User talk:Hijiri88/Archive 11

Yo

Meaning to do this for a looooong time, but I'm very sorry for calling you a hound at the Defenders GAN a while back. I didn't realize how out of line I was and you're not someone I want to make an enemy of. I really hope you can forgive me. JOEBRO64 11:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

No problem! Just be careful in the future: if there's only one thing on Wikipedia that's worse than plagiarizing text, it's accusing those who try to remove textual plagiarism of "hounding". Neither the community nor ArbCom has ever ratified such a definition. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Some kittens for you!

	Hang in there!
	–MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Re: this. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

In regards to [1] Hijiri99, I appreciate you and hope you have a awesome weekend! I'm really sorry this stuff happens here for you. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Serious allegation

The charge you make on your user page is a very serious one. I certainly hope that it is not true and I have no recollection of having said such things. Unless I am utterly blind, the evidence you have presented does not substantiate the charge. Please either provide the evidence or remove the accusation. Lepricavark (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

You have never, AFAIR, apologized for the comments I linked to, where you accused me of a "battleground mentality" (your exact words) and "picking fights" for attempting to defend myself against comments about my mental state from editors who were hounding me. (Striking your vote in the former case is not an apology: you could have done that because you realized that saying "per BU Rob" but supporting the opposite to Rob's proposal looked silly.) Can I take the above "certainly hope that it is not true" as an apology? If so I'll remove that statement from my user page.

But I still think you need to at least change the title on that hat. Pointing out that a certain editor has been called out in the past for misrepresenting our canvassing policy and specifically saying that editors he "likes" are not canvassing, in a thread where he did just that, is the opposite of "off-topic". @Swarm: You wanna back me up here? You were the one who did the said calling out.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

If that was your objective in your response to Slatersteven, there would have been a better way to go about it than simply suggesting that he should stay entirely out of the discussion. Besides, he was asking questions and not making definitive statements, so I don't see how your characterization of his remarks was a fair one. And I doubt you would appreciate it if someone dragged a months-old issue to ANI as a reason to suggest that you shouldn't be part of a conversation. Seriously, those comments came across as personal and unfair, and I think hatting them was a reasonable action. Nevertheless, I have unhatted them, as you can see.

As for the matter of the thread from 2017, you claim that I made insinuations about your mental state. I did no such thing. You may not like my claim that you had a battleground mentality. Indeed, I don't expect you to like that claim, although still being mad about it after all this time is probably not healthy. But it is absolutely not okay to claim that I personally attacked or even commented on your mental state because that is NOT what "battleground mentality" means. Not even a little bit. Furthermore, note that I made mention of battleground behavior on both sides of the dispute. I wasn't picking on you. One final point: in that thread, you said that I accused you of a battleground mentality without evidence. Yet here we are, more than two years later, with you using your userpage to make a demonstrably false accusation against me. To be clear, I had completely forgotten about that thread and still don't really remember it. I can understand why you would be upset with users who questioned your mental state, but please don't take that out on me because I was not one of those editors. Lepricavark (talk) 02:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

My exact words were it might be a good idea for you to refrain from saying "this user who recently agreed with me on something is not canvassing". Nothing in what I said implied I was suggesting that he should stay entirely out of the discussion. That being said, thank you for removing the hat.

I'm not interested in defending the interpretation that repeatedly opposing sanctions for editors who question my mental, while oneself using words like "battleground mentality", constitutes agreement with said remarks. My present beef with you is resolved, so I'll gladly remove the mention of you from my break notice. Cheers, and happy editing! :-)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for removing much of the content of your user page, Hijiri88. It's great to talk about your interests and all of the wonderful articles you have worked on. But listing insults you have received or your disputes with editors who you've disagreed with is less productive and just causes bad feelings to persist. I know you are a frequent target for trolls and been taken to ANI too many times to count but rehashing conflicts from years ago doesn't do anyone, including yourself, any good. You're too good of an editor to be nursing old grudges. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, the reason I posted it was the same reason I removed it, and it had nothing to do with old grudges. An edit was made on ANI that I found concerning a couple of hours ago, after I had already announced that I was on break. Now that that edit has been undone, the issue is resolved and there's no more need for the post. I would have removed it anyway once my break was over, as I do with all break announcements. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

A note for posterity

Just noting here, in case anyone ever considers unblocking him, that Huggums537 was hounding the shit out of me during his last month on Wikipedia, and I'm a little disappointed with a bunch of those editors for not telling me about it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

July events from Women in Red!

