Misplaced Pages

I would also like to point out that I seem to have made a major make up in my post in that ANI thread. I supported the topic ban as it was proposed by AlbinoFerret and BMK. However, my clarifying statement referred to the previous ANI where I did believe that Catflap had violated their interaction ban and should have been sanctioned. I also felt that the interaction ban, at that time, should not be lifted so soon after being levied. Whether a subsequent consensus was to lift the ban is neither here nor there. As it stands the ANI has been closed by Drmies with no action this time beyond a slap on the wrist. I have no dispute with how it was closed. My observations are entirely not personal and are as objective as possible. My post here is merely to clarify my statement which has caused some confusion to you and Wikimandia as I did not wish to edit a closed ANI. Blackmane (talk) 06:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

• Relevant diff: this message. Relevant text from WP:IBAN: you may not "make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Misplaced Pages, whether directly or indirectly". Consider yourself lucky that I set the block at 72 hours before I noticed that in the follow-up you made another accusation (against TH1980) which goes well beyond acceptable discourse. Hijiri, this has to stop. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: See the below unblock request, but in short blocking me because you unilaterally and prematurely closed the discussion, and I should have magically intuited the thread had been closed is inappropriate. Also, the TH1980 dispute is completely unrelated. If you look at the history, you will find that he has done almost nothing but follow me around and complain about me for the last few months. He threatened me similarly, with nowhere near as much justification. Please don't comment on issues without doing the homework first. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I warned you, you didn't listen. (Gaijin is quite correct.) You want to make a case against another editor, do it in the proper forum, with proof. Without it, you are violating AGF and NPA. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

this was a comment on another user's talk page about said user's pre-close comment on what was as far as I knew a then-still-open ANI discussion of said IBAN. I had seen this diff and responded on the user's talk page so as to not further clutter the ANI thread, without looking at the latest update on ANI. (Drmies himself said in his close that it was cluttered.) The near-universal consensus was that the IBAN should be dissolved, and that the other party had violated it numerous times and should face some sort of consequences. Drmies closed the ANI thread, apparently unilaterally quashing a still-open discussion as to how the problem should be dealt with. I accidentally stumbled across the closed ANI thread after posting the offending comment. While my post may have technically violated the IBAN because the ANI thread had already been closed, I was not made aware of the close, and I think most of the participants would have seen the sudden close as counter-intuitive, so "Hijiri88 should have instinctively known that the ANI thread was closed and that commenting on it on other pages was therefore technically inappropriate" is a weak reason to block me for 72 hours, especially when the other participant in the IBAN has not yet received a block for numerous proven violations. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC) Edit: I was under the impression that discussing the other user on a user talk page, in the context of discussing a still-open ANI discussion of whether the IBAN should be dissolved, was acceptable. My reason for believing this was that the other party had not been blocked -- or even warned -- for extensive commentary on me and my edits on his own talk page here and here. Drmies claims below that I had received a "final warning" before being blocked, but no such final warning -- not even any initial warning -- was received. If I am blocked without warning for technically violating the terms of a poorly-defined IBAN because I am mimicking the supposedly-acceptable behaviour of the other party, then blocking me without blocking them makes this a one-way IBAN, something that no one agreed to. Either I should be unblocked or the other party should be blocked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Procedural only as the block expired. Jezebel's Ponyo 22:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The comment would have been an iBan violation even if the ANI thread was still open. The WP:BANEX exception is only for the proper venue. You could have commented in ANI, but not elsewhere. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion the unblock should be declined. Hijiri88's comment here, to User:Snow Rise, in which he mentions Catflap08, violates the existing wording of the IBAN which has been in place since last April. If Hijiri88 was optimistically assuming that the ANI thread would end with by lifting the IBAN, then his hopes were not realized. The very mild 72-hour block should stand. If we see more ANI complaints about conflict between these two editors in the future, I think it will be time for longer blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, it could be noted how even though the other party violated the IBAN multiple times, even posting in an unrelated ANI thread about me, without ever receiving a block, I have now been blocked almost immediately without any noticeboard discussion for "mentioning the other party's name". Would joining in an outside discussion and saying "I support the user getting TBANned" have not been a violation just because I didn't type the user's name? I really don't understand how this IBAN works -- it seems to violate both the terms established in the initial IBAN discussion and the definition on WP:IBAN as it works at the moment. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 19:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

You both have violated the iBan a number of times. I gave you a final warning and you didn't listen. The rest is just wikilawyering: the iBan says you can't mention the other person, you can't even refer to them. If Catflap had mentioned you first after I closed that thread, they would have been blocked. You've been through this before, Hijiri, and you should have known better. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, where was this final warning? You didn't post anything on my talk page. When the IBAN was put in place you not only closed the AN thread in a manner that was quite obvious to all participants, you posted on both of our talk pages informing us that the IBAN was now in effect; here you posted a closing statement that claimed that my edits to the Kokuchukai may have been IBAN-violations (even though no one else seems to agree) and told me to zip it, but took no measures to ensure that I had seen this before blocking me. If you had posted this on my talk page I would have been all too willing to do so -- believe me, I have never actively sought to interact with the other user, even long before I was officially banned from doing so -- but you can't claim you gave me a final warning when you had no reason whatsoever to believe I had read your closing statement. You can't tell me that your previous wrist-slaps to the other party should be taken as warnings to me that the next violation by either party would result in a block (and I would have no reason to believe that that is how IBANs are supposed to work). And the kid gloves with which all previous violations of this IBAN have been treated (by you, no less) should have given you pause before immediately blocking me for the slightest infraction and claiming that you had delivered a "final warning" to me (when no initial, let alone final, warnings had ever been received, to the best of my knowledge).

You may or may not remember past experiences I have with IBANs, but I certainly remember past experiences you had with a certain IBAN, and if I recall correctly that ended with you apologizing to me for blocking me without looking at all the evidence. Can't you even consider that maybe the same thing might have happened again? In this case you specifically asked not to be requested to close discussions or block for violations of this IBAN, and to report violations on ANI, but have actively stepped in numerous times since then, and even claimed that AN and ANI are not the place to report IBANs. I also haven't forgotten when you first told me years ago that AN is the place to discuss IBANs. I really don't know what to make of all of this. No one ever told me IBANs were this complicated and difficult to handle, and I never would have accepted the present one if someone had told me that reporting an IBAN-violation itself merited a "warning", and continuing to report could result in blocks. (I appreciate that in this case I technically mentioned the other party's name on a user talk page; said other party directly reverted my edits and posted attacks against me in unrelated threads and is now being told that because he didn't use my name while doing so it was acceptable. Indeed, the user has previously engaged in extensive discussion of me and my edits on his own user talk page -- with the exact same user, in fact -- and was never even wrist-slapped because he technically never mentioned my name. I never reported this until now because I was under the impression that with a still-open ANI discussion heavily leaning toward dissolving the IBAN, then discussion of said ANI discussion on user talk pages was acceptable. This curious loophole where it is forgivable to go into detailed discussion of the IBAN-parties' conduct but only if the IBAN-parties do not mention each other by name was never elaborated to me either here or in WP:BANEX. The whole thing has essentially become a farce at this point. Clearly Snow Rise was also unaware of how this worked, else he would not have brought me up on the other user's talk page and would have reminded me to be careful when I mentioned him on his talk page. You can say I'm wikilawyering at this point all you want, but what do you call claiming that my behaviour was blockworthy because I had received a "final warning" when no such warning was ever received?)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC) Final edit made 00:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC). Sorry for having to go into such detail. I'm not the only long-winded Wikipedian, and Drmies has criticized others in the past for not being will to read long comments. And this is an extremely complex issue. I just hope the unblock request reviewer at least notes all the extra commentary provided down here, such as how the block rationale was at least as wikilawyer-y as the unblock reasoning, and how every single technical violation I made was directly paralleled, earlier and stronger, by the other party.

Hijiri, I am sure everyone understands your defense: "Catflap did it first". Now, moving on to other matters, can I point out to you that you may not have technically broken the iBan with Catflap on Talk:Soka Gakkai, since you have directly responded to them, but that you're playing with fire, and that you can easily be seen as hounding Catflap, since they have 170 edits in that article and you have none, and yet you show up on the talk page when they're mentioned in a thread? Drmies (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@User:Drmies: I have been editing articles on Japanese religion since 2005, and you specifically said in April that edits like that one (posting on a talk page in an area the other party is relatively more interested in, but not directly interacting with them) are not IBAN-violations. I have been monitoring that page because the whole area is a shitstorm of OR/SYNTH/general nonsense (not specifically related to me, or the other user in the IBAN, or any other one, two or even three users) in which I have become inextricably involved since before the IBAN was in place (see my pre-IBAN edits to Talk:Daisaku Ikeda, Talk:Nichiren Buddhism and Talk:Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō and my post-IBAN RM on Talk:Nichiren Shū). If you want to intervene and stop the constant barrage of SYNTH/OR/BS infesting that article and the articles in its immediate vicinity (note that I am practically the sole author of our articles on Miyazawa Kenji, a figure known for his Nichiren Buddhist beliefs, and the Kokuchūkai, a Nichiren Buddhist NRM), please be my guest. You might say that since the user with whom I am IBANned and I had previously disputed in the topic-area in question, I should be staying clear away from that topic-area as a rule, but then the same would have to apply both ways. TBANs and PAGEBANs were never under discussion to begin with. On the talk page in question, I was responding to another user with whom I have no IBAN, whose proposed edits would have been an NOR-violation. If you yourself are not willing to step in and cut through the OR and other nonsense, I would ask that you stay out of my way and stop it with the double standards. The IBAN is not a one-way IBAN in which I can be sanctioned for the exact same behaviour that you yourself asserted was not a violation when engaged in by the other party. I don't see why you are getting so involved here, anyway: you specifically stated in your initial close that you wanted nothing more to do with this IBAN, but now you have started not only unilaterally quashing open ANI discussion of whether the ban should be dissolved, but actively enforcing it in a manner that looks like counting coppers. And don't say that my responding to you here in this manner itself counts as a violation: what else am I supposed to do -- just ignore and/or revert your comment? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri, you're in the same thread that Catflap was in. And of course I'm not saying that a response breaks the iBan--please don't be silly. And note that I just made a comment: I didn't block you. Drmies (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for not blocking me, but as far as I can see the only differences between this discussion and the discussion for which you did block me are that (1) I used the phrase "the other user" rather than the user name and (2) it is taking place on my talk page rather than that of a third party -- if I responded to you on your talk page rather than here I assume that would also not be a violation, but I would still really like to see some concrete definition of this IBAN lest I accidentally violate it again. Blocking for casual and infrequent use of the other's username in the context of a discussion of whether the IBAN should be dissolved, but not for the exact same with "the other user" subbed in every single time rather than just 80% of the time, seems arbitrary.

