Thank you for fixing my !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Na brzegu rzeki Sometimes the first few keystrokes that I enter using the 2017 wikitext editor get lost. I would also like to thank you for adding the information about the translation to English. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
You have participated with the editing of List of breakfast drinks Therefore, you might be interested in the deletion nomination of the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breakfast drinks (2nd nomination) -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
for improving
Na brzegu rzeki and your "keep" at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Na brzegu rzeki, btw, you will become an "inclusionist", just look deeply into the kitten's eyes......
Coolabahapple (
talk)
08:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, they're probably notable, and yeah, our deleting them comes across as stupid Anglophones dismissing the achievements of other cultures -- something I spend most of my time on Wikipedia working to correct -- but having standalone articles that are one sentence long and merely duplicate information already found in their parent articles is just going to annoy our readers; redirect for now, and maybe build proper articles later -- heck, forcing the self-proclaimed "inclusionists" to put their money where their mouths are and build the proper articles themselves for once would be optimal, and it really strikes me as inappropriate that one of the above self-proclaimed "inclusionists" (who almost never !votes any way but "keep", even in utterly ridiculous cases) was allowed to get away with NACcing as "speedy keep" one of the one-sentence AFDs based on a 1-1 "discussion". Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 07:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
If the city is not the primary topic of Nagano, then the solution would be to start a RM to move Nagano (disambiguation) to Nagano. Having the primary title redirect to the disambiguation page is contrary to the naming conventions (see WP:Malplaced disambiguation pages). Also, the fact that there is an RM (on a different page) in progress but not yet completed seems to me an argument against a change in the target at this time. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 01:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Education Not for Sale. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I have opened an RFC for several of the Israeli cities that I think are un-encyclopedic. Therefore, I appreciate input from you at that RFC. Thank you. -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 14:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Unlike what
you think,
Wikipedia:No personal attacks remains no room for users like you and it prohibits users from commenting on the editors. "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, etc"
, "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views"
and "Comparing editors to Nazis, Communists, Terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons"
are among the things the behavioral policy urges us to avoid. You may consider this as warning gainst further commenting on users in Wikipedia. Plus, redacting the attack phrases do not need to be done with prior notifications since "derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor"
per
WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL. --
Mhhossein
talk
11:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Comparing editors to Nazis, Communists, Terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons, when I didn't make any comparison. An editor engaged in antisemitism ("the Jews control the media", etc.) and advocacy of Holocaust-denial, and I called that "disgusting". It's still not a personal attack. Rather, your accusing me of "comparing editors to Nazis, Communists, Terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons" is something of a personal attack. That text is included in the policy in reference to the "you are a Nazi" attack that occasionally gets thrown around in discussions that have nothing to do with Nazis, fascists, Jews, genocide, etc. -- believe me, I know because the attack has been made against me no shortage of times (mostly due to my username). Anyway, you should retract your personal attack against me. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 13:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chiyo Miyako. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Andrew D. ( talk) 17:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
The article Vishnu Puran (TV series) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Cites no sources establishing notability and is a mess of an article.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Zubin12 (
talk)
04:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vishnu Puran (TV series) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vishnu Puran (TV series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Zubin12 ( talk) 04:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Help improve article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thank you. 125.214.51.223 ( talk) 08:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Help improve for article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you. Arina56 ( talk) 12:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I have blocked you from editing for 1 week, to stop your disruption of Philafrenzy's RfA. It is *not* a suitable place for you to continue whatever disputes you might have with James500, nor to launch personal attacks like "James is a serial liar, with a demonstrable history of attempting to cover his tracks when it comes to his own misbehaviour". His !vote consisted of a simple and perfectly acceptable one-liner, with no mention whatsoever of you, and a lot of people are really getting sick of seeing you popping up in fights with monotonous regularity. I'm sure you know how to appeal if you want to be unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 17:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
@ Boing! said Zebedee: Umm... I had already retracted my reply to Mike's vote and withdrawn from the discussion of James's. James's looked legitimately suspicious to me (and I provided the diffs to make it clear exactly why I thought it was suspicious -- the "personal attack" you quote above was based on several diffs I had already provided above), but once I realized no one else thought the same way I stopped. My last comment was just about the weirdness of how the EditorInteract tool wasn't working right. My last several comments on the actual RFA were in the oppose section, in response to replies to my own vote. Blocking me for continued disruption on RFA would make sense, but you blocked me several hours after I had voluntarily withdrawn. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 00:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
"I'm unlikely at this point to convince anyone that his motivation for choosing this one of the dozens of RFAs his old associates have been involved in to comment on was dubious". In other words, the editor still believes in the dubiousness of the !vote (James or whoever's) but is disappointed that he'll not be able to convince others. I respect Hijiri's editing experience; unfortunately, I'm absolutely not convinced that this editor knows where the line needs to be drawn, especially in this RfA. There will be absolutely more such comments by the editor, leading to a worse situation and a harsher block than there is. If Hijiri agrees to not comment in the RfA or about this RfA anywhere on Wikipedia, I can support an unblock. But given the tenacity of their repetitive OTT statements (as shown above), absolutely not as of now. Lourdes 04:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Explanation of what I was doing at that RFA to begin with