July 2019, Volume 5, Issue 7, Numbers 107, 108, 126, 127, 128 Check out what's happening in July at Women in Red... Virtual events: New topics: Sports / Education Geofocus: Microstates Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Initiatives we support: Atari Women University of Edinburgh 1000 Women in Religion Editor feedback: Check out the conversations regarding Sports, Sports, Sports! Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Re:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As I cannot comment on the now closed deletion discussion thread, that I do not appreciate your tone and mischaracterization of my actions, I'll do so here. You said" So... you nominated the article on a well-known Japanese manufacturer for deletion because someone at your workplace told you that an email supposedly from (someone who claimed to work for?) said manufacturer was spam, and a quick glance at our article indicated it didn't have the best sourcing? That's ... I don't even know what to say. Anyway, I've taken the liberty of striking your nomination and speedy closing this AFD, since you apparently forgot to do both."

Well first, it wasn't just "someone" who told me. As I said "HR at my company warned us to not do this, saying it was spam" That is quite different than the implication of an unimportant random "someone." AND BTW, I work at one of the largest defense contractors in the world, so I trust our HR department in this regard. Also, what's with the "claim to work for" comment? Second, I never said I did "a quick glance" as you stated. I read the entire thing and looked at all the refs, as I said in the nomination: "After removing some bad refs, the remaining ones are few and largely company sites or in Japanese." Where in there is a quick glance? That is all still true and should be corrected. Finally, having never been involved in a deletion where I agreed to do a withdraw, I looked into how this is supposed to be done - and could not locate the WP guide on how to do so. (What a shock. WP is not user friendly.) So I did not "forget" to do anything, but did not know how, and trusted someone with more experience in taht arena would do so. BTW, all of your snarky remarks made me immediately regret agreeing to a withdrawal. RobP (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, well then you should clarify with HR what they meant. I find it incredibly disturbing that an official HR announcement at a large defense contractor could say what you say they did; either you misinterpreted them, or they made a pretty disastrous error.

As for "a quick glance": the article made a clear claim to notability -- saying one of the top Japanese dailies have consistently listed it as one of the most excellent Japanese companies -- and so you should not have even considered nominating the page for deletion without determining whether this statement was accurate. Or you could have considered that the subject has articles on multiple other language editions of Wikipedia. If you don't know how to close the AFD yourself, just strike your comment and wait, or ask someone else to do it -- you could have politely asked me, rather than going to the AFD, lying about having decided to withdraw your nomination upon reading the "keep" arguments (you logged on and edited Wikipedia on at least three occasions between when I cast my !vote and when I messaged you -- it was clearly the latter that prompted your withdrawal), and continuing to attack the subject of the article with an unsubstantiated (and probably unsubstantiable) anecdote about spam emails.

I gave you a piece of advice to allow you to take the high road and behave in a dignified manner becoming of the Wikipedian I assumed you were, and you did ... practically the exact opposite of what I suggested. Please stay off my talk page. If I see you making any more frivolous AFD nominations that look like you didn't even read the articles you are nominating, I will pursue an appropriate solution.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, your returning to shoehorn in the name of the company and link to that AFD thread (did you think I didn't know what you were referring to?) after I asked you to stay off my talk page has made your bad faith apparent. Go away. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Now you accuse me of lying, and then make threats without cause. I saw your comment on my personal page and then went to read the comments on the deletion discussion to see what you were talking about. If there were other notices I did not see them before that time. Reading the comments convinced me to do a withdrawal. How is this a lie? And why would I lie about that? Why are you escalating this? You may have much experience in the deletion discussion area, but you seem to have social problems. RobP (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You said you reconsidered your position after reading my AFD !vote, but you had more than two days to do that, in which you were active on Wikipedia on three separate occasions;[2] you reconsidered after I messaged you on your talk page and implored you to do so. I was ready to praise you for being the bigger person and admitting fault -- in fact I practically told you I would -- but you did exactly the opposite. Call what you did whatever you want, I guess. I don't care.

And I'm not threatening anything -- I'm telling you to stay off my talk page, and you are (repeatedly!) refusing to respect that.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Your comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 29

Hi Hijiri88, I have no idea why you choose to personally attack my name in this discussion by associating it with a slang term. As explained on my user page, “AFB” are my initials as “Andreas Franz Borchert” is my full name. Please honor WP:NPA and take care as your last two digits could be easily misunderstood as a heinous reference to this. Such unwanted associations are in many cases unavoidable. Point is, however, that the reference to Jan Eissfeldt in that redirection is not accidental but intentional. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 08:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC) Stricken with apologies (see below). --AFBorchert (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Take a joke, dude.