As for the "thread" part -- have you actually read the "thread" in question? One of the problems with that topic area (not just that page, but all the others I mentioned, right down to Kenji and the Kokuchukai) is that all semblance of talk-page etiquette and logical/rational discussion has broken down. The comment to which I was responding had very little relation to the thread topic, which in turn had nothing to do with the comments by the other user with whom I am TBANned (three words and just over a line, respectively). Saying that I'm on thin ice because my comments fell into some extremely loose framework known as a "thread" is silly, when 90% of discussion on that talk-page is off-topic banter about the nature of the topic rather than about how the article can improved by reference to reliable sources.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri, I firmly believe that a common sense-reading of the iBan policy should be clear enough. A thread was started on Talk:Soka Gakkai about comments made by Catflap. Catflap made a comment or two. You make a comment--three lines below Catflap's comment. It may well have been an accidental violation, but it was avoidable. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't read "thread OPs" before responding to comments by users that have clear proposals. The other user's comments were inconsequential. I don't see how it is remotely as bad as what the other user has done on previous occasions on the Kenji Miyazawa talk page that you called indisputably not an IBAN-violation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Kenji redraft problems

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kenji Miyazawa may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "<>"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• }} in April 1924, thanks to some borrowings and a major subvention from a producer of ]).<ref>Hoyt Long ,[https://books.google.it/books?id=3Wco6gxpor8C&pg=PT369 ''On Uneven Ground:
• playing to audiences compositions from Beethoven, Schubert, Wagner and Debussy on his gramophone.<ref name="Mitsutani" Margaret Mitsutani, 'The Regional as the Center: The Poetry of Miyazawa Kenji,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@DavidWestT: You have mail. I am not the one with the mail. I shouldn't have put that template on my own talk page. Sorry about that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI 2

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri88 I always try to be fair in this long dispute, but edits like this one do not help your cause. —Мандичка 😜 04:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@User:Wikimandia: John Carter has previously (four months ago, but he was inactive on Misplaced Pages for three of those months) requested that the admin corps go to the archives and reexamine all of my past disputes and turn the results back on me. He specifically requested that I be blocked for violating Tristan noir's TBAN on Japanese literature, which led to said ban's wording being altered two years after the fact. There have been similar calls (directly from other users with whom John Carter has apparently been in off-wiki contact, indirectly from John Carter himself) to unblock JoshuSasori (who among other things posted my parents' home address on Misplaced Pages in order to intimidate me) and Juzumaru (whose last six months of edits before being block consisted of wisecracks about my love life, and who has claimed to be currently evading his block via a sock account). Can you blame me for being a bit jittery when John Carter shows up again and requests that the admin corps go back through the archives and reexamine all my previous disputes? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't blame you for being annoyed, but that does not give you an excuse to resort to personal attacks. Nobody can provoke you without your consent, so don't give it to them. None of the things you say John Carter did violate any rules, but your reply does appear to be a PA, so all you're doing is shooting yourself in the foot. —Мандичка 😜 06:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Repeatedly asserting that I should be blocked for stuff that happened years ago in which I was the clear victim of harassment at that time and virtually everyone agreed is pretty close to violating WP:HOUND, WP:STICK and WP:BEAR, and blatantly violates WP:AGF (John Carter, having no first-hand knowledge of my history, saw the bodies in my wake and assumed I had victimized them rather than the other way around). John Carter has been called out for this by multiple users, including one he himself canvassed. If by personal attack you mean my questioning JC's sanity, what is the acceptable way of calling out another user for doing the same thing multiple times and expecting different results? I admit I am frustrated with this situation, and have most certainly gone over the edge in a few of my remarks, but please bear in mind that, despite what John Carter and Beyond My Ken keep asserting, I actually have nothing to lose here beyond what they are explicitly trying to take away from me: TBANning me from every article I have ever edited or ever will edit would be the end of my Misplaced Pages career is effectively the same as indefinitely blocking me, hacking my account and changing the password.

But you are right. Questioning John Carter's sanity was the wrong move, as it was every other time my frustration with his accusations drove me to do it in the past, and when I did the same to Beyond My Ken earlier today. I apologize for the lapse. (I would do so directly, but both users have requested I neither ping them nor post on their talk pages, and I have requested the same of them.) And I apologize to you if this thread seems argumentative: your injecting some sanity to these discussions has always been highly appreciated.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Ariwara clan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Waka

Ariwara no Narihira (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Waka

Prince Abo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dazaifu

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani

@Curly Turkey: Your starting an ANI thread (essentially a block request) over an extremely petty content dispute was definitely disruptive. Nothing either Signedzzz or Nishidani did merited such an action. And aggravating the situation by collapsing legitimate content discussion with the inaccurate and inflammatory summary "political horseshit" was just as bad, if not worse.

@Signedzzz: Stop antagonizing Curly Turkey. While I've been inclined to agree with you more than CT in those few minor areas of disagreement where I can figure out exactly what it is you disagree over, your talk page etiquette (repeatedly reinserting an unsigned comment, for example) has been wanting. This does not merit a block or topic ban (neither of which CT directly requested, though), but it did not help the situation.

The fact is that we have all been dealing in this issue with a couple of extremely disruptive, very difficult to deal with editors who have a long history of bringing out the worst in people through their passive-aggressive, IDHT behaviour on talk pages. We should be working as hard as possible to avoid letting this situation get the best of us (as I myself have a few times in the past, I'll admit). Neither of you have been doing this to the best of your abilities, as far as I can see.

If you want to let CurtisNaito and his attack dog get you blocked, topic-banned or page-banned, or get their preferred version reinstated and then protected, then I guess I can't stop you. But please take your entirely meaningless and silly fight somewhere else. Keep it off my talk page. I logged in three times during the above exchange being told I had received new messages; each time I clicked the link, afraid of an ANI notice of yet another of my wiki-stalkers starting a discussion of whether I should be site-banned for this stupid reason or that, and I would have to spend another week arguing over bullshit rather than working to improve the encyclopedia; each time, I was both relieved that this was not the case and further annoyed that the messages I was receiving were not even for me, but an utterly stupid and completely pointless fight between two users who, to all outside observers and even most of those inside, appear to actually be agreeing with each other.

TLDR: Cut it out.

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.

Can you explain Nishidani's deal? You seem to be on talking terms with him. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: Nishidani is an opinionated user with diligent sourcing standards and a sharp tongue. He and I almost never agree fully on article content. Sometimes he was wrong, I corrected him, and he recognized his mistake; sometimes I was wrong, he corrected me, and I recognized my mistake. The reason we generally work well together despite rarely agreeing is because we are both open to being corrected. In this case, Nishidani and I are both dealing with a user who has proved again and again that he is unwilling to admit his mistakes (and they are many). When that user is indisputably proven to be wrong, he just says "Oh, well I meant to day that from the start -- why didn't you understand me?", and when he can he argues and argues and argues until the other users give up and move on. He also blankly reverts article edits until he gets his way, carefully avoiding making more than three reverts to the same article in any 24-hour period. As you can tell, I'm not talking about you here. It's not your fault Nishidani and I are frustrated as (insert-four-letter-epithet-here) in the present matter. However, as far as I can tell on reading the recent talk discussion your only substantial dispute with him is over whether one lives on or in an archipelago -- I don't have a strong opinion either way, so I don't see how it could be worth fighting over. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• It's not just the archipelago thing---he's been on attack mode with every comment he's directed at me (check out the first one in the collapse box---that preceded the archipelago thing). I'm at the article to copyedit, not deal with male PMS. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry -- I had noticed the collapsed section from one of CN's edit summaries, and naturally assumed that CN had collapsed something I wrote that he didn't like, so I clicked on it and read a little. Didn't quite get it at first, but I've examined Nishidani's and your comments in some detail now.

I frankly agree with both of you, to a degree. On philosophical grounds I would tend to take your side, but it's not worth arguing with Nishidani when he's basically the best there is at what that article needs right now. The article before last weekend was utter crap. Nishidani came along and improved it, citing sources that dispute the claims that CN had added and/or made up based on his own misreadings of sources. I am inclined to agree with you that an overview article is not the place for either CN's claims or Nishidani's rebuttals. (This is why when instead of Nishidani I'm the one who corrects CN, users don't have the same -- perfectly reasonable! -- complaints that you made about about Nishidani's modified text -- I just remove the gibberish/OR and replace it with a summary of the scholarly consensus of similar length, whereas Nishidani is a devout inclusionist.)

If the current dispute works out anything like Soga–Mononobe conflict, Emperor Jimmu and Korean influence on Japanese culture, after a few days, weeks or (maybe) months, CN will get bored and move on, at which point other users will have a reasoned discussion as to whether the full text with should remain (probably Nishidani's view), should be summarized to a shorter expression of essentially the same thing (usually my point of view and, I would guess, yours), or should just be cut entirely if it's not relevant to an overview article (another option you presented but that would probably be a bit too far in most cases).

