was but six minutes earlier. It therefore seems highly unlikely that he had read my gull analysis of the sources, clicked on all the links, or put any significant thought behind how real people (visitors to the subject's burial mound or shrine, for instance) might see this issue. He pulled a COMMONNAME argument out of his nose, and has not provided any evidence whatsoever to demonstrate otherwise. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)" .. Sorry to say so but this wasn't appropriate. User:Necrothesp clearly refered to his reasons as per previous RM. An apology and strikethrough would be good. It's only a RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking up the European spelling of "Jimmu" even after my request was rebutted! ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 06:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

はいさい, Hijiri88! I've noticed that you've contributed to the subject of Ryukyu. I invite you to join WikiProject Ryūkyū, AKA the Ryukyu task force, a collaborative effort to expand and deepen coverage of subjects pertaining to Ryukyuan geography, history, and culture. Here are a few links to pages to start you off:

• See the main project page
• Sign the participants page
• See the To Do List
• If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the talk page

I hope you'll take interest and decide to be a part of this project. めんそーれ! ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dwy is uncooperative and most definitely not WP:HERE. The fact that he keeps contradicting himself is just infuriating at this point. How is this supposed to be dealt with? ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hijiri88. You have new messages at Ryulong's talk page.
Message added 16:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Maybe you and Nanshu shouldn't unilaterally remove stuff from the page without a discussion or consensus. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BURDEN: neither Nanshu nor I require consensus to remove something that was added without and/or against consensus originally. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Content that has been used practically for years before your objections have an implicit consensus for retention.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has never been used practically for years. Please find one article that was explicitly named according to that convention. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mainichi Shimbun. Asahi Shimbun. Emperor Jimmu.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Ryulong: Nope. Both of those newspapers are "official names" and so are the opposite of "COMMONNAME", and Emperor Jimmu was moved to its current title without consensus or any reference to MOS-JA, while the majority interpretation of MOS-JA is in favour of moving Emperor Jimmu to Emperor Jinmu. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It still stands that "Shimbun" is common. If English language sources had "Shinbun" predominate when discussing any of these Japanese newspapers, then our article would be at "Shinbun" instead.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the rule and you know it. The current guideline says "Use Asahi Shimbun because that's the official name". COMMONNAME doesn't enter into it anywhere. The current guidline contradicts itself, and I intend to bring it to WT:JAPAN once the Jinmu RM closes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a nonsense obsession on semantics. No wonder you're conspiring against me with Nanshu. I honestly don't see this contradiction. Maybe if you could point it out, instead of just deleting a sentence you had issue with, it could be fixed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Ryulong "The modern version of Hepburn romanization requires the use of n regardless of the following letter, so you should use n, unless the official name of the subject uses m. Also you should determine the common name in reliable sources." This is a contradiction -- either we have a style guideline that requires the use of n under virtually all circumstances, or use the "common name" in "reliable sources". The fact is that what counts as a "reliable source" is pretty much up in the air. General interest books and magazines qualify as "reliable sources" for factual statements and the like, but they are noticeably less reliable than scholarly journals when it comes to the romanization of Japanese. Encyclopedia Britannica, unlike Wikipedia, has a strict style guideline that they stick to in any and all circumstances, even when every single other reliable source disagrees with them.[5] However, Encyclopedia Britannica is also a more widely-used reliable source than the majority of sources that spell it "Gunma". And Gunma Prefecture, unlike the majority of noteworthy, encyclopedic topics related to Japan, is actually covered in a large number of English-language reliable sources -- what should we do when one or two semi-reliable books on the subject (or fan-sites, I guess would be lingo more related to your area of interest) in English spell it "Gemmei", but we can't possibly construct an encyclopedia article based on these? We need to use Japanese-language sources, and for this we need to romanize Japanese words and names, and insisting that we follow the one or two semi-reliable books/fan-sites in this romanization is ridiculous. Determining the "common name" in "reliable sources" is in most cases impossible, unless the subject has an official name in English. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So it is an issue of semantics. I think I've nothing left to say to you regarding this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Ryulong: I could quote The Princess Bride here but it might be more constructive to ask you what kind of contradiction in terms is NOT semantic?? Or even if such an oxymoron is possible, how is a "semantic" contradiction in terms not worth fixing? Anyway, if you really think the majority of modern reliable sources say "Emperor Jimmu" why not go over to Talk:Emperor Jimmu#Requested move (2) and !vote against the move? I'll be sure to ANI you for WP:POINT, though; I let you away with this on WT:MOS-JA but not anymore. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop pinging me. And don't assume that because I did not answer you immediately that it gives you carte blanche to restore our prefered wording at WT:MOS-JA.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You did respond to me immediately. Your response was "I didn't read your message, and I'm not interested in discussing with you".[6] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize the time span of several hours meant you could do what you wanted.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You specifically said you were done discussing. Therefore, I was justified in assuming, you know, you were done discussing. Your proposed changes have been rejected by me, and supported by no one. Therefore, they are not "supported by consensus" any more than any of the changes you have reverted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one has weighed in but you. I don't see how what I've proposed is any different from the original text in meaning. You just seem to not want "COMMONNAME" to be in there because of the Jimmu/Jinmu RM.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original text said m is only "allowed" when it is part of an "official" name. I admit it's vague and can be interpreted a number of ways (why I plan on bringing it for discussion after the RM closes), but your interpretation based on COMMONNAME is not the most intuitive one, as indicated by the fact that virtually everyone on the Jinmu RM interprets COMMONNAME to refer only to subjects widely-known outside Japan, and virtually no one there interprets MOS-JA to say the same thing as COMMONNAME. In fact, MOS-JA should not say the same thing as COMMONNAME; we don't use romanization guidelines in cases where there is a COMMONNAME (try asking on WT:COMMONNAME like I did last August -- they all agree that COMMONNAME does not apply to articles not widely-known in the English-speaking world); MOS-JA is specifically for subjects that have no COMMONNAME. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article titles should reflect the most common name for the subject of the article. Perhaps 神武 is more commonly "Jimmu" even though in Japan it's officially "Jinmu". The RM will take care of that. Maybe if I was as adamant about the rules I find to be stifling on WP:MOS-JA I would have gotten rid of the bit that says "don't use wave dashes/tildes in article titles for songs and albums" instead of obsessively creating discussions to see if consensus can change on this matter.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hijiri88. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. [7]