Your apparent lack of humour, on the other hand, indicates that you mean your snide remark about my username (already addressed on my userpage, BTW) to be taken as completely sincere. If this the case, kindly either retract your blatant personal attack, or stay the hell off my talkpage.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

When I assumed this to be an “unwanted association” I was completely sincere and this is indeed confirmed by your note on your user page. Hence, I never assumed or claimed that you ever wanted to have this association. Please take my apologies if my wording wasn't clear enough in this regard. Exactly this should make clear that one shouldn't play with unwanted associations of other people's user names. And I will happily stay off your talk page and from your weird “humour” if you refrain from attacking me. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 09:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Exactly this should make clear that one shouldn't play with unwanted associations of other people's user names. That's not how it works. My comment was clearly a good-faith joke, and even if the wording I had used hadn't already made that fact as clear as day (which it did), you should have gone out of your way to assume as much. You did the opposite, going out of your way to interpret the joke literally, which by itself would be a violation of policy, but you also, apparently with complete sincerity, thought it would be appropriate to "respond in kind" with a remark no one has ever made without it ultimately getting them site-banned.[3][4] And you still haven't stricken it! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not see a good faith in your comment which you label as joke. I fail to see anything funny in it. It was a personal attack, plain and simple. And I came here only to your talk page telling you that I do not want to see this. Please take again my apologies when I used your user name as example for another unwanted association. I've stricken it above to make it clear. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

If you can't see how whose username is clearly an unambiguous reference to a slang term that is not only highly racialized but includes foul language (let alone what I said about dishonest time travelers and shared accounts) was obviously meant as a joke, that just supports the argument that you have no sense of humour. Say what you want about whether my joke was funny, I can't believe there is an English-proficient human being on the planet who would think it was meant to be taken seriously. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

correction

Your edit summary said "Both Han and Uyghur are Chinese". Han colonizers claim the conquered Uyghur people, and the conquered Tibetan people, are Chinese. Uyghurs and Tibetans disagree. Geo Swan (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Medieval Japanese literature

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Medieval Japanese literature 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 Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Medieval Japanese literature

The article Medieval Japanese literature you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Medieval Japanese literature for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Shortcut snafu at WT:ACN

Hello,

In this edit at WT:ACN, were you really intending to link to WikiProject Cal Poly Pomona with your use of the shortcut WP:CPP, because that made no sense to me in the context of what you were saying there about "Encouraging collaborative behaviour". This discussion is now at WT:ACN/Archive 42, and I'm not certain whether the "do not edit Archives" restriction extends to a prohibition on fixing an incorrect link (assuming it is incorrect, and I'm not just missing something). I suppose a "by-the-book" approach would be, "un-archive the discussion, fix the link, archive it again", but I fail to see how that's better than just fixing it in the archive, especially since nobody's going to take the time to do the former approach. It's still a wiki, and I don't see why one couldn't directly fix the link in the archive. Anyway, my 2 cents; and if you did mean to link to Cal Poly, what was it that I missed? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I have since become aware of the problem independent of your above message, and stated my opinion on the matter in this edit summary. My opinion is that relatively obscure wikiprojects should not take priority over important essays when it comes to intuitive shortcuts, but I lack the inclination to proactively fix it myself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 16#Wikipedia:CPP. I am still in the "listing" phase at WP:RFD#HOWTO. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Stop following me

The fact that I took you to ANI twice for harassing, following, hounding behavior does not seem to stop you from following me. I have asked you not to talk to me, in your edits, on my talk page, in your sandbox, or anywhere. I have found you to be a very disagreeable editor who looks for areas where drama and friction occur. I am asking you again to stop following me. This is a large encyclopedia, please find ways to be a constructive editor and stop this behavior. Lightburst (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure all of our recent interactions have begun with you following me and posting harassing or clearly targeted comments at several AFDs. I didn't recognize your username, suspected you were another sock, and checked your contribs, where I found a couple of other problematic edits. The fact that you had been harassing me back in May/June is pretty irrelevant: I decided to put that behind me and politely message you about the edits. If you don't want me to do so I will respect that, but I won't stop fixing problems with articles. Anyway, the above diff of you "asking me not to talk to you" is two months old and predates your trawling through at least six and a half years of my edit history. I think it's pretty clear who was and is doing the hounding. Please leave me alone, and I will stay off your talk page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I won't forgive you. You feign ignorance regularly. Like when you reverted my edits twice while I had you at ANI - then pretended you did not know I started those articles. Now again you pretend you did not know my user name, even as you bring up the Jean Mill article which I started. There is no reasoning with you, and I find you to be a tendentious harasser. Leave me alone. Help build an encyclopedia. Your unwanted attention is non-collegial following which is designed to cause me distress. I and administrators have told you as much. That you continue is proof of your appetite for drama. I am warning you to stop this behavior which goes against policy. Lightburst (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Now again you pretend you did not know my user name, even as you bring up the Jean Mill article which I started. I checked your contribs after I saw you show up at the above-linked AFD, and I clearly knew who you were when I wrote this, which was a full three days before the Jean Mill comment you refer to. I never said or implied that I still now didn't know who you were. Stop confusing the dates (as you also did above by implying you asked me to stay away from you after you filed the two frivolous ANI threads on me, in which you indicated that you had followed my editing history back several years).