I say just wait it out until the problem subsides. Most of us appear to be in basic agreement as to what the real problem is; dealing with it takes a lot of time, even more patience, and not a small bit of cunning and wit in navigating around with users who flagrantly violate the spirit of 3RR while aggressively demanding that the letter of said be upheld.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Awesome—people can talk shit about me behind my back and I'm just supposed to sit back and put up with the lies: . No, I'm not asking you to do or believe anything—I'm just demonstrating the bad faith that has driven me from the article. For the record, it doesn't matter who GARs the article, as the problems with it are so extensive (beyond even sourcing) that there's no way it would survive a delisting—an army of enablers won't save it. The only reason I won't do it is that I've withdrawn my services from the article. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Curly Turkey Slander? Really? You returned to my talk page after being told not to, slagged me off some more, and I answered your question. If you genuinely think the reply is "slander", take it to AN/I to try and get me blocked like you already did. I can stick it on the Signedzzz "disruptive editing" section there if you really want. My talk page is presently where people can find my response to your ludicrous allegations, as my response there indicates. I don't enjoy the attention, which is why I took my name out of the heading. You wanted to maximise my discomfort by reverting that edit to keep my name there. You then used my discomfort as further ammunition against me, twisting it into another reason to block me. Nevertheless, I'm not out for blood: if I was, I'd return to the sleaze-fest you started. Therefore my response to your question must remain, in case anyone desires the information. zzz (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The record speaks for itself: you've successfully derailed attempts at discussion and driven away a productive editor whom you've repeatedly baited. Not the behaviour of one who purports to be out to "improve the article"—especially when you continue to bait me and continue to talk shit about me after I've already announced I'm leaving. If you so desperately want me gone, why do you keep talking about me? If you so desperately want the article improved, why are you disrupting its improvement? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• • (EC)Which part of this reply did you not understand? Replying when you cast aspersions at me and others is not "trolling". Calling this edit "a transparent attempt to bait me" is just bizarre. Think again about your definitions of trolling and baiting, please. zzz (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)???
    • You were more than aware that both changes were contentious, and you've already shown a propensity to editwar. Yup, you were baiting me. The edit sure didn't improve anything. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

You were and are hopelessly mistaken about that. Not much point going into it - it's not rocket science. It is an obvious and necessary improvement). You can disagree, but calling it baiting is irrational. zzz (talk) 02:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• • Or this one: I assume you would claim that "Political Horseshit not focused on improving the article" with the edit summary "Fuck this shit" is not "casting aspersions" (or, indeed, "trolling"!) - which is where the problems all began. You'd be wrong. zzz (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)??? zzz (talk)
    • I could have chosen my words better, but the goal was clearly to get the discussion on topic. It never did get on topic, did it? Certain editors did their durndest to keep it derailed. Would you like me to strike the cuss words? The situation wouldn't change in the slightest, but I'll willingly do that if that's the bee in your bonnet. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• • • I don't give a fuck. I just want to point out that responding to you casting aspersions like the above, and your previous comment, and most of your recent comments in fact, is not baiting. zzz (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
      • If you don't give a fuck then stop bringing it up. You've certainly been baiting me, on the talk page and in the article. My every edit there has been in good faith, so as long as you keep slandering me I'll keep responding—. Want it to stop? Then you'll have to stop it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Sigh zzz (talk) 02:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, you so want to put an end to this. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

forgot you were "there", bad time for attempt at a joke zzz (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

barnstar

@LavaBaron: Thanks! Not entirely clear what you're referring to, though: the History of Japan talk page and related, where I had two trolls attacking me (one constantly making direct personal attacks and threats against me, the other one referring to my responses as personal attacks in themselves), or the recent ANI discussion of whether I should be permanently site-banned for editing the Nichiren article once (apparently I was topic-banned from Nichiren Buddhism months ago without being told)? I'm frankly much more interested in building up our Japanese poetry articles (particularly Ariwara no Narihira) than in discussing Misplaced Pages politics at the moment, so "remaining committed to Misplaced Pages" was more of an act of selfish laziness, doing what I want to do rather what the community at large apparently wanted me to. ;-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Manuscript authorship

Re 'His Dark Materials, Hi, 'authorship' can mean 'creator', in a way that 'scribeship' cannot (suggesting mere penmanship or copying skills), however I agree that NOT knowing who 'authored' the drawing isn't very important. Pincrete (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Permalink to archived ANI thread here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

And...

Definitely saw this coming. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 23:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

GAR

I got your message on my talk page, but the ping you attempted didn't reach me. If you didn't post a message to the others, they might not have gotten the ping, either. Also, Signedzzz is blocked for a week and won't be able to respond. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: Thanks for the notice. I messaged everyone separately anyway, so it doesn't really matter. Regarding Signedzzz's block: I noticed, and several hours before posting the GAR I considered measaging him about that to point out that if he is going to say "User X is calling me a paedophile sockpuppet" he should post hard evidence, but realized I would need to look into it more closely to comment, and there's no way in hell I'm looking closely into anything that might involve paedophilia and sockpuppetry. But regardless: are you really optimistic enough that you think the GAR will be resolved before the remaing three (four?) days of his block run out? ;-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not optimistic it'll get resolved at all. I think demotion is inevitable. The way Signedzzz's going about the unblock, I wouldn't be surprised if the block got extended (whatever the merits of his case). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

ANI, September 2015

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only reason you were mentioned by Catflap was to explain why he was trying to go away, not to request anything on your part nor to request anything by others that would affect you. This was not a case of "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum", to quote WP:BANEX. You may do well not to participate in such discussions in the future. Nyttend (talk) 02:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

I understand Nyttend's logic in the block rationale, but if Catflap08 really was simply requesting a block for himself he wouldn't have (1) included such extensive commentary about me and (2) left a notification on my talk page. The reason one is required to leave such notifications is to allow said users (me) to defend against requests for sanctions. If my posting on the AN thread was a violation, then Catflap08 posting on my talk page about it must have also been a violation -- why would you notify someone of a discussion they were not allowed participate in?

Decline reason:

The requirements of WP:BANEX were not met, so you were not allowed to reply. In general, there is no 'right to reply' to the party from whom you were IBANned even if we accept your theory that Catflap08's comment violated the IBAN. Given how long this problem has continued, a one-week block seems mild. EdJohnston (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2015 (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.

AN and ANI notifications are generally overlooked as IBAN violations. All editors are required to notify others when they are the subject of an ANI or AN thread. Whether you choose to participate is up to you, but notification is required. Blackmane (talk) 03:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Blackmane: technically Hijiri wasn't the subject of the AN thread, the editor who opened it was (requesting a self-block). ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88: However, Hijiri was mentioned in the thread. It is generally expected though not explicitly stated that editors, who are mentioned at AN or ANI as part of a thread, are notified by the posting party. As the notification states, "issue with which you may have been involved" (my emphasis). Blackmane (talk) 04:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Blackmane: ah ok, thank you for explaining. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@User:Blackmane: You are right, of course, but if I am debatably the subject of the AN thread, then how is my posting there an IBAN violation? The other user chose to post a long rant about me on AN, and chose to notify me of it: if my joining in the discussion was unacceptable then his inviting me to join in the discussion was equally unacceptable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Can't blame him for believing he was being pinged for comment, but ... wow, Hijiri, you didn't really think that comment would fly, did you? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@User:Curly Turkey: The only reasons such a comment would not be acceptable would be if (a) it was not on an admin board in support of a block for a user (e.g., on an article talk page it would have been a tototally unacceptable ad hominem remark), (b) it was on an admin board but was made without evidence (and enough evidence has been presented over the past 15 months) or (c) it was an IBAN violation. While under normal circumstances I would say my own comment was a borderline IBAN violation, in this case by the same strict logic the other user's mentioning me in his request for a self-block was also a violation, and so it seems one definition of the IBAN is being applied to me and another to the other user. I don't feel at liberty to discuss this with you openly on-wiki, but everything I said was true and verifiable. If you want the details I'll email you, but only if you indicate that you want the details -- I know I can be a bit urusai, mendokusai and shitsukoi on these matters. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about who was right or wrong—even if every word was right (I didn't follow the Catflap thing), the very act of making such pointed comments about Catflap was sure to draw you into something (I'm talking about the second half of the comment; I think you could have gotten away with the first half). Just think—if you hadn't commented at all, what do you think would have happened to you? Catflap may have gotten some digs in on you, but otherwise your editing wouldn't have been obstructed. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

If I hadn't commented at all John Carter and company would have had yet more ammo to through at me ("look at what happened to poor innocent "), and the user would have gotten away with yet more lies and badmouthing of me without anyone even correcting him in the same thread.

I'm frankly a bit sick of Misplaced Pages at the moment (note the distinct drop in my non-gnomish article edits over the past few days) and so could use a break, so the block itself is not so much an "obstruction". I've said what I need to say on the HoJ talk page and GAR, as well as Dennis Brown's talk page, so even if my unblock request is rejected there won't be much harm done on those fronts. I'm appealing the block primarily on the technical grounds that I think Nyttend's judgement was flawed (seriously -- whatever you think of the content of my post, it was less of an IBAN violation than what the other party posted, both on ANI and on my talk page), not because I believe my editing will be obstructed.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with what Only in death wrote ... but, c'mon, you had to've seen this coming. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

(BUT... @Nyttend Even though I'm appealing your block of me because I think you made a bad call here, know that I harbour you no ill will. You aren't the only admin who has made a bad call in this matter, nor by any means was yours the worst. I know you have dealt with a lot of shit over the years and you were the only admin to make the right call the last time you and I interacted. Just clarifying, since the above post could be taken the wrong way as a criticism of Nyttend specifically. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC) )

No matter which way you read it, your comment at AN absolutely fell outside the realms of the second point in ]. It also did not satisfy any of the sub points. If anything, your comment was highly inflammatory and would have heightened the tension not lessened it. This block was well deserved. Nyttend's block was a very good call. Blackmane (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

See my blocking comment for my thinking. Basically, he's saying "The interaction ban isn't working (insert details on why not), so please block me". Interaction-banned users shouldn't mention each other because mentioning the other guy is normally a way of saying "he's wrong, so hate/discipline/punish him", rather than it merely being a reason for departure and a clear non-request for actions against the other guy. It's a request that says "Here are the big problems, the big reasons that I want to leave", without which the request would more likely be rejected, and you're simply the main one of those. Your comment, on the other hand, is unneeded: as Catflap wasn't asking for anything to be done regarding you, the results wouldn't have affected you, so you should have just watched from the sidelines. Nyttend (talk) 12:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Yes, and he wasn't technically asking for anything to be done regarding me when he first posted that he was leaving Misplaced Pages because of me. Or the second time he did that. Or the time he and John Carter started a thread on ER criticizing me for "driving him off Misplaced Pages". Or the third time he announced his retirement, again blaming me. And this time he only requested a block for himself and blamed me again, and his friend John Carter only posted in the same thread making a not-so-subtle thread to request ArbCom indefinitely site ban me. (He tried to get community consensus for this several times and failed each time.) The two have been trying all sorts of stunts over the last seven months to cause me as much trouble as possible -- but my posting a response is an IBAN-violation.