• 利用者:Hijiri88（ノート / 履歴 / ログ） - 論争相手のコメントを無断で除去する行為及び要約欄における暴言 [22] [23]。 --森藍亭（会話） 2014年3月8日 (土) 10:20 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.158.195.100 (talk)

Hi Hijiri88, can you have a quick look at Talk:List_of_jōyō_kanji#Slowness of page, size etc and offer some advice or pass on to the relevant interested editors, thank you in advance.The Original Filfi (talk) 02:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least you have one less thing to worry about. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit on Ōe no Chisato interfered with the reference tags. Wikipedia has a special template for references under cite templates (above the text box for editing in the blue rectangle). Your edit is how other websites do citations. Anyway, if you would like to fix the citations, please do, and thank you for the article creation. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already noted, and fixed. Cheers :D Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, about your question at WP:NORN, the link I mentioned was this. It is to an article entitled 好忠集と勅撰集 and it goes into a lot of detail about counting how many of his poems were included in the imperial anthologies. The higher estimates rely on comparisons between his private collection and the anthologies. If you could summarize it in a couple of sentences it might make for an interesting footnote. --Margin1522 (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The historicity of Jesus talk page [8] that page is for discussing the article. If you want to talk about how you're going to get me T-banned, it's probably not the place.

You do seem to talk a lot about me pushing POV. I'm not really sure what you mean, considering that all of my article edits (and many of my talk page edits) are properly cited, often to mainstream Christian scholars. Care to be specific about which POV you think I'm pushing? Fearofreprisal (talk) 06:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"This user is disrupting the article and should probably be TBANned from editing the article" is a legit comment to post in an disruptive talk page thread started by you. "Please discuss article content with me away from the prying eyes of all those other nasty editors who ALL disagree with me" is not legit discussion for my user talk page. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 06:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not suggesting discussing article content here. Just asking what POV you think I'm pushing. Which you've never told me. Fearofreprisal (talk) 06:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The POV that Jesus of Nazareth never existed. You continue to argue for a long, confusing (or even a short, confusing) article that implies there is some sort of scholarly debate on the issue, and that alligns virtually all secular, critical scholars in the "the Gospels aren't reliable, therefore Jesus never existed" camp. Virtually all agree with the former clause in that statement, but none agree with the non sequitur conclusion your preferred version of the article heavily implies.