Your unwanted attention is non-collegial following which is designed to cause me distress. Umm ... what? The edits you are referring to consist of me changing an article on a British soldier to use British spelling and date formatting. If you want to interpret that as "designed to cause distress" that's ... actually something ArbCom and the community have condemned numerous times in the past ... but it's still an unambiguous improvement to the encyclopedia.

I won't forgive you. So ... are any of the admins who have my talkpage watchlisted going to block this editor for clearly WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND comments like this? I don't mind people holding a grudge against me for whatever it is they think I did this week, but going out of his way to show up on my talk page specifically to say as much is clearly out of line.

Anyway, LB, please stay the hell off my talk page until told otherwise. You are a tendentious editor and have in the past indicated that you derive a malicious joy from causing me mental anguish (nothing else could explain the "I know about Tristan noir and Catflap" stuff linked above), and I don't want to see any more red or orange lights at the top of the page indicating that you are continuing to do so.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Medieval Japanese literature

The article Medieval Japanese literature you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Medieval Japanese literature for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

August 2019 at Women in Red

August 2019, Volume 5, Issue 7, Numbers 107, 108, 126, 129, 130, 131 Check out what's happening in August at Women in Red... Virtual events: New: Film+Stage / Indigenous women / Millennial countries Continuing: Sports (through August 31st) / Suffrage / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: August's Indigenous Women event and the REDress Project Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Rosiestep (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

DYK nomination of Medieval Japanese literature

Hello! Your submission of Medieval Japanese literature at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

You

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should. 210.217.18.70 (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I have my suspicions about who you are, sock-troll IP, and I should state that I noticed that merge-discussion as a result of it being alluded to on ARS -- where I have been longer than you, and multiple disruptive POV-pushers trying to page-ban me has already been unsuccessful because my presence there is a boon, not a burden, to Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm curious who do you think I am ? 210.217.18.70 (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Does it matter? Log into your account and tell me; what I think isn't really relevant -- I have a bunch of toxic and abusive trolls who think they have one-way IBANs against me and so routinely harass me and then when I talk back they speak as though I am running the risk of a block; one or two of them were specifically told to stay away from me if they wanted me to stay away from them, which might explain why they would want to log out. Although given that your IP geolocates to South Korea, it's entirely possible you're one of the racist trolls who are already (de-facto?) site-banned as a result of me bringing them to ANI. I don't even really care which of the above, if any, you are, but I would appreciate your not posting here unless you are willing to disclose that much. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Right here buddy. User talk:Newshunter12. 210.217.18.70 (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Newshunter12: I don't for a second think the above IP is you (partly because disclosing one's account name but not doing so logged in is a dead giveaway of impersonation, partly because you and I have only, to the best of my recollection, interacted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest twins (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with the longest marriages (2nd nomination), where we were both arguing for the same position). This makes me think that whoever it is, it's a common "enemy" of ours; any idea who it could be? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok you caught me it's actually User talk:Cunard. 210.217.18.70 (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Newshunter12: I don't for a second think the above IP is you (partly because disclosing one's account name but not doing so logged in is a dead giveaway of impersonation, partly because you and I have only, to the best of my recollection, interacted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest twins (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with the longest marriages (2nd nomination), where we were both arguing for the same position). This makes me think that whoever it is, it's a common "enemy" of ours; any idea who it could be? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me, Hijiri88. That IP is certainly not me and while I don't have a specific "named person" in mind, I do believe I know who this is. For many months, editors in or who have touched the longevity sphere, primarily me, have been getting nasty messages on our talk pages, death threats, suicide demands, or attempted hackings of our accounts. Their main goal by all appearances is to get me blocked or to leave Wikipedia because of their stalking. They created a fake account named Newshunter14 and threatened another editor (TFBCT1) I was having a heated discussion with to try to get me blocked, claimed I and Drewsky1211 are the same person and reported us for socking, reported me for edit warring against Rockstone35 when neither of us were edit warring per the 3 revert rule, attempted to hack BrownHairedGirl's account around the time I made a hacking joke towards her so it would seem like it was me and then did it again many months later after BHG and I started re-litigating that. It's interesting you say this is a South Korea IP, because an admin said the IP stalking me is based in London, but they have used a huge number of different IP's as theirs get continually blocked. All I can really say is that this has been ongoing since at least December 2018 and it appears to just be your turn to be used in an attempt to get me blocked. If you search my username, there are three threads in this admins archive for further reading on this issue here. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