I'm logging out for a while. I don't really care if my unblock request is accepted or rejected. I'm sick of all this nonsense. I accepted a mutual IBAN with the other user because I thought it would get him to stop harassing me across multiple pages; instead he used it as an excuse to manually revert all my edits he didn't like, and when I reported him I was the one violating the IBAN and he was therefore justified in calling me a Nazi, a homophobe and (ironically) an anti-German racist. The IBAN needs to go if it's really this one-sided. See you all in a week.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Catflap08 and Hijiri88 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Nyttend (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

In short, this is because John Carter suggested arbitration and because I can see that previous attempts at resolving this situation have all failed. Obviously you can't participate at the request in the normal manner, but if you write something that you want to be added to the request, I'll copy it to the request if you want me to. If you wish to be unblocked so you can participate in the normal manner, I'll unblock you. NOTE TO OTHER ADMINS If Hijiri posts another unblock request, something basically "unblock so I can participate in arbitration", please grant it without asking me. Nyttend (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Unblocked in order to participate at ArbCom

Hijiri88,

I've unblocked you to make your participation in the ArbCom case request (and, if applicable, the ArbCom case) less difficult. Until 9/30 (when the 1 week block would have expired), don't edit anywhere except ArbCom pages and your user talk page; after that, your block would have expired anyway, and you can edit anywhere as long as you don't violate the interaction ban (and any topic bans I'm not aware of; I don't think there are any, but you will know better than I). --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I meant to add: if you want to edit elsewhere sooner than 1 week from now, you can request an unrestricted unblock here using the usual template. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Signedzzz

If you weren't convinced before that Signedzzz was trolling, you should check out this mass revert of every edit I and every other editor made to History of Japan over the past two days. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 15:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Bad copyedits on the History of Japan talk page

@Curly Turkey, @Signedzzz, @Sturmgewehr88: I am currently trying to figure out how to handle the ArbCom request that is related to this dispute because John Carter, AlbinoFerret and especially Dennis Brown (who has actually been intimately involved with the dispute in question since the beginning but stated on the ArbCom page that he was only involved because of the CurtisNaito affair) have made it so. I didn't wanna post this on here until I had posted my comment on ArbCom, but the discussion spreading to my talk page without my consent has forced my hand.

How did no one notice that, while slightly improving some kinda awkward but still acceptable wording, TH1980 added the wording "Japan signed the an important military alliance with Great Britain"? Not only did this introduce an ungrammatical element in an edit whose only claim to being worthwhile was slightly improving grammar, but if we're copyediting, then referring to Japan signing alliances with physical features like the island of Great Britain (rather than the United Kingdom) should be one of the first things to be fixed.

Also, someone really needs to change the section title "The road to war". I know most of the other users editing the page are American, and I don't know how the average American WW2/Japanese history buff sees this, but referring to the first ten years of the so-called "Fifteen Years War" as "the road to war" is very Americocentric and somewhat offensive when one considers that half the Sino-Japanese War is being treated as a "lead-in" to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Japanese history books do not describe it this way, nor do (university-level, scholarly) discussions of World War II written by and for European audiences. I would suggest changing "The road to war" to "Manchurian Incident and Sino-Japanese War" and "World War II" to either "Pacific War" or "Greater East Asia War" (despite how our article on the topic somewhat clumsily describes it, this term is still used in discussing the war both in Japan and outside, as for instance Donald Keene's discussion of wartime literature in his volume Dawn to the West: Japanese Literature of the Modern Era; Fiction). Thoughts?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Of course, you're totally right about the "Road to war". "Manchurian Incident and Sino-Japanese War" is ugly, but at least better. "Pacific War" is fine, but I don't see "World War II" as problematic. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: "World War II" isn't problematic, per se -- it's not openly offensive like the previous one -- but it's technically inaccurate: Japan's involvement with "World War II" is somewhat muddy, since they were allied with Germany and Italy long before Pearl Harbor, they were at war with China earlier still ("World War II" has that moniker because it involved the whole world, but China's involvement followed a totally different timeline), and the standard dating of the beginning of "World War II", as far as that term is concerned, is Germany's invasion of Poland and Britain and France consequently declaring war -- Japan had next to nothing to do with this. It's more a pedantic reaction on my part to the muddiness of the dating, but I think using a more specific term like "Pacific War" would be better. Since the phrase "World War II" is better known, we could perhaps clarify in the first sentence that this refers to the Pacific theater of World War II. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The headers are there to facilitate navigation, so we should anticipate what readers would be looking for. How about "World War II: Pacific Theatre (1941-45)"? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: That works, but it's at least as clunky as "Manchurian Incident and Sino-Japanese War", and unnecessarily so because "Pacific War" works. But I don't feel that strongly about it either way, so discussion of that should take place on the article talk page. I've said my piece; whether I continue discussing this particular issue on the talk page once the conditions on my unblock expire is a non-issue, but might cause problems if you and I determine potentially problematic details on my talkpage while I'm not allowed edit the article directly. We agree on "The road to war" -- that's all that matters for the next three days. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Whatever, I just wanted to see the article both readable and easily navigable, but the thing's been more work and high blood pressure than it's worth. I'd rather spend time being productive and not worrying about someone yanking the carpet out from beneath a house of cards. There are armies of painters and writers who don't even have articles yet, so I'm going to return my focusing to them. If you want your the ArbCom case to come out in your favour I must stress that your comments need to keep to the point (that is, keep 'em brief and comprehensible). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom draft

Doing this here so people don't think I've been ignoring everything that's going on like the spiteful asshole a lot people seem to think I am. Diffs are in short supply at present for the latter half of the dispute, but will be coming soon.

*

I first encountered Catflap08 on Talk:Kenji Miyazawa. I was reading about an author I like and noticed that the lead described him as a "nationalist", despite the cited source not doing so. I removed it and posted a comment explaining my removal on the talk page. At this point I had no idea who had added the epithet, when, or why, and I didn't care. Catflap08 immediately reverted me and replied on the talk page, ignoring my rationale and merely saying that because a source was cited, even though that source didn't verify the claim being made, the claim could not be removed. When I tried discussing on the talk page, he took this content dispute to AN.

After he was told that article content disputes should be discussed on the talk page first, he continued refusing to discuss with me and clarify his stance on the talk page, instead opening an RFC with biased wording. The RFC closed with a unanimous consensus that Catflap08's proposed wording was unacceptable, but not before Catflap08 continued fanning the flames by continuously inserting the word "nationalistic" into the article body. User:Dennis Brown told Catflap08 that his edits were unacceptable, and Catflap08 replied with a sarcastic remark. Dennis Brown, as one of the many admins and other outside observers to notice the Catflap08 problem over a year ago and fail to do anything about it, should not be bringing up remotely related disputes as "evidence" that I have a problem getting along with other users, especially when he is much more involved with this specific dispute than he seems to remember. Since both Catflap08 and the other user with whom I have recently disputed also are in almost constant conflict with multiple users (the admin User:Hoary and various editors of NRM- and Holocaust-related pages for the former; User:Nishidani, User:Sturmgewehr88, User:Curly Turkey, User:Phoenix7777, etc. for the latter), indicating that this is not a problem with me alone.

Because Catflap08 seemed to completely misunderstand our core content policies on the one page where I accidentally interacted with him, I checked another related page he had written, Kokuchūkai, and found the same problems rampant. Several months later, Catflap08 returned to the Kenji article and continued adding references to the subject's "nationalist associations" to the lead of the article, and also continued to refuse to discuss changes on the talk page, instead making a series of aggressive and sarcastic remarks. During the ensuing dispute, Catflap08 was also involved in a similar dispute on the Daisaku Ikeda article (again -- why are unrelated disputes involving me being brought up as "evidence" that I have some sort of recurring problem with civility, when Catflap08 has the same eact problem, only much worse?). I noticed that, there as well, he was inserting contentious, unsourced material, and claiming that the "sources" he was citing inline verified his claims when they clearly did not. I pointed out on the talk page that this was a recurring problem with this user; this was not an ad hominem argument, as it is a recurring problem with the user, and was affecting article content.

After the above incident, Catflap08 started requesting an IBAN with me. Eventually such an IBAN was put in place, and Catflap08 continued posting unverified OR in various articles (I didn't notice these for a while, as I was not monitoring him, per the IBAN), and intermittently joining in unrelated disputes involving me, manually reverting edits I had made before the IBAN, manually reverting edits I had made after the IBAN, discussing me and my edits on the talk pages of other users, and joining in unrelated ANI threads involving me and requesting that I be banned, while carefully avoiding direct mention of my name. These IBAN-violations were almost all ignored by the admin corps, while even the slightest violations on my part were met with blocks. During a discussion to dissolve the IBAN (which took place before my first block, and had received unanimous support), Catflap08 openly compared Sturmgewehr88 and myself to neo-Nazis, based on our usernames.

Catflap08's refusal to abide by our content policies should have resulted in an IDHT/CIR block years ago, and his talk page etiquette is frankly attrocious -- while I have been called out on several occasions for resorting to mild profanity under extremely frustrating, stressful circumstances, Catflap08 almost immediately makes everything personal, he refuses to discuss content in a clear and cordial manner (often posting content disputes to AN and ANI), and at least half of his talk page comments are sarcastic barbs at other users. I don't know why this problem was not dealt with a long time ago, and I am frankly baffled at how many users he has somehow managed to convince this is all my fault.

Question regarding Japanese monarchy

So, royals are quite an interest of mine and I had a question regarding the Empress of Japan (not the current title holder but, the actual title itself) and thought I'd come here to extend an olive branch and ask for your help. I now see you're busy with something big so I won't bother but, I will say, regardless of our differences (or whatever you may want to call them), having been invited/notified to/of a conversation and then blocked for taking part in said conversation seems downright bizarre to me. Should that ever be brought up at ANI, I would support you. Whenever you have more time, if you wouldn't mind pinging me here, I'd be interested in knowing if you had any info about the aforementioned title (specifically: consorts, not any of the eight regnants).Cebr1979 (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cebr1979: Thank you for your message. I am otherwise occupied at the moment, and will likely be so until at least the ArbCom case is closed. I say "at least" because unless it ends with reprimands to four other users for their vindictiveness and no reprimand for me -- admittedly not likely -- those four will likely keep trying to force me off the site. Those who have been following this page know I haven't been allowed focus on building an encyclopedia for at least a month now, thanks to those four and another two constantly hounding me.

You will therefore understand my changing your section title. I've frankly been afraid to log in these last few weeks for fear of what new trap John Carter, AlbinoFerret, Beyond My Ken, CurtisNaito, TH1980 and that other guy have set for me, and when I saw another user with whom I have a checkered history leave a message labelled "Woah" I was briefly tempted to just remove it and add you to the list of users who aren't welcome on this page. I thankfully didn't, but for your own sake it might be better to title talk (even user talk) threads based on their content. "Woah" looks more like the first word in "Woah. I was going to start an ANI thread on you because you disagreed with me on this or that talk page, but I guess I'll just wait and see if ArbCom permabans you". This is NOT to say you did or would post such a thing, just that I've seen enough of that to put me on edge. I've seen users leave the project over significantly less abuse than I've been receiving, so I'm very much on edge at the moment. (Hence my assuming a few sections above that when I was blocked for violating the IBAN I was being treated to a double standard -- a double standard had been applied in every other case, so without checking I instinctively assumed the same had happened here.)