Earlier today you even change "virtually all scholars" to "the majority [of] scholars"![9]

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? OK... if that's what you thought I was "pushing," you misread me.

• The POV that Jesus never existed (essentially CMT) is based on speculation. I don't think that's appropriate for an article on history.
• "the Gospels aren't reliable, therefore Jesus never existed" - Definitely a non-sequitur. Though I accept the analysis of a number of scholars that the gospels are not historically reliable, I can't see how that provides any proof that Jesus didn't exist. And I can't see how you got the impression that I'd support such a ridiculous assertion.

Fearofreprisal (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The previous version of our article on whether or not Jesus existed (the version you are now trying desperately to restore) devoted roughly 80% of its content to discussion of how the gospels are unreliable, how scholars disagree on the historical Jesus, how some "historical" Jesus models are actually Christian apologetical tracts, etc., etc. These gross proportions were almost guaranteed to lead readers to the incorrect conclusion that these factors add up to a general lack of consensus on whether Jesus existed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Blanking of the Historicity of Jesus page". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 10 October 2014.

If you have the time, would you mind taking a look at Historical Jesus? It's getting a bit tiresome to deal with fringe conspiracy theories by amateurs masquerading as "science".Jeppiz (talk) 12:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Jeppiz: I'll take a look at it, but I should tell you that I'm not an "expert" in the area. The recently-solved problems with the historicity article were primarily the quotes taken out of context and implying that scholars skeptical of any aspect of HJ research were mythicists. It's a lot muddier over on the Historical Jesus article, since there is actually scholarly debate on that subject, and quotations of scholars indicating they disagree with each other are not ipso facto misquotations cherry-picked to give a false impression that they disagree. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, and I don't mind (quite the contrary) the opinions of scholars who disagree. My concern is the inclusion of amateurs with fringe theories being included. I have no intention to even suggest removing the criticism section, just the part of it that is not academic. As it is right now, a reader may get the impression that the criticism is scientific, and while some of it is, some is far closer to Dan Brown than to any actual academic expertise. What I want is to disentangle the academics from the conspiracy theorists and amateurs.Jeppiz (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The request for formal mediation concerning Blanking of the Historicity of Jesus page, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Amortias (T)(C) 23:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Discretionary sanctions at Historicity of Jesus and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Hang in there. Between us Shintoists and Christians and honorable agnostics, someone will kill the Asatru troll. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what's with the Asatru baiting? Did FOP make a statement of faith somewhere that I missed? >.< Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 6, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, → Call me Hahc21 20:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri can you tell me that how Emperor Jimmu's historicity is disputed? Bladesmulti (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He supposedly lived in the 7th century BCE. The first time an extant historical document mentions him is 1,400 years later. Any figure who survived only in the oral tradition for that long is automatically of doubtful historicity. Additionally, the name "Emperor Jinmu" is a historical anachronism arbitrarily assigned to him decades after said historical document was compiled; the "historicity of Kan'yamato Iware-biko" is arguably a different matter from the "historicity of Emperor Jinmu". I think the dates are, of course, a weak argument; the fact that several generations of emperors after him have no legendary narratives attributed to them, and the reign-dates were clearly consciously extended, indicates to me that Jinmu is more likely to have been historical than several of his successors, and he may have actually lived some time in maybe the second century CE. This is of course all WP:OR, and I would avoid adding this claim to an article without a reliable secondary source -- did I do so on some occasion? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It must be clarified on that article too, that why his historicity is still disputed. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fire ahead, but find some reliable sources first. I have never added a claim on the matter one-way-or-the-other to the article proper, so I don't have any decent sources on the issue on hand. (Read: Please don't copy-paste my above talk-page comment into the article space and attribute it to me. :P ) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unblock|reason=Caught by a web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. Place any further information here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a super-weird experience. I'm editing at home on a stable connection I've had for over two years, and I'm the only one who's edited from this IP in that time. As far as I know. It's possible my IP changed in the last 10 minutes or so, but... Anyway, I was trying to post a request on this board about what I believe might be a copyvio case on John O'Banion (part of the article reads like it was copy-pasted from his official bio or some such, but I can't find said bio, perhaps because the original was taken down some time after he died), but I got this message:

Editing from 104.131.0.0/16 has been blocked (disabled) by Elockid for the following reason(s): The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ... This block has been set to expire: 03:15, 9 August 2016.