They tend to use NordVPN, such as that (now range blocked) Korean IP. One of their normal ranges is 172.56.28.0/23 or thereabouts. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Make

Me. 210.217.18.70 (talk)

Help

Please, can you zoom these two images and translate the kanjis of the city in the license plates: 1, 2. Thank you. --79.31.23.144 (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Illegible. Sorry. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The first is surely illegible, but the second? It could be "長野" (Nagano). --95.244.89.56 15:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.244.89.56 (talk)

Yeah, I guess it could be. It could also theoretically be almost any other combination of two characters -- do you want me to go through every possible combination of kanji on Japanese license plates and make a judgement on the relative likelihood of each one? As for the first one, if you knew it was "surely illegible", why did you even ask? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing films

I'm not a native english speaker, so I may have misinterpreted the note. From my understanding, the note says that Philosoper's Stone peaked at #2 even though Titanic and Jurassic Park (that were released before Philosopher's Stone) grossed more, due to the fact that Jurassic Park had a re-release. I think this is pointless because just before the table it says that "All of the films have had a theatrical run (including re-releases) in the 21st century" and I don't see the fact that "the numbers don't add up" that you mentioned. Also the note is wrong for saying that "the figures given for Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is the initial box office gross" because the film also got re-released and its recent grosses are included (e. g. 2018 re-release). So I don't understand why a note should be necessary. I'm sorry if I'm not understanding, I hope you can help me. Thanks and happy editing. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 14:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

All of the films have had a theatrical run (including re-releases) in the 21st century doesn't provide an adequate explanation, in my mind or apparently in the minds of every viewer of the article except you, for the discrepancy in the numbers. For one thing, very few of those readers actually read the prose sections of the article. I just happened to notice that the gross listed for Potter was less than the one listed for Park despite us saying that the former outgrossed the latter. I hadn't noticed that the same was true for The Phantom Menace. Anyway, if it turns out the majority of regular editors of the article agree with you, I would be happy to yield to the consensus, but my talk page is not the place to look for those editors' opinions; I don't think even Betty Logan, let alone any of the ones I've hardly interacted with, has my page on her watchlist; that being said, the fact that the note was the article status quo for several months, including virtually all of Endgame' race against Avatar would seem to indicate that the majority already do agree. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I dont' understand what the discrepancy is. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 15:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 at Women in Red

September 2019, Volume 5, Issue 9, Numbers 107, 108, 132, 133, 134, 135 Check out what's happening in September at Women in Red... Online events: New: Law / Military history / Writers / Geofocus: defunct countries Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Missing articles about notable women by "nationality" vs. "country of citizenship" Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

DYK for Medieval Japanese literature

On 28 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Medieval Japanese literature, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Japanese literature of the 12th through 16th centuries ceased to be the reserve of the aristocracy and became "national literature"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Medieval Japanese literature. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Medieval Japanese literature), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

In the spirit of good faith and collaboration

Could you take a look at Sofmap and see if you see any indications it may be notable? If you reply here, please ping me. TIA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Weird coincidence?

In mid-September 2019, I defended a substub on a notable Japanese topic at AFD, where the AFD argument was not that substubs shouldn't be allowed (an argument I would have agreed with) but that the topic was not notable (which was patently absurd). In order to defend my point, I wasted considerable time expanding an article on a topic I wasn't really interested in. A few days later, an editor with whom I had previously conflicted (and who had repeatedly accused me of following him despite his blatantly following me) created another AFD on a notable Japanese topic with almost exactly the same rationale. Posting this here as a memo to myself in case this becomes a recurring trend, since editors with grudges trying to force me to waste my time arguing rather than building an encyclopedia (or otherwise enjoying life) is really unacceptable, and if it continues will need to be dealt with. Also worth noting is that that editor has confessed to engaging in email contact with multiple other editors who had minor tiffs with me, so the odds of the next AFD being from some other, seemingly unrelated, editor are not negligible. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

October Events from Women in Red

October 2019, Volume 5, Issue 10, Numbers 107, 108, 137, 138, 139, 140 Check out what's happening in October at Women in Red... Online events: New: STEM / Fashion / Geofocus: landlocked countries / Stub Contest Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Women vice Chancellors in Top 200 universities Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

A kitten for you!