TL;DR: If I don't get back to you within the next month, message me again. You are welcome on this page. Water under the bridge and all. But please title your sections better.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'll remember that for next time.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri... Let me start by being frank: We haven't been each other's favourite person. You have stated, "water under the bridge," and I thank you for that, because I feel the same way. In regards to the conversation at ANI that's been going on for days and days now... You know the saying, "Long time listener, first time poster?" I've been following it since in began. I don't know the complete history between you and those other users (and, in keeping with being "frank," I don't want to) but... Dude: I feel for you, I really do. I've seen a lot of garbage where... I fully believe... you were set up and I just don't think it's fair. Why am I commenting here instead of at that ANI conversation? Because that ANI conversation has become a joke. It's so long and gotten off-topic (it wasn't even started about you, for crying out loud!) and, I just don't know what I could say that would make anything better. Just know that, if I see an opportunity to help you out, I will take it. If you can think of something where I would/could be of assistance, let me know. Take care, Cebr1979 (talk) 05:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I solved my own problem regarding the Japanese monarchy: my counting was off regarding the ones who are the same person (even though they're counted under different names) and it set me off as to how many consorts there were/should have been. Thanks for offering your assistance, though. Cheers for now!Cebr1979 (talk) 05:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement length at arbitration case request

Hi, Hijiri88. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Catflap08 and Hijiri88. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 13:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@User:L235: Thank you for the notification. As my recent edit history indicates, I worked quite a bit to get it down to <500 words already, but then added on a bit to indicate that I have drafted a response to another user off-wiki. I guess I'll get a chance to present that once the case is accepted, though. Thank you again. Cheers! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

"win every election"

That's not what "win an election" means—in a parliamentary system "winning an election" means getting enough seats to form a government (not even necessarily a majority), and the LDP formed every remaining Shōwa-era govenrment, even with minorities in 1976 and 1983. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: On a macro level, you are of course right, but "every election" is ambiguous, and the only way I would generally approve of its use would be if it included every local, by, diet, gubernatorial and so on election throughout the country during the entire period. Not having been alive for most of this period, and only having moved to Japan 20+ years after it ended, I am not sure. But the LDP has won "almost every election" since 1989 as well, but has not held, for instance, the governorship of Iwate Prefecture for many years. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, that requires no more than throwing in a "federal" or whatever. "Dominated" is open to interpretation; winning a federal election is not. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

I won't post any more GA reassessments for the foreseeable future (even though I have half a dozen already drafted off-wiki) as long as you cease your campaign to get me removed from the project. Immediately. This is completely unacceptable. Completely. I have blocked you for a week, and if you do this again, I'll block you indefinitely. I'm unable to fathom the complicated morass of your interaction with Catflap08 - hence the ArbCom case - but this one is simple. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Floquenbeam: CurtisNaito's article edits are a disruptive, and in the last few months he has been campaigning for me to get banned from Misplaced Pages for criticizing these edits. He has managed to sneak several poorly-sourced articles past the GA process, and these articles should be reassessed in accordance with the GA criteria. All the other users who have commented on the issue will agree with me. My offering to not request these reassessments if CurtisNaito stops following me and harassing me was a peace offering, not a threat. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88: No, he specifically stated that he was doing so because I had stated my "hope" that ArbCom reproach him for his behaviour. He was misquoting me again in an attempt to get me in trouble. And this time he appears to have actually succeeded... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: By the way, I'm asking why you blocked me so I can reflect on what I did and decide whether or not to appeal. There are a number of possible reasons you might think the above quote was unacceptable, including (1) you think I was threatening to abuse GAR to pursue a personal vendetta rather than to improve the encyclopedia; (2) you think CurtisNaito's article edits are awesome and for me to criticize them constitutes a personal attack;See below. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC) (3) you think what I said constituted a threat (as CurtisNaito keeps claiming all my peace offerings are, at least back to May) and regardless of its merit it created a hostile editing environment; (4) you think it violated some policy I am not aware of regarding off-wiki drafts or some such... (I'm going to stop there.)

If (1): As I have already clarified, the GA criteria indicate that those articles should be either improved to bring them up to legitimate GA status, or reassessed. CurtisNaito's track record of OWNership and edit-warring indicates that the former is impossible, leaving the latter option. Reassessing those articles would be in accordance with content policy, and I wasn't actually threatening to do so anyway; I was threatening not to do so. In my two years of arguing with CurtisNaito, I have in all but one occasion (the Emperor Jimmu article) chosen the carrot over the stick.

If (2): You should express that opinion in an appropriate forum like an article talk page or the currently open History of Japan GAR. Blocking one side of a content dispute because you happen to agree with the other is inappropriate, especially when the other side has explicitly violated an ANI final warning numerous times over the past two weeks. (Note that I don't actually think this is why you blocked me. I'm grabbing at straws.)Sorry. Just noticed this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

If (3): You may be right, but look what I have had to deal with: CurtisNaito has requested four times in the last five months, on both ANI and ArbCom, that I be site-banned for disagreeing with his edits, even though pretty much everyone else disagrees with them too. If there's a hostile editing environment, I'm not the one to blame. And as in (1) above, it was not a threat anyway -- I was offering a favour in exchange for CurtisNaito granting me the favour of not requesting that I be site-banned anymore. If this is what you meant, it's a good faith misunderstanding, and I will try to avoid such misunderstandings in the future, but I should still be unblocked.

If (4): Tell me the policy. I won't violate it again. I also won't appeal the block, though, since I've been here too long for ignorance of the rules to be a valid excuse.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Advice?

@Sturmgewehr88 @Nishidani I sent you mail. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to have seen this develop. However, even if your comment had no problem, a reaction like this was inevitable due to the excited, verbose and frequent remarks on numerous pages. What possible benefit did you think your comment would bring? It contains a strong accusation, but has no evidence. It looks like attempted blackmail—if you won't try to get me banned, I won't point out your (alleged) defects. Given their responses to earlier comments, a moment's thought would show that the recipient is extremely unlikely to pay any attention to the claims, so the post is totally ineffective and merely battlefield conduct. Even if there were no prior interaction with the recipient, there is essentially zero chance of anyone reacting to a message like that in a way that would benefit you. I tried to follow the back-and-forth on some article talk pages, but the posts were unhelpful as they attempted to cover too many points, and conducted battles on too many fronts. In particular, an attempt to show that an editor has a pattern of promoting articles with serious sourcing errors needs very calm and careful evidence—that cannot happen in the middle of other disputes. A case of that nature would need to be prepared in a sandbox, mentioning only the facts and no user names. Further, there should be no emotive language—anyone capable of reading evidence knows that overlooking sourcing errors is the worst wikicrime. Good luck with your editing, but my advice would be to take a lot longer to respond to a discussion—fewer posts, each focused on a small number of points relating to text in articles (not editors), with evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 05:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I assumed that offering not to post any more GARs in exchange for CurtisNaito no longer requesting that I be site-banned might actually get through to him. I never in my wildest dreams thought he would take my offer, go to ArbCom, and present my offer as a threat. I probably should have seen it coming because his last post also misquoted me (as saying the opposite of what I very clearly said), but, as Nishidani, Cuchullain and many others will tell you, I take AGF way too far. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Everyone knows that CurtisNaito can't edit for nuts. Everyone knows Hijiri goes overboard every time, and as his anxieties hit the passive-aggressive mirror that is CN, they redound against him. I don't know how many times I've seen you offload huge threads, run up large commentaries, wondering 'who reads this pettifogging'? When you keep running into problems on boards, at some point you have to look at yourself not at the shit-stirrers in question. You take the foibles, feeblies and foilings of the obtuse far too seriously, and if you had spent a 1/10th of the time you spend litigating on talk pages on article construction, you would have found enough consent among fellow editors to ensure than the CurtisNaitor nongocracy of two diminished its textual presence.Nishidani (talk) 07:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@ArbCom: Just for the record, this is an outright lie. The list was meant to be a database of SPAs operating in Japan-Korea dispute areas. There is very clearly a massive sockpuppetry problem in that area, and I was trying to figure out who was whose sockpuppet. I made one poor judgement call (which I quickly retracted) that TH1980 was a sockpuppet of one of those users (per the evidence below, his being a meatpuppet of the pro-Japanese POV-pusher CurtisNaito would make a lot more sense). Many of the users listed appeared to hold views I agree with. It was not an "enemies" list. TH1980 has been trying to throw this in my face for months, even though the second someone complained about it I removed it. It would be really nice if someone could block him for this abuse. In fact, well over half of his edits during this period have been hounding of me.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe: Would you be willing to look through the above and see if it constitutes grounds for a HOUND block? Thank you in advance. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 06:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

If you think you have enough evidence, feel free to bring it up on WP:ANI. I don't have the time right now to review everything myself. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I've started a thread at ANI. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 13:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@User:CurtisNaito: Stop lying. You know perfectly well that this was not an attack page but a message for John Carter's attention (he had requested I not post on his talk page), and nothing about it constituted an attack to begin with -- he had deliberately distorted something I said to sound like a paranoid rant, when in fact it was a completely reasonable assertion that his not having a public email address meant whoever had emailed him had a Misplaced Pages account with email privileges. Banned users are not supposed to be editing under sockpuppet accounts, so if he had indeed received an email from such an account he should have declared it openly. This was an ANI draft, not an "attack page". I removed it once I posted it on ANI. I was blocked because you lied about me (presented my peace offering as a "threat"), and you are still now lying about me. This needs to stop right now.