|
---|
FWIW, I only questioned two support voters (mostly as a result of the EditorInteract tool leading me to believe there was something fishy about their statements), whereas I am one of at least three oppose voters (Tony and Audacity being the others) who have been questioned on the "close paraphrasing" issue by the same support voter. For the sake of full disclosure, I followed Tony there and noticed the close paraphrasing issue that had caused him to change his mind: textual plagiarism is a very serious issue and one that's quite close to my heart (I lost the "official" top spot in last year's Wikipedia Asian Month because the judges were not careful enough to notice that of the two editors who produced more than 30 articles, one was a native English speaker writing exclusively Japanese sources, and the other was an Indonesian editor, who when citing non-English sources wrote very ungrammatical English sentences, but when citing English sources suspiciously had a level of English writing ability that was almost of publishable standard, and the reason I didn't approach them sooner about the problem was that I am normally extremely careful about engaging in activities that could be called "harassment", "hounding" or "personal attacks"; I wound up "winning" anyway because once it finally was brought to the judges' attention ... I don't really know, but I got a certificate anyway), and I think the project would be poorly served by another admin who is not only "soft" on close paraphrasing but actually engages in it himself. |
Explanation of why I thought it was cool to question support voters but don't intend to do so again
|
---|
Anyway, looking at some past "run-of-the-mill" RFAs that saw high levels of participation (as opposed to ill-considered ones where the opposes were in the clear majority, or highly controversial ones), it does seem that thorough scrutiny of the oppose votes is more common than the same for support votes. I could speculate on the reason for that, but I don't really care; if it's the way things are done, I will respect it, and (assuming I'm unblocked) not comment on any more support votes in that RFA. |
I'll suggest you agree to BsZ to stop editing in this RfA, I'd be happy to agree to that if it were set as an unblock condition, but I don't see where Boing! said Zebedee ( talk · contribs) actually said that. I already said in my appeal below that I would like to continue discussing the close paraphrasing concerns, but if the reviewing admin thinks thinks there is evidence I would immediately return to hashing out my dispute with James on the RFA I would happily accept a week-long page ban in return for an unblock. (Or, heck, if Boing actually meant that he would unblock me on condition that I didn't edit the page again I'd be fine with that too.)
Hijiri88 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I pinged Boing above in the hopes he would unblock once I pointed out that the incident for which he blocked me had ended several hours earlier and my most recent "involvement" was a technical question about a broken tool, but I seem to recall Boing being based in the UK so I don't suspect I'd have got a response for several hours. My
last comment on the whole incident (in which I also struck the comment that was the secondary reason for this block) was I'm unlikely at this point to convince anyone that his motivation for choosing this one of the dozens of RFAs his old associates have been involved in to comment on was dubious, so I really don't want to argue it anymore
(emphasis added), and this was over four hours before I was blocked. Anyway, I regret the above-quoted comment and everything else I said that could be taken as a personal attack or drudging up old disputes at RFA, and will not do so again. I do, however, wish to continue the discussion I was involved in during the hours leading up to this block, which had nothing to do with either James500 or Mike Peel (and had been going on before either of them commented), and was focused on the supposed distinction, or lack thereof, between close paraphrasing and plagiarism.
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや)
01:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
In the events preceding your block you were repeatedly told to drop the stick, since you have made your point more than once, but you failed to stop. Since you are planning to resume the discussion, it would be easier for everybody (including you, so that you do not get blocked for a longer duration) if you stay blocked until this RfA has been summarized. If you want to have a broad community discussion over close paraphrasing, it can be done in a week from now. Ymblanter ( talk) 07:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I don’t know what really Adamstom.97 is inhabiting. There is a serious disconnect between him and I. I have come to believe that he is collaborating from a dishonest position. I know that Swarm has warned them about disruptive behavior. Would it be canvassing to ask Swarm to review this situation? I’m becoming pretty frustrated here. — AdamF in MO ( talk) 22:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
As an uninvolved editor, I'd be willing to lend some assistance on neutral wording, should you want or need any help. Just drop me a line if desired, even if it's only to review your proposal. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 10:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
On the user contribution search page putting "mw-new-redirect" in the tag filter field will show just new redirects. {{u|
zchrykng}} {
T|
C}
00:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
zchrykng}} {
T|
C}
00:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)That was some nice translation, I didn't actually expect you to respond that quickly haha. Hope everything is going well for you; I have moved away from Japan after 8 years, hopefully to save some money back home before moving to Asia again (this time around I will likely go and trace my heritage in Taiwan). Cheers, Alex Shih ( talk) 05:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I understand that you speak Japanese. Would you be able to assist me with a ja.wiki edit? -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
This was not a deliberate "mispresent". It was kept. I was wrong in the precise formulation (Keep but had in fact put in "no consensus"), and made the correction. Your poor choice of words in the edit summary was unnecessarily hostile, accusatory and uncivil. ````
I added the comment at the rescue squad as my own. You did not sign your comment. Still haven't. I would not here, but you are spreading untruths. this is a tempest inn a teapot. Sorry to come back. I'm gone now. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 12:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
As they said in
Cool Hand Luke, "
What we've got here is failure to communicate" I intended no offense.
7&6=thirteen (
☎)
13:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC) has given you a
dove! Doves promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!
