User talk:Kiyoweap

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: pseudoscience and fringe science He should not be given alerts for those areas.

1. 11 April 2012
2. 21 December 2012
3. 7 June 2013

When you edited Eysteinn Erlendsson on October 27 you introduced major errors. Please check your work carefully before saving --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a hasty accusation. All I did was replace a red link with an {{ill2}} template that indicates a blue link to a corresponding Norwegian (no) article. I typically preview before saving. When you review my old edit (on 14:51, 27 October 2013‎), do you still see this problem? because I don't.

I was perplexed until I read your post in Talk:Eysteinn Erlendsson, because now I have an inkling of what's going on, as I too have seen the phenomenon recently. I will respond there.--Kiyoweap (talk) 08:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved As per Wikipedia:Help desk#December 31 "Why does "File:Michigan state police.gif" (link to AR-15) appear at the top of Courtesy name?" the culprit has been identified as the now blocked SonicTheHedgeFan (talk · contribs) who vandalized the template {{ill2}}. (strikeout, minor edit, {{resolved}} template added)--Kiyoweap (talk) 08:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ships in Norse sagas, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have just reverted your edit to Kelpie; this is a featured article so please discuss any extensive edits you may wish to suggest on the talk page first. Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once the article's pulled from the main page, isn't the normal Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle in play? I'm not aware of a priori screening process I have to follow in the Talk page, being that this is an article and not a WP policy or guideline page. I will discuss (describe) the five or six issues I had with the Kelpie#Etymology section, which prompted my edits. I think they were relatively minor edits though you characterize them as "extensive" ones.--Kiyoweap (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For all your great (and bold) edits to articles based on mythological subjects. Loved your work on Cloak of invisibility which is what prompted this Barnstar. At the start of the year the article stated 'Cloaks of invisibility are relatively rare in folklore', great to see how a little research can prove that wrong. Thanks again. FruitMonkey (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kudos. The statement "relatively rare in folklore" was probably an alteration of "rare in fairy tale" quoted from Maria Tatar's Annotated Grimm, a reference source someone had already employed before I tampered with the article. I added the Stith-Thompson index D1361.12, a lead for further information. One reference stated there are parallels in Ireland, China, Philippines, and US as well, besides the Japanese counterpart I added.--Kiyoweap (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kiyoweap, you may want to review the criteria for WP:GA. In short, your comment "I'm not going to fix it and fix it ad nauseum till teacher finally approves" is why you need to let the other editors work on the article. Fixing it until the GA reviewer approves is PRECISELY what has to happen (if you think the GA reviewer is unfair, they will eventually fail the article, you can let it cool for a bit and then renominate). I reverted your one set of edits one time only because you made it worse, but as a GA reviewer, I cannot make extensive edits myself as then I become "involved " with the content. You need to let the other, more experienced editors work on the article; they are both veterans of the GAN process and once they have it cleaned up, if you have some very specific factual points you think need to be raised, AND have the reliable sources to back them up (and by this I mean with links to books available online or highly reliable web sites so I can independently verify this material myself) then I will look at those issues and make a decision. But for the "wikignoming" work of citation cleanup and wording/style fixes, I will suggest that you take second chair on those issues for now. Montanabw^(talk) 22:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know why you lecture me on renominating after a cooling off period. It's Eric and Sagacious who are the ones trying to promote Stoor worm to GA status. It would be unfair to them, if a reviewer were to flunk the nomination due solely to concerns with MY use of {{citation}}, but it's all academic to me, because it deserves to "go back to the drawing board" anyway, due to content issues.

You couch it in the context of a GA review, but when you engage in reverts you are still bound by WP:BRD process. Your claim that a revert is somehow not an "involvement" but {{citation}} format fixes would constitute "extensive editing" does not wash with me, and I'm sure others would find it implausible.

You are dwelling on this {{citation}} formatting excessively. It's "minor edit" material. I made a good-faith edit to fix the issue where editor and illustrator fields were spliced. If you want to perpetuate, at the very least describe why my cure was worse than the disease as per "MOS". Or find an example page, or drop it altogether, or practice WP:Wikignoming that you mention. If you have a beef with the way the template renders according to MOS, take it up there, otherwise it's textbook WP:POINT behavior, which you accuse me of doing.

This claim of being inveterate at the GAN process rings hollow to me, it just sounds to me like you have had in the past had a number of GA reviews, with no one to hound you for not fact-checking, so you feel entitled to the same cushy experience every time around.