@User:Sturmgewehr88: Would you mind pointing out that everything CurtisNaito and TH1980 have posted on ArbCom so far is a distortion of the truth?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

If I can offer a bit of unasked advice, I second Nishidani's comments. The key here is the policy WP:FOC. I am sure you detest CN's editing (I am pretty sure there are people here who hate my guts and my editing), but you cannot go around fighting with everyone and flinging counter-accusations. The only place for accusations is a properly constituted WP:ANI or ArbCom case. Your "offer" on CN's page was interpreted as a threat, not just by CN but by Floquenbeam. Secondly, you need not rebut every accusation made against you. The Arb Case page only exists for determining whether a case is necessary. The evidence page is a separate one, where you can rebut all the things which someone proposes as evidence on that page. Squabbling with a bunch of editors over multiple pages only hurts your case. WP:TLDR is an iron law on the internet. Kingsindian ♝♚ 01:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Technically, Floq interpreted it that way after already reading CurtisNaito's "interpretation", and CurtisNaito has a demonstrable history of deliberately misrepresenting peace offerings as threats. Indeed, after my block he has continued posting deliberate misrepresentations of my edits (message that is not an attack drafted in own userspace = attack page, ANI draft made in own userspace = attack page). You and Dennis Brown (and Nishidani) called me out for bludgeoning talk page discussions by consistently responding to everything CurtisNaito said -- but when I said that I would not be doing this anymore, CurtisNaito opened an ANI thread on me, claiming my statement that I was tired of doing basically what everyone agrees I shouldn't have been doing was a "personal attack" and a "threat". So saying CurtisNaito "interpreted" my latest offer as a threat is missing the point.

But you are right on what the current ArbCom thread is meant for. I just don't want the arbitrators to be biased against me based on completely off-topic commentary by my not-involved wiki-stalkers (CurtisNaito, while not as bad as TH1980, also has a demonstrable history of following my edits). Especially when that off-topic commentary consists of obvious lies.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Consider your statement that "I just don't want the arbitrators to be biased against me...". Now consider that in trying to fix this, you got yourself blocked completely unnecessarily. Which outcome is likely to "bias" the arbitrators more? At some point, you have to stop paying attention to what people write about you. You cannot go around rebutting everyone and fighting with them. In my experience, many people get blocked not based on the edits in the article space, but on useless arguments on talk pages, user talk pages and arb pages. At some point, either you ask for intervention at WP:ANI etc. or if you don't get support against an editor, drop the WP:STICK and get along, always focusing on content WP:FOC. Kingsindian ♝♚ 02:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

You're confusing my responses to your two points. The action that got me blocked was my post on CurtisNaito's talk page that was meant as a peace offering ("You stop haranguing me and I'll do this favour for you") was taken as a threat/personal attack. What I said was meant to keep the arbitrators from being made biased against me (discrediting TH1980 and CurtisNaito's open lies about me) was all done after my block. I have tried to ask for intervention on ANI, but two or three particular ANI junkies are at this moment so obsessed with undermining everything I do that nothing I post there has any effect. But I don't even want to fight with CurtisNaito and these users. I want to build a frickin' encyclopedia. Everytime I settle into non-controversial article edits, one of them jumps in with a new thread about me on ANI or some such. I don't know why they keep following me and going higher and higher up in their attempts to get me blocked for something that they claim (without providing any evidence) I may have done to them months or years ago. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

American vs. British vs. Oxford spelling

@Nihonjoe: Just noticed this. While you may certainly be right (I'd say you probably are), your logic was flawed. The "-ize" spelling is ambiguous in terms of WP:ENGVAR, as it would have made just as much sense to add Template:Use Oxford English. If the IP you referred to had been me (it wasn't) then "American English" would be an inaccurate description. Some other, later, unambiguous edit will need to be found. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Well, unless nobody objects to using AmEng---we only need to know precedence if there's a dispute. Like everything else, ENGVAR can change (particularly if it hasn't been firmly established). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Feel free to go through edit by edit from the beginning of the article, then. I disagree with the spelling be ambiguous. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is HOUND, BATTLEGROUND, and NOTHERE block request. Thank you. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 13:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to let you know, might not be a good idea to be asking for CN to be blocked "right now" or else a certain someone might come along and acuse you of gaming because of the ArbCom case. Your "suddenly" wanting him to be blocked for "supposed" IDHT might affect his ability to present evidence "directly" to boost the case against you. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 13:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88: That would make him the biggest hypocrite on Misplaced Pages, since he already essentially asked another admin to block me even though (unlike CN) I am actually a key player in the ArbCom case. Although his hypocrisy on the point is already pretty obvious, since he also supported my last block which was a direct result of CN lying about me on ArbCom. Also, unlike your ANI thread on TH1980, I don't think an indef block is appropriate here, so I did not request such, nor would I. A 72-hour block wouldn't interfere with ArbCom one way or the other, especially if a week-long block of one of the users whose name is part of the case name apparently was in the best interests of the case.

Additionally, the fact that I was complaining about CN's IDHT issues, and saying he should eventually be blocked for them, literally a full year before the ArbCom case was even proposed, should make it pretty easy to disprove any more of that user's fabrications about "suddenness" and "supposedness".

Anyway, I don't even particularly want a block. I want an admin to tell CN off for his misbehaviour. I know it shouldn't matter how many admins tell him off, given how literally everyone else has already told him off.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 4, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz 18:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration evidence phase closing

Hijiri88, this is just a note that Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Evidence phase will be closing in 2 days. If you would like to add any additional evidence or respond to statements made by others, you have until November 4th. Liz 13:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 7 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Yoshitsune Eiyūden: The Story of Hero Yoshitsune page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08 and Hijiri88 Proposed Decision posted

Hi Hijiri88, in the open Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you.  Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz 20:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments on Catflap08 and Hijiri88 PD talk page

Hi Hijiri88, per the notice at the top of the PD talk page editors (excepts arbitrators) are only permitted to post in their own section. So I've moved your comments in TH1980's section into your own section. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

@User:I JethroBT:What battleground behaviour? CurtisNaito and TH1980 are the ones who have been outright refusing to engage in constructive discussion. Is this because I said they have refused to engage in constructive discussion? Strmgewehr88, Curly Turkey and about a half-dozen other users have said the same. The only edit I made there in the last 24 hours was this, and I simply expressed the exact same thing everyone else on the page was feeling and had said both there and elsewhere numerous times. Is this because I GARed a different article that I had expressed serious doubts about months before CurtisNaito ever even edited the history of Japan article? That's not battleground behaviour; the article simply is not a GA, and I no longer have the energy to attempt to make it a GA. If it is because of the latter, you need to reword your blocking rationale, as the only connection between the two is that CurtisNaito has engaged in the same IDHT/OR on both pages. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Shit. Sorry User:I JethroBT. I saw you had blocked me first and noticed you hadn't blocked TH1980, who has engaged in outright PAs against me on that talk page, or Curly Turkey, who said the same things as I did only more aggressively and with less tact about saying them on an article talk page. However I see you actually did block CurtisNaito, which means your block of me was in good faith and not just another attempt by an admin to prop up one side of a content dispute (you'd be surprised how often that happens in the Japanese history and literature area). I don't mind you not blocking TH1980 -- I have confidence that the issue with him will be resolved soon enough. You did a better job here than I gave you credit for, and I apologize for the above failure to AGF. I'll take my block quietly. (I think the ArbCom case would scare off any roaming admins who might otherwise review a block appeal, so an appeal would just stay there until the block expired, like what happened in August; I strongly encourage User:CurtisNaito, who is also party to the ArbCom case, to follow my lead.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC) (Edited: Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC))

@User:Curly Turkey: Please bring the dispute to ANI. It belongs there, as it has nothing to do with article content and everything to do with user behaviour. It does not belong on the article talk page. CurtisNaito's outright refusal to listen and TH1980's very obvious hounding campaign against me have now resulted in me getting blocked. That is completely inappropriate and needs to be resolved. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Curly Turkey: On second thought, bringing it to ANI right now (or any time before either my block or CurtisNaito's expires) might be taken as a proxy appeal of my block (if TH1980 did so it might be taken as a proxy appeal of CurtisNaito's block), and I don't want it blowing up in my face (if no one unblocks me then someone might say six months or three years down the line that a dozen admins reviewed my block on appeal and unanimously refused to unblock me -- things like this have actually happened, believe it or not). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not taking it to ANI until I've hunted up, sorted, and properly contextualized the diffs. Like I've told you before, it's extremely hard for an outsider to see just what the problem with CurtisNaito is—it took me weeks (months?) at History of Japan before I finally figured it out—back then I actually thought you guys were all a big part of the problem, especially since I ran into issues myself right away with Nishidani and Signedzzz. It has to be well organized and framed well—especially since it can't conceivably be concicse. It'll have to be done, though—the article can't be left in his hands. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@CT: Makes sense. Can you run the draft by me first, though? I have no doubt in my mind that you are better at drafting such things in an ANI-acceptable manner than I am, but I have been dealing with these two a lot longer than you (CN's grudge against me goes back to January 2013 and his acting out on it goes back to September of that year) and it's possible you might miss something. You know my email anyway. Nishidani and Sturmgewehr88 might want in as well. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. Don't expect it soon, though. It's about the most tedious work I can imagine doing at Misplaced Pages. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Sorry to leave it up to you; it would probably take me even longer, and if my "Japanese culture" TBAN goes through I won't be able to discuss much of CurtisNaito's problems on-wiki once it does (hence my asking you to email me). Aemon Targaryen and all that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

What holiday?

@H. Humbert: (re: this) What holiday? You keep reverting me with no explanation, and your edit makes no sense: The same year numerous stone monuments relating to key events in Jimmu's life were erected around Japan. The sites at which these monuments were erected are known as "Emperor Jimmu Sacred Historical Sites". After World War II, the holiday was criticized as too closely associated with the "emperor system." It was suspended from 1948 to 1966, but later reinstated as National Foundation Day. One sentence doesn't flow into the other; either fix the prose and find a source to support it, or kindly stop reverting. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Re:ArbCom TBAN proposal and me

@User:Sturmgewehr88: I won't "go elsewhere" either way. I'll bring my "Japanese culture" contributions to French Misplaced Pages and keep contributing to everything else on English Misplaced Pages. Probably spend more time on the Christianity and Bible articles, and Chinese history and literature. In a year's time French Misplaced Pages will have better coverage of Japanese poetry than English Misplaced Pages -- I have after all been the only one contributing anything worthwhile to that area for at least three years, with no one even being able to find any fault with 99% of my edits. What other users want to do about the ArbCom results is their own business, but I would find it highly surprising if TH1980 gets out of the whole affair without at least 1RR. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah ok, I already assumed you'd go to another Misplaced Pages (thus counting as "elsewhere"), but hadn't thought about Christianity articles. However, now that I'm thinking about it, that's also the domain of the Warlord of Mars. Hopefully we won't see a grudge match spawn at ANI. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 09:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The Warlord of Mars did specifically express a concern that I would "follow" him there, but the fact that I was most active in the area last September, six months before my dispute with him started, and on that page we were on the same side. If after pointedly getting me banned from 90% of the articles I have ever edited he explicitly tries to force me out of the topic area that already accounted for the remaining 10% because I "followed him" there, I'll have a pretty good case for an IBAN.