Spread the peace of doves by adding {{ subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
Hijiri,
I saw your former attempt to have page loaded with primary sources removed: HERE I was one of the individuals combating you and eventually it lead to a keep and update status. It seemingly improved over the next year with the height of its quality being [ THIS EDIT HERE ] however after a mass revolt over primary sources not being given the benefit of the doubt with the former conclusion of presumed accuracy, the page was torn down to its [ PRESENT STATE]. If you look at the page, and its citations ( only 1 of the 2 remaining is academic ) , I now side with you; it needs to go. I went to nominate the page and give the following reason: No academic supporting sources to establish page need. Historically been a battle ground among former and current members using exclusively primary sources. (WP:DEL1, WP:DEL6, WP:DEL7, WP:DEL8, WP:DEL14) however I do not know how to create a separate deletion page from the previous one cited up above. If you can initiate this process, I would support you this time around. Coachbricewilliams28 ( talk) 06:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
You are mentioned in this WP:A/N post: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_review_of_AN/I_close. Although I did ping you when I posted it, I am providing you this additional notification at your request. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 07:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
It seems I EC edited a closed discussion. [8]. If you wish to remove my reply feel free to do so. If it wasn't closed may have edited my comment to say I'm even more concerned that you seem to think it was okay to discuss SemiHyperCube's actions without notifying them. Yet your earlier comments seem to suggest you thought you should have been notified. However there is even less reason to notify you than there was to notify SemiHyperCube. You opened the initial discussion, and DT did mention one of your comments, but frankly that was irrelevant. DT was not suggesting any wrong doing on your part. DT's concern was about the appropriate of the close. And you have no say on how the discussion should be closed. DT could have simply removed their mention of you and your comment, it would make little difference to their close review request since they did not provide any evidence, or even a suggestion, that Swarm was unduly close or otherwise unduly influenced by you. So you opening the discussion was irrelevant to the appropriateness of the close and therefore there was no real why they had to notify you. There was no reason why you or your actions had to be or were going to be considered by anyone at that thread. But frankly, I wouldn't fault DT for notifying you even if they hadn't mentioned you since it's simply too minor to worry about. However notifying someone when you are specifically bringing their actions up for a discussion has been expected at ANI for a very long time, so I would assume based on your own comments AN. (I don't spend so much time at AN that I can say with confidence.) Anyway, frankly I find this a dumb irrelevant diversion to the main issue in that thread, so even if it wasn't already closed I would likely not engage further. But rest assured, if you do open a discussion at ANI and don't notify someone despite bringing their behaviour up for discussion, there's a good chance this will be challenged by me and probably others. You yourself seem to agree it's a big deal, so I really don't understand why you then think it's okay to do just because their actions aren't the main focus of a thread (in so much as a main focus even exists, which isn't always clear). Nil Einne ( talk) 11:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
This is another polite request that you stop WP:HOUNDING and stalking me. See also [11]. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 12:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
You have lied saying I support Breitbart as
WP:RS. I never have. Show me some diff where I said I support Breitbart as a good source. This is what I
say about Breitbart: [W]e do have Breitbart printing rubbish like this "Scott Baio Suggests Obama Could Be a Muslim Who Wants to ‘Totally Eliminate the United States".
Please strike every comment where you claim I said Breitbart is good
WP:RS. An apology is in order.
David's history of permissiveness when it comes to citing Breitbart.com as a source would appear to indicate that he's not actually a great advocate of diversity and welcoming of women and ethnic minorities on this project11:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC). diff at 11:00, 28 October 2018
The comment of Example 1 is completely unacceptable. Comments like these need to stop. I expect an apology. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 14:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
In the AD thread at ANI, you implied that you were pinging MelanieN, HighInBC, Barkeep49 and Insertcleverphrasehere, but they were all "noping" links [13], so nobody got pinged. If you wanted to ping them, you'd have to change the codes and also re-sign your post, for those people to actually get pinged. Softlavender ( talk) 22:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Catching up after a really long wikibreak. Did that issue at MoS about "shar[ing|ed] continuity" get resolved? I agree that the exact phrase can be problematic in some instances, as in the MCU films vs. TV series stuff. There's probably another way to phrase it when two-way shared continuity isn't actually happening. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
What you wrote here is worth diffing (for each quoted statement) and including as evidence as a new posted that includes these quotes for a diff for each of them. I didn't realize the problem was that severe, or I would have urged for a topic ban under no uncertain terms, and possibly an indef. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Q=This is in reference to a content dispute in which you involved yourself a few years back, which 2015 ArbCom later weighed in on quite heavily, so I kinda feel it's worth asking. On 23 March 2015 you wrote that you felt the Kenji Miyazawa article's lead should mention the Kokuchūkai, a Buddhist group with which he was briefly associated, based on how prominent it was in the article body at that time. (The above diff doesn't actually go into as much detail, but giving all the diffs would be awkward: the further comments are here.) Do you still feel that to be the case based on the current state of the article? I am the principal author of the article as it exists now, and would like to nominate it for GA, and maybe eventually FA, but am unwilling to do so while it still has what I see as an extremely serious flaw, and am just as reluctant to fix that flaw myself given (a) the opinions expressed by you and others in that RFC, and (b) what happened in the resulting ArbCom case ( permalink of ArbCom unanimously agreeing that the dispute started there). Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Uncertainty seems rife for non-techies like me. Sca ( talk) 14:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I wonder who this was. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 22:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Brough87: @ Nil Einne: @ Legacypac: @ C. W. Gilmore: @ Dream Focus: @ James500: @ Expectant of Light: @ Mhhossein: @ Simonm223: Error in Template:Reply to: Input contains forbidden characters. @ David Tornheim: @ Darkknight2149: @ JohnWickTwo: @ Andrew Davidson: @ Adamstom.97:
Any ideas? A number of you are people I conflicted with only once, briefly, months ago, so it's unlikely that a random troll would know about you but not, say, Ribbet32 which may be a hint. Or maybe it's just Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JoshuSasori returned from the grave, deliberately pretending to be someone who conflicted with me in, say, late June 2018. I'm honestly not sure which conclusion would make me look more paranoid, so I'm keeping an open mind about it.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 17:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Apparently closely monitoring me and then immediately unretiring if I am blocked, following me to a couple of discussions, then immediately re-retiring when I am unblocked, counts as being "retired" and I should refrain from pinging to "accuse of ridiculous and insulting things" like ... posting the above diff that clearly was posted and I didn't just imagine it. Oh, well. I guess I can take solace in the knowledge that there is no justice on Wikipedia and I as a malicious troll can keep harassing people with impunity. But honestly I'd rather be subject to the same restrictions as everyone else, if it meant I was protected from harassment like the above diff. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 23:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I responded to your message at ANI, but my ping win't go through Tornado chaser ( talk) 02:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Hijiri88. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I will gladly accept your WP:TROUT for feeding the trolls. :-p -- Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 01:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Why did you remove a comment by me at ANI? [ [14]]. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
::::::::Maybe I am missing it, where did they accuse you of being sneaky? Slatersteven ( talk) 11:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC); I thought you were referring to my striking "him" and adding "them", the only edit I consciously made to anyone else's post. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I think I have had my say, you have said it was an accident and I accept that. I just ask you to show ore care in the future. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Hijiri
I've restored TH1980's statement - it looks like it was removed unintentionally as part of a revert of an error they made when writing the statement. (They edited an old version of the page, thus erasing lots of other comments in other sections). So feel free to restore your reply if you want. THanks — Amakuru ( talk) 23:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
An editor has started a deletion nomination for Chiyo Miyako. Because you were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion discussion. 96.253.25.35 ( talk) 12:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I thought about dropping this; I can see how this post might be taken in a way it isn't intended. It does feel a little like I'm giving a backhanded compliment. But ultimately I wasn't fair, and so want to clarify my comments at the now-closed ARCA.
I appreciate and respect Mainspace Hijiri88. He does more article work in a few days than I do in a year. I don't know enough about the subject matter to know who is right and who is wrong when you get into content disputes, but it is clear that whether generally right or generally wrong on content, Mainspace Hijiri88 is knowledgeable and productive and respected and has the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart.
My comments at ARCA were actually directed at Wikipedia-Space Hijiri88. I pretty much stand by those comments. I honestly feel that conflict escalation is almost all that Wikipedia-space Hijiri88 does. But when I said "that's basically all he does", this is what I was referring to. If the ARCA request wasn't closed, I'd go back and change that to "that's basically all he does in Project space". -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 16:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, Hijiri88, and welcome to Women in Red. It's good to have such an experienced editor as a new member, especially as you intend to contribute articles on historically notable Japanese women and their works. I see from your user page you have a systematic approach to article creation with a pre-established list of red links. Presumably a significant proportion of these are women. In any case, I look forward to seeing your future contributions. You may be interested to learn that in February we have a focus on the Ancient World, which should fit your area of interest. Happy editing!-- Ipigott ( talk) 08:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
An earthquake and tsunami in 2011 caused massive economic dislocations and a serious nuclear power disaster.Ancient indeed ... Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
{{WIR-00-2018}}
on the article's talk page.--
Ipigott (
talk)
13:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)![]()
Continuing: | ||
Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): (To subscribe:
Women in Red/English language mailing list and
Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe:
Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
-- Ipigott ( talk) 08:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
This made me laugh, w/re our discussion of canvassing earlier. I was like, "Now THAT'S canvassing." Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacy Layne Matthews Thought it might make you laugh, too :D valereee ( talk) 13:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
![]()
![]() January events:
|
Hello! Kevin from Wikipedia Asian Month here. Thank you very much for your contributions this year. Because you have created at least 4 eligible articles, you are qualified to receive a special WAM postcard from an Asian community. If you would like one, please fill out this form by January 10. All personal information you submit will only be visible to select organizers in charge of postcards, and will be destroyed once postcards are sent out. If you have any questions, please drop a line on my talk page or ping me. Thank you, and happy holidays! ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 02:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Argento Surfer (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019! |
Hello Hijiri88, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Tenjin no Honji you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
MPJ-DK --
MPJ-DK (
talk)
05:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kashihara Shrine Sightseeing Map.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 19:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Please note The reason I don't name any specific editors in my farewell message is to avoid people saying "This is about user X and needs to go". A certain editor recently assumed "the whole hounding thing" was about them, but this is clearly incorrect.
Hope you'll find the interest in coming back sometime. I stopped editing for two years after an upsetting incident, and eventually did find some joy here again. valereee ( talk) 12:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Also sorry to see this, and I hope you do return. You do a lot of good here. Dekimasu よ! 22:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
So we never grabbed that beer you promised while I was living in Japan, and now you leave here without telling me? I understand though, take care and come back when you feel like it. Alex Shih ( talk) 08:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Sad to see you go. Hope you'll change your mind in the future! - Zanhe ( talk) 20:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Following this ANI thread, you are indefinitely banned from interacting with Darkknight2149, subject to the usual exceptions. The restriction has been logged here. Giant Snowman 14:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing my !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Na brzegu rzeki Sometimes the first few keystrokes that I enter using the 2017 wikitext editor get lost. I would also like to thank you for adding the information about the translation to English. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
You have participated with the editing of List of breakfast drinks Therefore, you might be interested in the deletion nomination of the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breakfast drinks (2nd nomination) -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
for improving
Na brzegu rzeki and your "keep" at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Na brzegu rzeki, btw, you will become an "inclusionist", just look deeply into the kitten's eyes......