If you checked my edits, you would see provided inline sourcing at each step. You mentioned, Hathi trust link I recently gave out, and the text and notes there are paramount important prim/secondary sources. If you have problems with finding online accessibility to other resources, you shouldn't be complaining to me. You could probably find them by googling. I insert the google links, but Eric and Sagacious delete them for whatever reason. --Kiyoweap (talk) 09:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to recommend that instead of editing the article right now, please use a limited number of appropriate inline tags (i.e. {{dubious}}, {{citation needed}}, etc. to highlight areas where you have a dispute. However, please do not tag bomb. I will tell the other folks that I am doing this, and that I will take a look at what you are tagging. That said, comments such as "with no one to hound you for not fact-checking, so you feel entitled to the same cushy experience every time around" are not winning me over to your point of view. I have worked on about 40 GA-class articles myself, as well as over a dozen FA-class articles, so I know the process from both sides. Montanabw^(talk) 20:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Kiyoweap, I'm late to this party, but I just read over the entire GA review and the rest of the talk page. For the record, I've done a few GA reviews myself. One thing that stood out to me was the comment you made about stability, in this edit--I found that odd, since it suggests that the article shouldn't be a GA because it's not stable, and it's not stable because you're making it so. I have not yet looked at the edit history in great detail, though I note that it does appear as if you're editing against consensus. I understand that you know a thing or two about this subject matter, but I accept the same thing about Sagaciousphil and Eric Corbett, and I have faith in Montanabw as an editor and a reviewer. It cannot be that one single editor can derail a GA and destabilize an article; if consensus is against an editor, edit warring is not an acceptable attempt at solution. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:, I see what you're getting at, and let me start off saying I agree that a "disrupter" making wanton meaningless edits to claim that "5. Stability" is not justifiable grounds to fail GA.

However, this rogue behaviour accusation applies only if my edits were just meaningless games. Note, some of my edits such as the entire /*Textual sources*/ section recently are already incorporated in, and the article is being modified on the basis of these sources, so I feel we have moved beyond the point you drag out from an already collapsed portion.

Another obvious issue is the perhaps suspicious seeming timing of my latest wave of WP:BOLD edits, starting just before Montanabw posted her review. Well, the ideal timing would have been after getting pinged my older BOLDS were being addressed, but that wasn't happening, so the next likely timing was when the candidates where "done for now" allowing others to take a crack. But of course that's when they deem it ripe to promote it from to GA status, so this coincidence of timing was a rather inevitable.

You haven't looked examined my edits, so your innuendos are scurillousyour characterization of what I did is unfounded. If you're basing your assessment just on your implicit acceptance of Eric and Sagaciousphil I must say your opinion is utterly jaundice-eyedprotest prejudice. And plurality of votes, if not successfully advocated by argument in talk, fails to count as "consensus" as per WP:DEM#Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Kiyoweap (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scurrility and jaundice, well well. A disruptor is someone who continues to drive home a point against consensus. You seem to argue that your edits are exempt from consensus since they are correct. It does not work that way. Drmies (talk) 13:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Kiyoweap, one more "clueless" remark--or, really, any kind of disruption to the GA process here or elsewhere--and I will block you for personal attacks and a disruptive lack of good faith. I think it is time you left these supposed content issues, which appear to stem from personal issues you have with Corbett and Sagaciousphil and possibly Montanabw, to other editors. You're not the only one who can judge article content. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, surely you are aware of equal and more offensive language spouted from certain other party in this GA nomination, which you don't act on, and I am not sure your applying WP:CIVIL to me on this strikes anyone as impartial. That said, re the two words you take issue with, I admit the choice of words above may have appeared to have gone a bit inflammatory, so I apologize, and will retract/amend my phrasing as above. I said you lodged "scurrilous accusation" merely in the sense of "unfounded accusation based on hearsay" but I see now this may not be dictionary definition ((Wikt:scurrilous) though rather a widespread use (cf. Alpha dictionary). So perhaps this was poor vocab, malapropism on my part, Sorry.

Using "clueless" on the reviewer was more blunt than the "you don't know what you're doing" type comments that I receive, I will cop to that, but it wasn't meant as a blanket label on Montanabw. I don't know jack squat about horse-racing and many other subjects in her experience. In context, I hoped it was rather clear that what I meant was this reviewer was not "clued in" on this particular bit of knowledge (words borrowed from Norse), which was crucial for informed judgment. --Kiyoweap (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. It's a personal attack. Your behavior in that review is atrocious; fortunately the review is over, and I have removed the comments you added afterward. You are welcome to have a look at WP:GAR to see what other steps you could take. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, deleting other people's comments is blatant breach of Talk page others' comments, but maybe you had a stroke of remorse, and at least you had the courtesy of notifying me. So I am willing to grant a retroactive permission to delete, provided you change your grounds for doing so to something like "this user did not get the point that this GA review was already as good as closed," which I think is within reason, and retract your resumption of baseless accusation once again with your edit summary claiming "outside the scope of this review" and "repetitive and disruptive". If you don't feel inclined to retract, then debate me to defend your accusations while I defend my stance. Also, I request that you use {{collapse top}} apparatus just as the reviewer, instead of outright delete, if you want to demonstrate good faith.--Kiyoweap (talk) 09:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Drmies, your remark that "my behavior in that review is atrocious" comes entirely from the standpoint of nominators who feel entitled to a painless GA pass. But this "wish" is not an overriding concern over Wikipedia's goal to create a decent article. My actions were perfectly within bounds of WP:BRD, and you cannot seriously argue that outside of the review context, my BRD was unduly disruptive.