Plus, John Carter hasn't actually edited an article on Christianity or the Bible in years, so his case would be weak anyway.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

"post-occupation authors of note"

@TH1980: Re this -- you should draft it on the talk page first. No one who knows anything about modern Japanese literature would refer to Murakami the way you do, and he is far from being the most noteworthy modern author; making him the "center" of our discussion of post-war literature (let alone the only author mentioned) is incredibly contentious. Per WP:BURDEN you should discuss on the talk page before adding such contentious material. "Noted Japanese authors also began to emerge

@TH1980: Thank you for this edit, but I would appreciate you not insincerely calling it a "copyedit" -- you made a blunder (I'll assume it was an accident), I called you out on it, and you self-reverted. Your edit summary denying this is not helping an already-toxic situation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

"Wouldn't solve a current issue"

Unlikely you didn't see this, but I thought it'd make you laugh between sobs of exasperation. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@User:Curly Turkey: I frankly think ArbCom have been doing an abysmal job of dealing with the CurtisNaito/TH1980 problem. Even worse than Dennis Brown. When I asked them why my conflict over some Nichiren Buddhist topics was resulting in a proposed TBAN from "Japanese culture", the drafting Arb essentially said "your conflict on the Korean influence article proves you are the problem editor in this area". Apparently, the attitude of several Arbs is something like "the worst TH1980 and CurtisNaito have done is edit-war, but they appear to be right on the substance, so they should not be sanctioned in any meaningful way". Don't worry: once the case is closed and the disruption only gets worse because one of the good editors is not allowed get involved, we can ask for an amendment to deal with the root cause of the disruption. (Or you can ask on ANI, but I may be unable to help.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08 and Hijiri88 case closed

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

1) Catflap08 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Nichiren Buddhism and its adherents, broadly construed. Appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

2.1) Subject to the usual exceptions, Catflap08 is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 24-hour period. This applies for all pages on the English Misplaced Pages, except Catflap08's own user space. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

3) Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Nichiren Buddhism and its adherents, broadly construed. Appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

4) Hijiri88 is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Japanese culture. Appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

5) Subject to the usual exceptions, Hijiri88 is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 24-hour period. This applies for all pages on the English Misplaced Pages, except Hijiri88's own user space. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

6.1) TH1980 (talk · contribs) and Hijiri88 are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Misplaced Pages (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 23:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Catflap08 and Hijiri88 case closed

Understood, and sorry for all the trouble these disputes have caused. I'll do my best to continue contributing to the encyclopedia within the above restrictions. Best regards, Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 18:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry to hear about your topic ban. I did what I could, but it was too little too late. I hope you will continue to contribute here. Just to let you know, good work in other areas is looked upon as a point in favour should you decide to appeal your topic ban in a year or so. Wish you all the best. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Thank you for your support. This is a happy ending, really: now I can get back to focusing on article content, and I can work more on Chinese literature and Biblical/Second Temple Jewish topics and early Christianity. :-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Taking this to your talk

Wow, that sounds like a dyspedia. To butcher the greek roots. Anyway, here's a link to a great tabor article, biblical history is so interesting because it has implications for both the history of most of the ancient world's great civilizations and for much of what would become "western culture". --Monochrome_Monitor 09:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration clarification request archived

The Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration clarification request has been archived by direction of an arbitrator. Thanks. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

AE report

As many people have pointed out on the AE page, the point of the IBAN is for you to leave Catflap alone. Whether they "get away" with violation of a TBAN is not your business, as simple as that. I would advise you to stop digging yourself deeper into a hole.

There are people who I don't like and vice versa. The correct way to handle it is to avoid them, not hold grudges. Misplaced Pages is very big: just forget about one user. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: You are right, as usual, and thank you for your advice. But I think you may have slightly misunderstood me: when in my latest edit I said "this user" doesn't like me, I was talking about AlbinoFerret; I have no IBAN with this user, although I deeply desire one; every one of my interactions with this user have been instigated by them, and even when a majority of outside users take my side, he somehow always finds a way to oppose me and get away with obviously only being there as part of a HOUNDing campaign against me; I suspect it might have started because I challenged a lousy RFC close he made a year ago (my TBAN prevents me from telling you what RFC...). And when I posted the initial request for clarification, I honestly intended to check if both that other user and I were allowed comment on the area we are TBANned from on "pages" that aren't technically "related" to the topic. This is how our TBAN is currently worded, and I still think it should be amended. The AE filing was a careless action on my part, done on the advice of an admin who acted in good faith but apparentky didn't know about the IBAN; I should have thought more about the implications of this action, and I apologize for the mess it has caused. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Avoiding IBAN vios and Following Catflap08's edits

I think you already got the message but for the sake of clarity, reporting a TBAN vio is a violation of your IBAN. You should not be following Catflap08's edits. IBAN means leave them alone not watch what they do but not say anything. The point of the exercise is to give you both a total break from each other. Spartaz 13:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Spartaz: Understood. I will be more careful in the future, and will avoid doing that thing you told me not to do. And I should like to thank you for not throwing me under the bus when you pointed out that you had directed me to file the AE report. I also apologize for not making it clear to you in the original ARCA filing that there was an IBAN in place. I guess you probably wouldn't have given me that direction if I had laid the entire case out properly in the first place. Anyway, no harm no foul. Happy editing!

(By the way, I noticed your other activity on AE: I'm guessing you are better than me at the SPI thing. I don't suppose you could take a look at this? I looked around, and couldn't find the instructions on how to file an SPI case, and my request at the Help Desk has only yielded one response to the effect of something I already knew...)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You should place a template {{SPI case status}} or {{SPI case status|CUrequest}} just below the section header (21 February 2016).―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Holy Christ

Do you know this guy? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I think I've come across Marnette before, but I'm not all too familiar with their work. To be fair, while anyone could have read your comment as a joke, and a very careful reading of your comment would definitely reveal it to be a joke to just about anyone with a head on their shoulders, to someone not familiar with the history between you, me and the White Weasel who just noticed that you reverted an edit I made to my own talk page and briefly skimmed your comment, it would have looked like you were behaving inappropriately. I guess my not having spoken up on it myself may have misled Marnette to take their own assumptions a bit far.

@MarnetteD: It was a joke. I got it. I understand why you didn't get it, and your initial reversion was justified. But to call what CT did here "poor behaviour" is inappropriate, and "DO NOT POST here again unless it is required by AN or ANI" was definitely way over the top. I spoke to AlbinoFerret in such a manner, true, but only because the latter has been engaged in a pretty consistent harassment campaign against me for almost a year, calling for me to be de facto SBANned (or even de jure SBANned) on more than one occasion, when the only thing I did to deserve this treatment was question his close of an RFC last April. (Ironically, in April he actually admitted that his RFC close had been bad, and took it back, but apparently the wound I struck him was deep enough to merit his eternal wrath.) I tried to ban him from my talk page back in November, but then ArbCom happened and I figured he would get off my back. He hasn't, so I officially told him not to edit my talk page again.

But Curly Turkey is always welcome, even if some of his jokes are a bit too open to misinterpretation.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

e-cig tension

In response to your comment here about not understanding why the article is so embattled.... Basically there are three camps. Two of them are in the field of public health.

• One of those, takes a stance looking at e-cigs themselves. It says - hey, here is this new device the use of which is expanding like crazy. It is delivering a drug (nicotine) that is highly addictive, and for pete's sake the devices and the e-liquid are unregulated.. we don't know what they even are much less what they are doing to people in the short and long term. What the hell are we doing exposing people to all of this risk? We have to slow this whole thing down and hopefully we can get them regulated. But what the hell is everybody thinking?? Plus all these people are getting addicted to nicotine, which is good for nobody.
• The other takes a stance, comparing e-cigs to cigarettes and says: For pete's sake there is no way in hell that these things are worse for people than cigarettes are. Of course we want to encourage people to switch to these from cigarettes. Why the hell would you get in the way of that??
• Then you have the e-cig community, which is on-line, very vocal, and they love to geek out on the technology and customizing things and they of course advocate that they should be able to buy them freely and use them pretty much anywhere they want, since the 2nd hand vapor is pretty much nonexistent.

It makes for a very, very toxic mix. The article shows that. There are Discretionary sanctions on the topic, btw. I will give you formal notice of that in a moment. I am not sure it is wise for you to jump into another controversial area, but hey, you can do as you will! Jytdog (talk) 08:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Notice of DS on e-cigs topic

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Electronic cigarette topic area, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

@Jytdog: I am aware of theArbCom decision, not only because AlbinoFerret left a similar notice here not long ago, but also because I had seen the case before posting. I told AlbinoFerret this, which makes me wonder about his/her motivation for telling me something I already know. But I am more concerned about why you left the above notice now. Is it good practice to notify everyone who edits in a DS area just to be on the safe side? Or didI say something in my last post that might be cause for concern? I did indirectly allude to the ArbCom case itself, as well as partially quote a comment on a user talk page that originally contained foul language... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

hm - I did the required search for the formal notice and it turned up nothing. If he gave you formal notice the system should have picked that up. I will look and come back in a minute. As the notice says, it does not imply any misconduct - I just wanted to be sure you are aware of it. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah I see. Before I commented AlbinoFerret noted (and then un-noted) that he didn't give you the formal notice. The formal notice is procedurally important, of course. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Un-noted that he didn't notify me... the gramnar of that confuses me more than the e-cigs dispute. ;-)

Anyway, yes, I understand a formal notification is a necessary pre-requisite for a discretionary sanction being placed on a user, which makes me even more suspicious of AlbinoFerret's motivations. (His recent actions elsewhere indicate that whatever his motivations, he really, really wants me removed from Misplaced Pages.) But I don't want to talk about that. I will be careful, and thank you for the notice.

And regarding the comment AF left here before being reverted, I apologize for the misunderstanding. It looked like a template, and bore none of the hallmarks I've come to recognize in AF's original prose, so even checking the source and noting that it wasn't formatted like a template, it still looks like a form message that had been sent to other users with essentially the same wording. Again, I apologize if I am mistaken in this reading.

Also: Sorry. My eye was drawn to the big shiny DS notice and I didn't notice the detailed breakdown of the dispute you gave me immediately before in the section above. Thank you!