Coolabahapple (
talk)
08:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, they're probably notable, and yeah, our deleting them comes across as stupid Anglophones dismissing the achievements of other cultures -- something I spend most of my time on Wikipedia working to correct -- but having standalone articles that are one sentence long and merely duplicate information already found in their parent articles is just going to annoy our readers; redirect for now, and maybe build proper articles later -- heck, forcing the self-proclaimed "inclusionists" to put their money where their mouths are and build the proper articles themselves for once would be optimal, and it really strikes me as inappropriate that one of the above self-proclaimed "inclusionists" (who almost never !votes any way but "keep", even in utterly ridiculous cases) was allowed to get away with NACcing as "speedy keep" one of the one-sentence AFDs based on a 1-1 "discussion". Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 07:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
If the city is not the primary topic of Nagano, then the solution would be to start a RM to move Nagano (disambiguation) to Nagano. Having the primary title redirect to the disambiguation page is contrary to the naming conventions (see WP:Malplaced disambiguation pages). Also, the fact that there is an RM (on a different page) in progress but not yet completed seems to me an argument against a change in the target at this time. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 01:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Education Not for Sale. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I have opened an RFC for several of the Israeli cities that I think are un-encyclopedic. Therefore, I appreciate input from you at that RFC. Thank you. -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 14:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Unlike what
you think,
Wikipedia:No personal attacks remains no room for users like you and it prohibits users from commenting on the editors. "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, etc"
, "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views"
and "Comparing editors to Nazis, Communists, Terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons"
are among the things the behavioral policy urges us to avoid. You may consider this as warning gainst further commenting on users in Wikipedia. Plus, redacting the attack phrases do not need to be done with prior notifications since "derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor"
per
WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL. --
Mhhossein
talk
11:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Comparing editors to Nazis, Communists, Terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons, when I didn't make any comparison. An editor engaged in antisemitism ("the Jews control the media", etc.) and advocacy of Holocaust-denial, and I called that "disgusting". It's still not a personal attack. Rather, your accusing me of "comparing editors to Nazis, Communists, Terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons" is something of a personal attack. That text is included in the policy in reference to the "you are a Nazi" attack that occasionally gets thrown around in discussions that have nothing to do with Nazis, fascists, Jews, genocide, etc. -- believe me, I know because the attack has been made against me no shortage of times (mostly due to my username). Anyway, you should retract your personal attack against me. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 13:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chiyo Miyako. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Andrew D. ( talk) 17:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
The article Vishnu Puran (TV series) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Cites no sources establishing notability and is a mess of an article.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Zubin12 (
talk)
04:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vishnu Puran (TV series) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vishnu Puran (TV series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Zubin12 ( talk) 04:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Help improve article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thank you. 125.214.51.223 ( talk) 08:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Help improve for article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you. Arina56 ( talk) 12:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I have blocked you from editing for 1 week, to stop your disruption of Philafrenzy's RfA. It is *not* a suitable place for you to continue whatever disputes you might have with James500, nor to launch personal attacks like "James is a serial liar, with a demonstrable history of attempting to cover his tracks when it comes to his own misbehaviour". His !vote consisted of a simple and perfectly acceptable one-liner, with no mention whatsoever of you, and a lot of people are really getting sick of seeing you popping up in fights with monotonous regularity. I'm sure you know how to appeal if you want to be unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 17:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
@ Boing! said Zebedee: Umm... I had already retracted my reply to Mike's vote and withdrawn from the discussion of James's. James's looked legitimately suspicious to me (and I provided the diffs to make it clear exactly why I thought it was suspicious -- the "personal attack" you quote above was based on several diffs I had already provided above), but once I realized no one else thought the same way I stopped. My last comment was just about the weirdness of how the EditorInteract tool wasn't working right. My last several comments on the actual RFA were in the oppose section, in response to replies to my own vote. Blocking me for continued disruption on RFA would make sense, but you blocked me several hours after I had voluntarily withdrawn. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 00:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
"I'm unlikely at this point to convince anyone that his motivation for choosing this one of the dozens of RFAs his old associates have been involved in to comment on was dubious". In other words, the editor still believes in the dubiousness of the !vote (James or whoever's) but is disappointed that he'll not be able to convince others. I respect Hijiri's editing experience; unfortunately, I'm absolutely not convinced that this editor knows where the line needs to be drawn, especially in this RfA. There will be absolutely more such comments by the editor, leading to a worse situation and a harsher block than there is. If Hijiri agrees to not comment in the RfA or about this RfA anywhere on Wikipedia, I can support an unblock. But given the tenacity of their repetitive OTT statements (as shown above), absolutely not as of now. Lourdes 04:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Explanation of what I was doing at that RFA to begin with
