User talk:Hijiri88

Archives

1

2

3

4

Sorry about that

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

Clarification request archived

Your clarification request has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus.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

Ehrman

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

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

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

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

Blocked

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

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

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

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

Decline reason:

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

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

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

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

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

I'll be more careful in the future.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unblocked

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for May 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chinese influence on Korean culture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Huayan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom case amendment request

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

Pronoun

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

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

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

Context

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

Your help desk question

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

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

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

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

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

Disambiguation link notification for June 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joseph Campbell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Watson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Pretty sure this is Veritas2016

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

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

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

Your request for a lede citation on Pennsylvania

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

WP:GAC listed at Redirects for discussion

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

Disambiguation link notification for July 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tang poetry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emperor Xuanzong (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tang poetry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Li Bo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Gnosticism

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

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

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

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

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

Nomination of Bey Logan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bey Logan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bey Logan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MSJapan (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The Great Wall film

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

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

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

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

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

But I digress...

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

Searching for Falun Gong bans

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

Users with COI editiong religion statistics article

Hello Hijiri88.

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

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

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

Re: my topic ban

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

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

Jesus

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

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

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

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

Wagner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10,000 Asia Challenge

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

Discussion on edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's him. http://www.conservapedia.com/User:RJJensen I had a look at his home page on here and it's the one and the same. (just seen your second response on this). Now I have no idea what he's been posting but I would be staggered if he veered away from his nutty skewed version of history. Anything Republican (politicians, parties etc.), Christian, right wing, American, he will skew to the heavens. He's right out of the Fox News book of white washing history, white being the appropriate term. He's in my top five reads on Conservapedia as I get a kick out of ludicrous viewpoints. Apparently he hasn't posted on there for some time - I just checked before posting that it's about five years - and that after some issue with the site founder. The material doesn't get updated that often on there and hasn't for years, so even the most recent edits could be from about three years ago. He's among the worst I've read: he's been lampooned on other sites for his work. He's among a small group (and in my view he's the worst of them) of Conservapedia editors (admin in his case, a head honcho) that stated their displeasure at Wikipedia and that they would rewrite it. He's a bad egg who has no interest whatsoever in an encyclopedia. Imboredsenseless (talk) 02:10, 14 November 2016 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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