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

sure. good luck! Jytdog (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Un-noted that he didn't notify me: acutally it was Awilley who reverted the WW. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

I know I stated on the talk page that I would not respond, but felt obligated to do so here. I'm sorry if you felt I was insulting towards your education or intelligence, but that was not at all my intention. The subject in question sees lively debate on Misplaced Pages, and it has demanded what I feel is a bordering on unreasonable amount of my time to stay abreast with both the literature and the direction the page is moving in. My comments were meant to disparage that editors would comment in what I perceived to be a WP:drive by fashion and those that would devote limited time towards researching the topic or the massive archives that it has already amassed. CFCF 💌 📧 21:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC) 

Apology accepted, and I completely understand. I dislike drive-by commenting as much as the next editor, but I prefer talk page use to edit-warring or potential edit-warring, and a random editor coming along and radically altering the lead and making claims about material not appearing in the body on that particular page was almost certain to start an edit war. So that is why I did what I did. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request archived

Hi Hijiri88. The Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration clarification request of 26 February 2016 (UTC) has been archived to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08_and_Hijiri88#Clarification_request:_Catflap08_and_Hijiri88_.28March_2016.29. Thanks. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Able to translate?

How strict is your TBAN? Are you allowed to, say, translate J-poetry into English? I suppose I could butcher do it myself, but I thought J-lit was your background. I'm expanding Eight Parlour Views, and the shunga versions of the prints each come with a tanka. If it's something you can't do, don't worry about it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

If I do it for you off-wiki and email it it should be okay. But I don't know about translating primary source material and putting it in the mainspace in general (see Talk:Ariwara no Narihira for a list of poems I kinda think should be in the article, but it's a list of ones of which I happen to have access to English translations, rather than ones for which I found a place in the article). Anyway, if you can email me the scans (or better yet the text) I'll take a shot at it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've already got the Japanese in the article itself, though the book also gives glosses (reverse furigana?) with kanji for some of the hiragana. If you need that, I can mail it to you. I've just kind of slapped the Japanese & romanization into the article, but would it be better to format it like you've got at Talk:Ariwara no Narihira? I'm not a big fan of boxes these days, especially wide ones that might be hard to read on a smartphone. The book itself doesn't even break the poems into lines. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I just found a PDF that has translations. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm ... it looks like it's actually an English translation of the main source I'm already using—but only the second half of the chapter. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It would certainly be possible to put up new translations or public domain translations on one of the other wikimedia sites, like wikisource for existing PD translations or maybe wikibooks or wikiversity for original translations. 150.199.186.2 (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

If someone wants to do that, sure, but it won't be me—translating poetry is not a forte of mine. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@User:John Carter (see this): Stay the hell off my talk page. I have told you numerous times that you are not welcome here, and your logging out in order to get around this rule could be taken as a form of sockpuppetry. Your advice, as usual, appears to be completely useless and totally misses the point of the problem, as neither wikibooks nor wikiversity appear to have a place for original translations. (I may be wrong.) @Sturmgewehr88: @Curly Turkey: Any ideas on how to deal with this kind of behaviour? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

God, I couldn't even figure out what the fuck you were talking about until I'd read it five or six times. For anyone else: 150.199.186.2 is John Carter's IP address, the same one he used in the Arb case against Hijiri. My advice is to goad him into saying "fuck"—in my experience nobody will lift a finger against such behaviour until he does. Sorry I wasn't convinced he was hounding you when you first drew my attention to it.

The advice does miss the point, as I just wanted glosses for the particular article (now moved to Zashiki Hakkei). I'm probably going to be adding poems by Fukuo Kichijirō as well, even if only in footnotes, so I may come ask you again one of these days for translations. They're here on page 70 if you want to take a peak. The viewer's a bit of a pain, though. I'm glad they subscribe at the Prefectural library here. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: Yeah, I'll try that. As I note below, JC has emerged after over two months and first three edits were all creepy stalker edits to threads I was involved in, and one was made by logging out to avoid my moratorium on his editing my talk page. For the record, I actually didn't know who he was at first, but a mysterious IP suddenly showing up and responding to another user on my talk page is super dodgy (IP users don't have watchlists, so talk page stalkerness was out), so I checked the contribs and their last edit was a DUCK John Carter edit. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88: Sorry to ping you again, but ... seriously this problem needs to be dealt with. I just noticed that, after logging out in order to post on my talk page despite my firm warning against doing so, John Carter immediately logged back in (for the first time in over two months) and made two edits to other threads I had either started or all but started. (His last edit to that page was two years ago.) This user has had the nerve to repeatedly argue that I have a habit of wiki-stalking other editors I dislike. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know what you were talking about either until I read CT's response. John Carter's post seemed helpful (you mentioned earlier that you were worried about adding primary sources to the mainspace) and lacked his usual holier-than-thou attitude. Due to marital "issues" I haven't been very active lately, and I'm not ready to take this relatively minor incident anywhere. Without damning evidence, it'll be shut down. Just wait for him to push it a little further. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and I still am worried about it, because nothing in his comment was actually accurate, and was just his usual troll-like repetition of the same "advice" over and over again. Hasn't he told you that you should totally edit one of the other Wikimedia projects yet? It's almost as repetitive/off-topic/impractical as "try consulting a public-domain encyclopedia on Wikisource!". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: Back to there content problem -- sorry to get to it so late, but ANI currently features a thread about the probably less important user conduct issue raised here, which has been draining my attention -- I don't see any problem with what you've got there now, although if I were writing the article I would format the waka in Japanese text, romanized, and translated the way I did on Ariwara no Narihira etc. This has the threefold advantages of looking more like poetry originally written in English, looking more like this kind of Japanese poetry is formatted in authoritative English-language sources like Keene's History of Japanese Literature, and making the individual kus of 5-7-5-7-7 clearer to the reader. Also, where did you get the romanizations? The third one has a misprint, as the fumoto has disappeared between the fuji no yama and wa kuraki. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The romanizations are mine, so I'm not surprised if there are a lot of fuckups. Let me know if you see any others. Also, sometimes I'm not sure when to put a space—would you write "yama fumoto" or "yamafumoto" (I just did the latter).

Re: the three columns—the translations seem to be pretty free. How would you format, say, "Perhaps attracted by the sound of the koto, this year's first flock of geese descends together from the sky."? Or "The boat over there with sails swelling to the front—is it coming into this harbour? Ah, yes, it's coming in!"? Or would you scrap them and replace them with line-by-line translations? I'm not totally poetry-illiterate, but I sure wouldn't claim any level of expertise (in any language). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Zoiks! I posted one comment at ANI and it ate up my watchlist ... Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

As I said above, I would not only put a space between them but put them on separate lines. ;-)

As for the columns, my reasoning is more about the Japanese than the translations. In this case the poems appear to be best-known as relatively obscure inscriptions on early modern Japanese pornographic prints, so we don't have an abundance of translations from which to pick the one that best fits the format (the translations I usually quoted tended to already be formatted into 4-6 short lines). But maintaining loyalty of form to a quoted text that itself doesn't seem all that bothered with form seems a bit pedantic. I say add it to the third column of the table as a single line, and let the reader's computer or smartphone screen determine how many lines that will work out as in practice. But I'm not an expert in writing beautiful encyclopedia articles. For that you'd be better asking CurtisNaito, almost a dozen of whose poorly-researched OR-fests have passed the GA vetting process based solely on his prose and formatting skills...

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, the translations are formatted in three lines in the text I linked to—would you stick with that? Or would you keep those translations at all? Are you even reading my beautiful prose, or just looking at all the porn? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I just reread your comment and noticed you already said you'd do it as a single line. Guess it's bedtime. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Three lines works. I meant don't sweat it either way. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Not stalking

Honestly, I'm not stalking you, I just happen to have these pages watchlisted. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

How I got it all wrong

Hi Hijiri88,

Thanks for your comments at ANI and ArbCom. Despite the tone, I still found your comments useful and helpful. However, I have come to explain to you why I got it all this wrong. Firstly, the problem with me about contents creation is that I'm always too impatient to read through the contents and sources before inclusion. Meanwhile I often create a lots of articles. I think I'm just too overzealous! I sometimes mistakenly add the correct source to a different statement. This is what I mean, sometimes, I unintentionally add a source for "statement A" to that of "statement B" and the source for "Statement B" to that of "statement A" due to impatience, making the sources and the contents to appear fake or OR. Secondly, the sockpuppetry is another concerning issue. Honestly, the very first time I joined Misplaced Pages, I thought it's a social media of some sort where I can put my shameless biography. My first account was blocked and I reopened another account and that was also blocked. I thought the best way to address the reason why the article was deleted is to create another accounts with some unrealistic claim of significance. That was also blocked. I'm not aware of block invasion otherwise I would have follow due process. So, I went to declare my new account to User:RHaworth who permit me to continue editing but not to write about myself. I started writing about notable Nigeria-related topics and at the same time reading the basic policies and guidelines which seemed difficult to understand at that time. This difficulty to understand policy led to the first ANI in 2014. The allegation includes incivility and copyvio. I pleaded and I was not blocked. Since then, I never repeat any of these behavior. Also, I never thought a claim of ACADEMIC will give an impression of dishonesty. I only felt its an informal claim and that is what I take it to be. In fact, I'm not even aware of WP:HONESTY and WP:EXPERT. All of these with the recent recreation of my shameless autobiography amount to a gross misconduct which is enough for an indef block or ban. This I know! The mobbing by the community is simply because they are unhappy with the entire issues. This caused many of them to lose confidence in me as a result. I know the community has brought out my worst contributions and I'm 100% ready to fix the rest under the mentorship of User:Cullen328 and user:Irondome and anyone willing to help. Above all, I need to be rehabilitated. Please I need help, in any capacity you can help. Wikic¤l¤gy 19:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry -- I don't think I'm the one you're looking for. I do hope you can do a better job of editing in the future, and I hope you will clean up the mess you made. Good luck with the mentorship of Cullen328 and Irondome, but I think my involvement in the case is finished. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Notification

This is to notify you that you are hereby banned from posting on the talk page of John Carter under pain of a block. Such ban applies whether you are logged in or not. The only exception is that you are permitted to post any notification required, such as informing them of an issue at WP:ANI that involves them. Mjroots (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Re your message. Let's leave it as it is for now. John Carter should be well aware that his editing will be under scrutiny. If it proves necessary to take him back to ANI then this adds weight to your case. You can always ask that another editor/admin notifies him of an ANI discussion if you really want to stay off his talk page. Mjroots (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that

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

Clarification request archived

Your clarification request has been archived at Misplaced Pages 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

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)

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 () and WP:CIVIL (). 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.