|
---|
FWIW, I only questioned two support voters (mostly as a result of the EditorInteract tool leading me to believe there was something fishy about their statements), whereas I am one of at least three oppose voters (Tony and Audacity being the others) who have been questioned on the "close paraphrasing" issue by the same support voter. For the sake of full disclosure, I followed Tony there and noticed the close paraphrasing issue that had caused him to change his mind: textual plagiarism is a very serious issue and one that's quite close to my heart (I lost the "official" top spot in last year's Wikipedia Asian Month because the judges were not careful enough to notice that of the two editors who produced more than 30 articles, one was a native English speaker writing exclusively Japanese sources, and the other was an Indonesian editor, who when citing non-English sources wrote very ungrammatical English sentences, but when citing English sources suspiciously had a level of English writing ability that was almost of publishable standard, and the reason I didn't approach them sooner about the problem was that I am normally extremely careful about engaging in activities that could be called "harassment", "hounding" or "personal attacks"; I wound up "winning" anyway because once it finally was brought to the judges' attention ... I don't really know, but I got a certificate anyway), and I think the project would be poorly served by another admin who is not only "soft" on close paraphrasing but actually engages in it himself. |
Explanation of why I thought it was cool to question support voters but don't intend to do so again
|
---|
Anyway, looking at some past "run-of-the-mill" RFAs that saw high levels of participation (as opposed to ill-considered ones where the opposes were in the clear majority, or highly controversial ones), it does seem that thorough scrutiny of the oppose votes is more common than the same for support votes. I could speculate on the reason for that, but I don't really care; if it's the way things are done, I will respect it, and (assuming I'm unblocked) not comment on any more support votes in that RFA. |
I'll suggest you agree to BsZ to stop editing in this RfA, I'd be happy to agree to that if it were set as an unblock condition, but I don't see where Boing! said Zebedee ( talk · contribs) actually said that. I already said in my appeal below that I would like to continue discussing the close paraphrasing concerns, but if the reviewing admin thinks thinks there is evidence I would immediately return to hashing out my dispute with James on the RFA I would happily accept a week-long page ban in return for an unblock. (Or, heck, if Boing actually meant that he would unblock me on condition that I didn't edit the page again I'd be fine with that too.)
Hijiri88 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I pinged Boing above in the hopes he would unblock once I pointed out that the incident for which he blocked me had ended several hours earlier and my most recent "involvement" was a technical question about a broken tool, but I seem to recall Boing being based in the UK so I don't suspect I'd have got a response for several hours. My
last comment on the whole incident (in which I also struck the comment that was the secondary reason for this block) was I'm unlikely at this point to convince anyone that his motivation for choosing this one of the dozens of RFAs his old associates have been involved in to comment on was dubious, so I really don't want to argue it anymore
(emphasis added), and this was over four hours before I was blocked. Anyway, I regret the above-quoted comment and everything else I said that could be taken as a personal attack or drudging up old disputes at RFA, and will not do so again. I do, however, wish to continue the discussion I was involved in during the hours leading up to this block, which had nothing to do with either James500 or Mike Peel (and had been going on before either of them commented), and was focused on the supposed distinction, or lack thereof, between close paraphrasing and plagiarism.
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや)
01:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
In the events preceding your block you were repeatedly told to drop the stick, since you have made your point more than once, but you failed to stop. Since you are planning to resume the discussion, it would be easier for everybody (including you, so that you do not get blocked for a longer duration) if you stay blocked until this RfA has been summarized. If you want to have a broad community discussion over close paraphrasing, it can be done in a week from now. Ymblanter ( talk) 07:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I don’t know what really Adamstom.97 is inhabiting. There is a serious disconnect between him and I. I have come to believe that he is collaborating from a dishonest position. I know that Swarm has warned them about disruptive behavior. Would it be canvassing to ask Swarm to review this situation? I’m becoming pretty frustrated here. — AdamF in MO ( talk) 22:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
As an uninvolved editor, I'd be willing to lend some assistance on neutral wording, should you want or need any help. Just drop me a line if desired, even if it's only to review your proposal. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 10:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
On the user contribution search page putting "mw-new-redirect" in the tag filter field will show just new redirects. {{u|
zchrykng}} {
T|
C}
00:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
zchrykng}} {
T|
C}
00:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)That was some nice translation, I didn't actually expect you to respond that quickly haha. Hope everything is going well for you; I have moved away from Japan after 8 years, hopefully to save some money back home before moving to Asia again (this time around I will likely go and trace my heritage in Taiwan). Cheers, Alex Shih ( talk) 05:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I understand that you speak Japanese. Would you be able to assist me with a ja.wiki edit? -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
This was not a deliberate "mispresent". It was kept. I was wrong in the precise formulation (Keep but had in fact put in "no consensus"), and made the correction. Your poor choice of words in the edit summary was unnecessarily hostile, accusatory and uncivil. ````
I added the comment at the rescue squad as my own. You did not sign your comment. Still haven't. I would not here, but you are spreading untruths. this is a tempest inn a teapot. Sorry to come back. I'm gone now. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 12:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
As they said in
Cool Hand Luke, "
What we've got here is failure to communicate" I intended no offense.
7&6=thirteen (
☎)
13:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC) has given you a
dove! Doves promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!