Thanks for mentioning the NPA. I didn't even notice it much, just expected malicious background noise :( Just today I got another very nasty NPA, and I don't even think either can be reported. Shame WP:PAIN died so quickly ;(

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Sorry about my comment regarding User:Levivich being a 'long-time' user. I didn't realize he was only around since late 2018. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Grace period for boldly orphaned non-free image

Just noting here that I'm granting a 24-hour grace period before tagging File:GaijinHanzaiMagazine.jpg with {{Db-f5}}, to allow for the possibility that someone will undo my bold redirect of Kyōgaku no Gaijin Hanzai Ura File – Gaijin Hanzai Hakusho 2007 in the meantime, thus making speedy deletion of the image both redundant and disruptive. Posting this here for a few reasons:

1. in case any of my talk page watchers want to undo my redirecting of the article;
2. in case any of my talk page watchers want to inform me that technically the deliberate application of a grace period to an orphaned non-free image is technically out of line and I should either undo my own redirect or immediately request speedy deletion of the file; or
3. in case anyone wants to discuss the redirect here without undoing it outright.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

November 2019 at Women in Red

November 2019, Volume 5, Issue 11, Numbers 107, 108, 140, 141, 142, 143 Check out what's happening in November at Women in Red... Online events: New: Librarians / Leaders / Geofocus: Asian Women Month Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman / Stub Contest Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Disappearing articles Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Discouraged?

Sorry to hear you're feeling burned out. I've tangled with this particular tag team in the past and I agree they're as wearying as they are snide. It's probably best to keep doing your work and avoid addressing them directly, or expressing any sort of frustration with their antics; attention seekers tend to wither when deprived of it.

On the subject of article work, I've recently been taking stock of our articles on the board game Go (game). I'm a pretty hopeless player myself, but I admire the culture around it, and the majority of the articles here are atrocious. Badly sourced, full of OR, overflowing with excessive tables of trivia, but almost all notable enough for articles. If you ever felt like some innocuous busywork on and east asian topic, away from the peanut gallery, I would appreciate help from someone who can read Japanese.

Hope to see you back soon. Reyk _YO! 12:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, those *******s managed to keep their attack page from getting deleted for the time being. I'm very, very annoyed at that. Hopefully one day Lightburst, Thirteen and Andrew will get themselves site-banned for this kind of obvious harassment. But in case you hadn't noticed, I was already back. Finally got around to doing some real work for WAM. I'm actually not that familiar with go, but I might take a look at them at some point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

BTW, I will find it incredible if there are no consequences for this obvious gaming of the system and this disgusting harassment. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC) (Edited 00:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC))

Accusing others of harassment when it appears you are the one harassing others

On that AfD your behavior is odd. I did not want to pout this nonsense on the AfD - the !voters deserve better. I have questions about your bizarre accusations. Why do you constantly think you have enemies? And why do you un-collegially follow GF editors and diminish them. Perhaps you should re-read the good advice from this administrator, (received this week). And this was good advice also from an administrator. This too was great advice from an ordinary editor who noticed your bizarre attacks. And here is one example of you visiting another AfD just to follow an editor - (who you also insist is harassing you) WP:DISRUPTION. And here you are again, following editors who you accuse of harassing you. And here you are diminishing the editor you accuse of harassing you by name and then attacking the article Improvement Squad. And here again diminishing the same editor you accuse of being your harasser.

And this is just the last few weeks of your disruptive behavior. I won't leave your gross misrepresentations unchallenged anymore. My contributions are available for all to see, and responding to your spurious claims is a time-sucking experience. I will need to appeal to a higher authority soon if you do not stop - the project is not benefitting from this sort of thing. I do hope you take the advice of those administrators and the editor. Lightburst (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Just going to note that the above was posted in violation of numerous requests made for the above editor to stay away from me, and my user page which requests all editors to stay away from me for the time being. Also this -- I don't know when that site ban is coming, but if pointless needling and misrepresentation like the above continues it will surely be coming at some point.

And FWIW, I have been contributing to AFDs linked to from the Article Rescue Squadron's list for almost two years, and intend to continue pointing out when disruptive !votes that are either based on personal attacks against the nominator or consist of nothing but copy-pasted GBooks search results and a word-salad of Wikipedia policies that are entirely tangential to the discussion.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Lightburst (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• What a pathetic loser you'd have to be to stake out someone's contributions all day hoping to catch them reverting some nonsense 38 minutes early, so you can immediately go running to the edit warring noticeboard over an issue that doesn't even involve you. Talk about obsessive. Imagine being so fixated on hating a perfect stranger on the internet that this is your idea of fun. Y'know, this behaviour kind of reminds me of another obsessive buttinsky, one who used to follow me around all the time. They eventually got banned from XfD for being incompetent and an annoying IDHT timewaster. Being deliberately unpleasant isn't a winning strategy in the long run. Reyk _YO! 16:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Reyk: while I realize the frustration being perpetuated by this ongoing tendentious feud, the next time you refer to another editor as a pathetic loser, expect it to be noted in your block log. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Lightburst

See my comments at the WP:AN3 thread above. You and Lightburst are done feuding with each other onwiki. The next time something that looks like continuing the feud happens, whoever does it will be blocked a week.