Anyone know what gives? Does this happen a lot?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, that blocked range doesn't match yours, so your IP must've changed. Try Googling "What's my IP" and see what comes up. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still came up the same. Might be a bug. I guess if it was just a temporary bug it's not a problem, but it's still super-weird. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I guess it's just a weird glitch, and nothing to be concerned over.

Regarding the copyvio (non-)issue, I initially thought the reason I couldn't find the source of what looked very much like copy-pasted text was that the "official homepage" or whatever it was had been taken down at some point since his death. Looking at the page history, though, it seems like the text was added a year or two later, by at least two separate users (one of whom appears to be a general Asian film buff, the other possibly COI but nothing to be concerned over).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a courtesy message to inform you that the proposed decision has been posted for the Historicity of Jesus arbitration case. Constructive, relevant comments are welcome on the proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk).[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC) (Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk))[reply]

Re: [11], first assume good faith. 朝彦 | Asahiko (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Umm ... how exactly could that edit have been made in good faith? I implemented a change to the guideline, and edited the examples to conform to the new wording. I then started to work systematically fixing all the articles to conform to the wording too. I unfortunately missed one particularly apt one I should have perhaps dealt with first. Instead of making the change him/herself they went partially reverted my (consensus-backed) edit to the guideline page. This in all a matter of days -- it's not like that red link was laying there for months on end waiting to be fixed by a user who just happened across it by accident. This is not an excuse for making personal attacks, but "childish undermining" is hardly an inaccurate description of that behaviour, and pointing out that it's not my responsibility to do all the work myself within a particular time frame (WP:VOLUNTEER) and that rather than pressurize/criticize me it would have been better for them to help was perfectly apt. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before anything, just remember that we aren't supposed to bite the newcomers. The IP has only been active for few months. It's easy to assume good faith when the user was claiming to have been "fixing red link" (direct quote from their summary). It's a wiki. Just revert it back. Problem solved. What's the big deal? No need for your harsh wording in your comment. --朝彦 | Asahiko (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia flagged me saying you mentioned me, and I saw that you wrote about this,

I should have been more clear, but I was inferring to his attempts to add material were done under sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets -- a Wikipedia technical investigative ruled that the connection (between the browsers used) between Mr_Mtzplk, Sweetandlovely, and Arudoudebito was "likely." The three were involved in "voting" together on "concensus" and both puppets were used in a Noticeboard complaint that Arudoudebito wrote.

That's all. Happy Australia Day! Eido INOUE | 井上エイド 05:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I am not the best at editing Wikipedia articles so I don't know all the tags to use or how to cite everything correctly. However, if you did Google Dragon Ball Online Revelations you will see multiple articles by multiple sites. Sites like Destructoid and Dragon Ball Insider are also very credible. Contact them if you need further information. I am also the same user as Dboeditor but I only made that account because I forgot the password and email I used so I created this account and are going to only use this account. The other user you posted on my talk page was, however, not me. If you are looking for a more credible source, the Dragonball Insider page would be better and it has more updated information (however it is still not perfectly up to date). Here is the link of that article. It is a 2014 source but seeing as it is still the first month of 2015 it might take a little bit to get a 2015 source. Also, that article has been updated throughout the year to include more information about the project. The home site I posted also has valuable information on the home page. Like a general FAQ of the project here and the legality information you requested here. Much more information can be found on the site. There is also a Facebook page giving constant updates here. As well as a youtube page. There are many articles covering the project including a couple that are from known sources and should be more reliable. There is also the legality information and all the information you will need on the project in the links posted. I'm not sure what else I could give you to convince you that the project is real and reliable. In the edit history, multiple other users have added the project in the page in the past as well.