Spread the peace of doves by adding {{ subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
Hijiri,
I saw your former attempt to have page loaded with primary sources removed: HERE I was one of the individuals combating you and eventually it lead to a keep and update status. It seemingly improved over the next year with the height of its quality being [ THIS EDIT HERE ] however after a mass revolt over primary sources not being given the benefit of the doubt with the former conclusion of presumed accuracy, the page was torn down to its [ PRESENT STATE]. If you look at the page, and its citations ( only 1 of the 2 remaining is academic ) , I now side with you; it needs to go. I went to nominate the page and give the following reason: No academic supporting sources to establish page need. Historically been a battle ground among former and current members using exclusively primary sources. (WP:DEL1, WP:DEL6, WP:DEL7, WP:DEL8, WP:DEL14) however I do not know how to create a separate deletion page from the previous one cited up above. If you can initiate this process, I would support you this time around. Coachbricewilliams28 ( talk) 06:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
You are mentioned in this WP:A/N post: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_review_of_AN/I_close. Although I did ping you when I posted it, I am providing you this additional notification at your request. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 07:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
It seems I EC edited a closed discussion. [8]. If you wish to remove my reply feel free to do so. If it wasn't closed may have edited my comment to say I'm even more concerned that you seem to think it was okay to discuss SemiHyperCube's actions without notifying them. Yet your earlier comments seem to suggest you thought you should have been notified. However there is even less reason to notify you than there was to notify SemiHyperCube. You opened the initial discussion, and DT did mention one of your comments, but frankly that was irrelevant. DT was not suggesting any wrong doing on your part. DT's concern was about the appropriate of the close. And you have no say on how the discussion should be closed. DT could have simply removed their mention of you and your comment, it would make little difference to their close review request since they did not provide any evidence, or even a suggestion, that Swarm was unduly close or otherwise unduly influenced by you. So you opening the discussion was irrelevant to the appropriateness of the close and therefore there was no real why they had to notify you. There was no reason why you or your actions had to be or were going to be considered by anyone at that thread. But frankly, I wouldn't fault DT for notifying you even if they hadn't mentioned you since it's simply too minor to worry about. However notifying someone when you are specifically bringing their actions up for a discussion has been expected at ANI for a very long time, so I would assume based on your own comments AN. (I don't spend so much time at AN that I can say with confidence.) Anyway, frankly I find this a dumb irrelevant diversion to the main issue in that thread, so even if it wasn't already closed I would likely not engage further. But rest assured, if you do open a discussion at ANI and don't notify someone despite bringing their behaviour up for discussion, there's a good chance this will be challenged by me and probably others. You yourself seem to agree it's a big deal, so I really don't understand why you then think it's okay to do just because their actions aren't the main focus of a thread (in so much as a main focus even exists, which isn't always clear). Nil Einne ( talk) 11:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
This is another polite request that you stop WP:HOUNDING and stalking me. See also [11]. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 12:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
You have lied saying I support Breitbart as
WP:RS. I never have. Show me some diff where I said I support Breitbart as a good source. This is what I
say about Breitbart: [W]e do have Breitbart printing rubbish like this "Scott Baio Suggests Obama Could Be a Muslim Who Wants to ‘Totally Eliminate the United States".
Please strike every comment where you claim I said Breitbart is good
WP:RS. An apology is in order.
David's history of permissiveness when it comes to citing Breitbart.com as a source would appear to indicate that he's not actually a great advocate of diversity and welcoming of women and ethnic minorities on this project11:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC). diff at 11:00, 28 October 2018
The comment of Example 1 is completely unacceptable. Comments like these need to stop. I expect an apology. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 14:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
In the AD thread at ANI, you implied that you were pinging MelanieN, HighInBC, Barkeep49 and Insertcleverphrasehere, but they were all "noping" links [13], so nobody got pinged. If you wanted to ping them, you'd have to change the codes and also re-sign your post, for those people to actually get pinged. Softlavender ( talk) 22:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Catching up after a really long wikibreak. Did that issue at MoS about "shar[ing|ed] continuity" get resolved? I agree that the exact phrase can be problematic in some instances, as in the MCU films vs. TV series stuff. There's probably another way to phrase it when two-way shared continuity isn't actually happening. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
What you wrote here is worth diffing (for each quoted statement) and including as evidence as a new posted that includes these quotes for a diff for each of them. I didn't realize the problem was that severe, or I would have urged for a topic ban under no uncertain terms, and possibly an indef. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Q=This is in reference to a content dispute in which you involved yourself a few years back, which 2015 ArbCom later weighed in on quite heavily, so I kinda feel it's worth asking. On 23 March 2015 you wrote that you felt the Kenji Miyazawa article's lead should mention the Kokuchūkai, a Buddhist group with which he was briefly associated, based on how prominent it was in the article body at that time. (The above diff doesn't actually go into as much detail, but giving all the diffs would be awkward: the further comments are here.) Do you still feel that to be the case based on the current state of the article? I am the principal author of the article as it exists now, and would like to nominate it for GA, and maybe eventually FA, but am unwilling to do so while it still has what I see as an extremely serious flaw, and am just as reluctant to fix that flaw myself given (a) the opinions expressed by you and others in that RFC, and (b) what happened in the resulting ArbCom case ( permalink of ArbCom unanimously agreeing that the dispute started there). Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Uncertainty seems rife for non-techies like me. Sca ( talk) 14:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I wonder who this was. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 22:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Brough87: @ Nil Einne: @ Legacypac: @ C. W. Gilmore: @ Dream Focus: @ James500: @ Expectant of Light: @ Mhhossein: @ Simonm223: Error in Template:Reply to: Input contains forbidden characters. @ David Tornheim: @ Darkknight2149: @ JohnWickTwo: @ Andrew Davidson: @ Adamstom.97:
Any ideas? A number of you are people I conflicted with only once, briefly, months ago, so it's unlikely that a random troll would know about you but not, say, Ribbet32 which may be a hint. Or maybe it's just Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JoshuSasori returned from the grave, deliberately pretending to be someone who conflicted with me in, say, late June 2018. I'm honestly not sure which conclusion would make me look more paranoid, so I'm keeping an open mind about it.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 17:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Apparently closely monitoring me and then immediately unretiring if I am blocked, following me to a couple of discussions, then immediately re-retiring when I am unblocked, counts as being "retired" and I should refrain from pinging to "accuse of ridiculous and insulting things" like ... posting the above diff that clearly was posted and I didn't just imagine it. Oh, well. I guess I can take solace in the knowledge that there is no justice on Wikipedia and I as a malicious troll can keep harassing people with impunity. But honestly I'd rather be subject to the same restrictions as everyone else, if it meant I was protected from harassment like the above diff. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 23:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I responded to your message at ANI, but my ping win't go through Tornado chaser ( talk) 02:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Hijiri88. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I will gladly accept your WP:TROUT for feeding the trolls. :-p -- Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 01:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Why did you remove a comment by me at ANI? [ [14]]. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
::::::::Maybe I am missing it, where did they accuse you of being sneaky? Slatersteven ( talk) 11:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC); I thought you were referring to my striking "him" and adding "them", the only edit I consciously made to anyone else's post. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I think I have had my say, you have said it was an accident and I accept that. I just ask you to show ore care in the future. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Hijiri
I've restored TH1980's statement - it looks like it was removed unintentionally as part of a revert of an error they made when writing the statement. (They edited an old version of the page, thus erasing lots of other comments in other sections). So feel free to restore your reply if you want. THanks — Amakuru ( talk) 23:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
An editor has started a deletion nomination for Chiyo Miyako. Because you were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion discussion. 96.253.25.35 ( talk) 12:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I thought about dropping this; I can see how this post might be taken in a way it isn't intended. It does feel a little like I'm giving a backhanded compliment. But ultimately I wasn't fair, and so want to clarify my comments at the now-closed ARCA.
I appreciate and respect Mainspace Hijiri88. He does more article work in a few days than I do in a year. I don't know enough about the subject matter to know who is right and who is wrong when you get into content disputes, but it is clear that whether generally right or generally wrong on content, Mainspace Hijiri88 is knowledgeable and productive and respected and has the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart.
My comments at ARCA were actually directed at Wikipedia-Space Hijiri88. I pretty much stand by those comments. I honestly feel that conflict escalation is almost all that Wikipedia-space Hijiri88 does. But when I said "that's basically all he does", this is what I was referring to. If the ARCA request wasn't closed, I'd go back and change that to "that's basically all he does in Project space". -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 16:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, Hijiri88, and welcome to Women in Red. It's good to have such an experienced editor as a new member, especially as you intend to contribute articles on historically notable Japanese women and their works. I see from your user page you have a systematic approach to article creation with a pre-established list of red links. Presumably a significant proportion of these are women. In any case, I look forward to seeing your future contributions. You may be interested to learn that in February we have a focus on the Ancient World, which should fit your area of interest. Happy editing!-- Ipigott ( talk) 08:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
An earthquake and tsunami in 2011 caused massive economic dislocations and a serious nuclear power disaster.Ancient indeed ... Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
{{WIR-00-2018}}
on the article's talk page.--
Ipigott (
talk)
13:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)![]()
Continuing: | ||
Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): (To subscribe:
Women in Red/English language mailing list and
Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe:
Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
-- Ipigott ( talk) 08:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
This made me laugh, w/re our discussion of canvassing earlier. I was like, "Now THAT'S canvassing." Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacy Layne Matthews Thought it might make you laugh, too :D valereee ( talk) 13:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
![]()
![]() January events:
|
Hello! Kevin from Wikipedia Asian Month here. Thank you very much for your contributions this year. Because you have created at least 4 eligible articles, you are qualified to receive a special WAM postcard from an Asian community. If you would like one, please fill out this form by January 10. All personal information you submit will only be visible to select organizers in charge of postcards, and will be destroyed once postcards are sent out. If you have any questions, please drop a line on my talk page or ping me. Thank you, and happy holidays! ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 02:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Argento Surfer (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019! |
Hello Hijiri88, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Tenjin no Honji you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
MPJ-DK --
MPJ-DK (
talk)
05:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kashihara Shrine Sightseeing Map.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 19:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Please note The reason I don't name any specific editors in my farewell message is to avoid people saying "This is about user X and needs to go". A certain editor recently assumed "the whole hounding thing" was about them, but this is clearly incorrect.
Hope you'll find the interest in coming back sometime. I stopped editing for two years after an upsetting incident, and eventually did find some joy here again. valereee ( talk) 12:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Also sorry to see this, and I hope you do return. You do a lot of good here. Dekimasu よ! 22:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
So we never grabbed that beer you promised while I was living in Japan, and now you leave here without telling me? I understand though, take care and come back when you feel like it. Alex Shih ( talk) 08:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Sad to see you go. Hope you'll change your mind in the future! - Zanhe ( talk) 20:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Following this ANI thread, you are indefinitely banned from interacting with Darkknight2149, subject to the usual exceptions. The restriction has been logged here. Giant Snowman 14:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)