This is independent of the edit warring issue, which I also address in that AN3 thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Answer to question at ANEW

You asked at ANEW what you were supposed to have done and/or what you can do now.

Optimally, what you should have done (hindsight):

• Explained what edit warring is and its consequences (template would have been OK) before you started edit warring too.
• If there is already a clear consensus, as I think you've claimed, point to it.
• Instead of breaking 3RR, asked for admin intervention earlier (after the template)
• Discuss with the article in a state that you don't like

That last one is underutilized on WP

What you can do now:

• You've claimed there's a previous consensus against this: if so, point to it.
• You're acting as if the other editor is not editing in good faith; if so, provide evidence. Otherwise, use dispute resolution, incl.:
  • Give actual non-insulting discussion a chance
  • Seek a 3rd opinion
  • Seek input from a wikiproject
  • Start an RFC

--Floquenbeam (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I have provided evidence that the other editor is not acting in good faith -- he has repeated the same bogus accusation (that I am editing based on personal opinion) four times, and the speed with which he posts his "replies" made it very clear he was not actually reading my comments. Moreover, per WP:ONUS, the burden is still very much on the other party. The previous version was supported by talk page consensus, and it is inappropriate for an editor two return almost two years later and restore a counter-consensus version. Discuss with the article in a state that you don't like turns ONUS (and WP:BURDEN) on its head in this case, since you have not said the same to Martin. If there is already a clear consensus, as I think you've claimed, point to it. What do you mean by "clear consensus"? I disputed with a couple of other editors over whether the article should exist at all, and we came to an agreement that the article could exist if the content claiming "mottainai" was an "ancient Shinto concept" (etc.) were removed. Do I need to show you a !vote where multiple editors explicitly supported this? The talk page having quieted down after that happened seems pretty clear to me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I've opined on the article Talk page. Please let me know if there's any aspect that I missed. - Ryk72 ^talk 08:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Catflap08

Catflap08 emailed WP:UTRS requesting unblock. I did not unblock, but have restored talk page and email access on the assumption that he wants to appeal. Such an appeal is unlikely to prevail, but we live in hope: maybe he has seen the light. I am monitoring his talk page. If he emails you please alert me or any other administrator and we will revoke access again. Thanks. Guy (help!) 19:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: Thank you for informing me. The timing seems suspicious, since in the past few weeks a number of SPAs and near-SPAs have been coming after me, but I'll keep an eye on the situation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: Sorry to ask, but would you be willing to say whether the UTRS appeal originally came before or shortly after, or several days after, I made this edit? Catflap has given me no reason to believe he isn't still following me, and he removed this reference to me from his de.wiki user page as hist first edit after I made the above edit (I wasn't even really thinking about him when I made it -- I picked a random topic from a Japanese literary encyclopedia that looked like I could build an article out of it, which is something I've been struggling with for a few weeks) and I find it hard to believe that action could be unrelated to his appeal. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Hijiri88, 2019-11-12 18:40:06 Guy (help!) 09:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: Thanks!

BTW, did Catflap happen to request that his email be enabled? One of the main reasons I requested it be disabled was because I saw evidence that he was reaching out to other editors and sending them copies of a "Hijiri88 enemies list", and back when the IBAN was first put in place, he was also found to be emailing other editors to get them to revert my edits in his stead and to be badmouthing me to randomers via the email service (one of whom forwarded the message to me). Given the history here, I would be a lot more comfortable if any further unblock requests he makes either (a) be visible to all members of the community (including myself) or (b) only visible to admins, to prevent the kind of disruption that has gone on in the past. Would it be possible to remove email access while leaving talk page access intact?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Hijiri88, no. And if he doesn't put the appeal in by Sunday I will disable again. Oh, also, I was wrong: I didn't enable email, only TPA. Sorry to worry you. Guy (help!) 09:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks! (But yeah, I probably should have checked myself if it actually was enabled before asking you.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Tsukumogami

Talking of stupid wiki articles, look at Tsukumogami. Deplorable. I haven't time to fix it myself.Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Francis, that was a warning for you, not related to article content

@Francis Schonken: It seems you misunderstood my message. The fact that you have been reverting all attempts to communicate with you on your talk page and communicating these odd messages to me in the edit summaries leads me to believe that I am not welcome on your talk page, so I'm replying here.