I think the productive way to reorganize that page is to cited as theory the theories, and then provide the actual literature which surveys and challenges or confirms those ideas as theories. Yamanoue no Okura is a good example. These ideas are in circulating, after all, and giving readers guidance as to their status, often dubious, can be more enlightening than mere erasure.Nishidani (talk) 09:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Nishidani: I like that idea in theory: but he's not the only Man'yō poet who one or more scholars have speculated originated in the Korean peninsula. We've also got the problem that he's arguably the famous writer of Japanese classical poetry who had very little influence of Japanese poets of later ages (he was only "rediscovered" in the 20th century), so writing about him in the context of that article, under its current title (by the way, I liked your talk page post, but can I take it you'd support an RM to a more reasonable title?) and surrounded by the remote fringe material (how does Japanese in the 17th century importing movable type from the continent count as a "Korean influence on Japanese culture" -- on ANI Jagello just mentioned Keene and "Lane Richards" [sic] as two "renowned and mainstream Japanologists" who are representative of the sourcing in the article, when they are both only cited in that one paragraph...) is not something I want to take responsibility for.

Both Jagello and KoreanSentry will be indefinitely blocked pretty soon anyway. Even if CU doesn't prove they've been engaging in sockpuppetry (I don't think those two accounts are the same, by the way; I think they are two separate people who have both edited the article in the past under different usernames) they are SPAs who need to be blocked per WP:NOTHERE (and their poor English brings CIR concerns into it as well). Once they're out of the picture, the only person trying to reinstate the previous wording as is will be CN, and you and I both know how to work with him. Once the incomprehensible synth has been washed out, little bits of properly verified, factual and relevant material can be gradually added piece by piece. I'd be happy to write about the Okura toraijin theory in the article then. Despite what certain other banned users would tell you, I actually don't take the attitude that "Okura was Korean" or that "Wikipedia should claim unqualifiedly that Okura was Korean" -- it's a very popular theory among scholars, but so is the idea that the Qumranites were all celibate men and the female graves found at the site were all 19th century Bedouin women. (Sorry, the comparison is a bit 専門外 for me -- Ehrman and Schiffman are both respected, mainstream sources on the Dead Sea scrolls sect, right?)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, N: You wouldn't happen to know anyone who speaks Korean and is a good snoop when it comes to off-wiki canvassing, would you? I've dealt with the issue before now (in the Historicity of Jesus and Rashumon debacles) but in both those cases the canvassing was done in my native language on easily searchable message boards. It's practically a given that Korean nationalists discuss English Wikipedia's coverage of these disputes off-site (just read some of these...), but I'd be interested to know if it's happened recently, in relation to this article... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Unfortunately, I don't know anyone who speaks Korean (I only know a few people who speak Japanese, for that matter!)

No problems with ridding the place of arseholes. When you have a repetitive behavior issue on a contested article, one can be Manichaean (delete/restore) or, um, intelligent, by which I mean, reimagining the material as a meta-subject, so that the war over putative facts becomes a discussion of theories, and of poor sources as opposed to the ongoing results of scholarship. Take an example I haven't mentioned. Man'yõ 1:5 [題詞]幸讃岐國安益郡之時軍王見山作歌, 軍王, though mostly read as Ikusa no opokimi/Ikusa no ōkimi has a reading attached to it Konikishi no opokimi, introduced from a misprision of the correlated section in the Nihon Shoki, and has been used to hazard the idea that this is a reference to a king of Paekche. Well, there's a lot of this kind of stuff around, but rather than dismiss it, I reckon it's more enjoyable to showcase the speculation, and show that, where this is the case, scholarship has either dismissed it, regarded it as weak evidence, or entertained also other interpretations that are not congruent with the theory. As to the wonderful Yamanoue no Okura, he was born in Korea, and that means nothing, given the ethnic complexity there. Getting the facts right, about his father's job at one court over there, where two languages were spoken, and his removal to Japan when Yamamoue was 4, etc., trumps any illusion that we are dealing with a 'Korean' poet. The page could be interesting if one used it to survey the problem of these attributions, which is discussed at length in Japanese sources I'm sure you're familiar with. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...for the word "fustercluck", which has enriched my english language skills. Admittedly I had to resort to internet to find out it has nothing to do with chickens. It has entered my list of favorite funny words right between "koeterwaals" en "oberaffengeil". Kleuske (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]