Calling it "forum-shopping" when I message you on your talk page, then calling it "bludgeoning" when I make arguments on the article talk page makes it seem like you are just trolling/hounding me specifically, which is quite popular these days and is not likely to immediately see you get site-banned; but if that RFC plays out and you are the only non-"new" editor still actively supporting the inclusion of OR and other complete nonsense, it will really not look good, especially considering you only recently came off a year-long block. (Yeah, your block log says "edit-warring", but in reality no one ever gets an edit-warring block that long; per the relevant ANI thread, it is obvious that the primary reason for the length was your refusal to get the point.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Please stop the WP:FORUMSHOPping. The discussion is where it is, and anything you may want to say to me on that topic can be said there. You coming to my talk page and goading that I won't "ever recover from this" is inappropriate, to say the least. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

So, you're planning on keeping the IDHT act up? Good. I'll wait for there to be a clear "consensus" in support of the otherwise obvious facts, and then ask you again if you recognize that you were wrong. If you say no then, I will request that you be TBANned from Japanese topics per WP:CIR. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes I heard your attempts at WP:INTIMIDATION, and, indeed, I choose to ignore them, for the time being. I'm not that easily WP:BULLYed, and would prefer to leave it to others to see whether or not that is the case. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, yes, they will. A lack of self-reflection and refusal to admit one is wrong after it has been thoroughly proven that you are is very unbecoming of a long-term Wikipedia contributor. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

BTW, none of this is meant as a "threat" or "intimidation". I am trying to protect the encyclopedia from an editor who I am sure knows better and I am sure can be convinced while also trying to convince him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for feuding, in particularly with Lightburst, after multiple warnings to knock it off. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Where did I dispute "particularly with Lightburst"? I was one of numerous editors commenting on the Article Rescue Squadron's disruptive behaviour. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

In particular here and here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Where did either of those edits mention Lightburst? Yeah, I got a problem with the way a number of editors have behaved toward me and others, but I was one of numerous editors expressing this problem.

Anyway, I don't really care enough to stay blocked over this. If I promise to stay away from that discussion and any ARS-related discussions for the next week, will you unblock me so I can contribute to Wikipedia Asian Month?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The block's purpose is two-fold; to stop your ongoing commenting on Lightburst, and to deincentivize you from doing it again when the block expires. Your suggestion would address the first purpose, but not the second. If you just keep feuding until you're blocked, and then say "OK, now' I'll stop feuding", you're missing the point. If you make an unblock request, an independent reviewing admin might disagree, and that's fine, but my own opinion is this block should last the whole week, to emphasize that you really, really, really need to stop feuding with others. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, it's not my intention to "keep feuding", and that wasn't even my intention before you blocked me. There is a "feud" (really a series of poorly formatted amendment proposals) going on at VPP that were concerning to me. That will likely keep going on indefinitely until something is done whatever decision I as an individual make, but I really wouldn't be interested in it enough to let it distract me from writing articles if it weren't for real-world circumstances making writing articles hard for most of this week. (And FWIW, I wrote the following appeal before I saw your most recent message, but I don't think anything about it has changed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

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:

Message received. I'll stay away from Lightburst and all ARS discussions and any references to ARS members collectively in a manner that includes Lightburst. I really just want to write articles for WAM at the moment, and was distracted by other stuff during the week so that most of my Wikipedia activity over the last 48 hours was posting on a discussion that I probably should have been staying that hell away from. I've learned my lesson, anyway (which unfortunately came on Friday night right before I was gonna devote my first free Saturday this month to writing articles). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Well, it looks like Awilley has gone offline, and since he specifically said below that he prefers your approach, I'll unblock even though I don't quite agree. I'm hoping that even after the week away from ARS and ARS discussions is over, you'll still do whatever is in your control to just not start things with them, and also not react if they start things with you. I may be wrong about what specific approach to use to try to put an end to it, but I am much more confident in saying that I am not alone in insisting that it has to stop. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: This seems reasonable to me, and I think the commitment Hijiri made about to stay away from Lightburst will have a bigger effect on their behavior than just letting the block expire. ~Awilley (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Awilley: I'm happy to defer to your judgement. Maybe you're right. Also, I should have made clearer for unblocking admin review: this block wasn't out of the blue, on my talk page I've been warning both of them about it this week. It just needs to stop, you know? Please feel free to unblock if you're comfortable that it's a better way to achieve that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)