• You also discount the fact that I also made various concessions to accomodate this reviewer, which were onerous beyond the usual demands of BRD. I have relented to reviewer's request to edit additional material into the article beyond the "etymology" issue. This meant limiting the issues I would table during review. I also did not fuss over this reviewer semi-deleting (collapsed down) my points of issue, which were dismissed not on substance, but defamatory characterizations. On balance, the others were digressing from arguing the article more than I was. It is true I did not completely cave to demands, such as the reviewer's request to do nothing except add 1 or 2 tags. I wrote up my own red-hilited version of the article, to facilitate the task for the reviewer, dispensing with her having to check diffs on the edits I got insta-reverted on by Eric and Sagacious.
• It just seems to me you were just lying in wait for me to make one slip up that would justify your threat to block me. But isn't Montanabw labeling me as "disgruntled" cause for your concern? This is an extremely prejudicial term evocative of the stereotypical "disgruntled (federal government employee)" who goes on a shooting spree. It's clear to me that Drmies makes hardly a credible case for being an impartial arbiter so far. If you pretend to be fair, would you be willing to render judgment on specific instance of bad behavior on Eric and Sagacious's part?--Kiyoweap (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The review was over. Your comments came as mustard after the meal. If you wish to comment on the article, take it to the article talk page, not the GA review. The comments are there in the history; you can copy and paste them yourself as you see fit. My comment on your behavior in that review were not fed to me by the creators; they are my own observation and I stand by them. I am happy to see you qualified one comment (though I don't see much difference between a "blanket" statement and whatever it was after qualification) and struck a few others; thank you. Your reading of "disgruntled" strikes me as pretty narrow. I did not see behavior by Eric or Sagaciousphil that warranted any kind of warning or action; you are free, of course, to find a better admin. One more thing: if I had really been lying in wait just so I could block you, I could have blocked you already. I didn't. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Stoor worm into User:Kiyoweap/Stoor worm. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco 1492, thank you for your heads-up. I've added the {{copied}} template you suggested (small=yes) version. There is no one particular oldid that applies, since this is a composite of various edits that had been reverted by these other editors, but the idea is "this oldid plus if prior edits of mine had been kept in and not deleted". The only other local page is User:Kiyoweap/Opium Wars, which has a hatnote which I will take as close enough {{copied}}, since there too, no single oldid is applicable. --Kiyoweap (talk) 12:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kiyoweap, thank you for your feedback reg the family tree Ihave been working on, I value a lot that someone took time to evaluate the work. I will, within shortly try to complete the work, and submit it to the article. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kiyoweap, I was just looking over the Kelpie article and realized that Gary Varner was still being cited prominently as a "folklorist". I went ahead and pulled it again for the reasons I've mentioned on the talk page. I'm also surprised there isn't more of a section on the possibly Germanic origins or, more widely, Indo-European possibilities on the article. You're welcome to assist in fleshing those out sometime. Meanwhile I'm still working on that Odin rewrite... :bloodofox: (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you were a discussant at Wikipedia:Peer review/Emily Ratajkowski/archive1, I thought you might consider commenting at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive1, which was opened on December 26 and has had no comments yet.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Excellent work. Many thanks for all of your time, tenacity, and hard work! Jim1138 (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Detective Barnstar
		For the countless hours spent digging into Japanese and Korean sources, for valuable article edits, and for coping with the continued hearing impairment on the associated talk page. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 13:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kiyoweap. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hello TWL users! We hope JSTOR has been a useful resource for your work. We're organizing a cleanup drive to correct dead links to JSTOR articles – these require JSTOR access and cannot easily be corrected by bot. We'd love for you to jump in and help out!

Sent of behalf of Nikkimaria for The Wikipedia Library's JSTOR using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking one last run at getting Emily Ratajkowski promoted to WP:FA in time for a 25th birthday WP:TFA on June 7th. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3 needs discussants. Since you were a Wikipedia:Peer review/Emily Ratajkowski/archive1 participant, I am hoping you might give some comments.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! My name is Erica, and I am a community liaison for the visual editor team at the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm contacting you because we need feedback from editors who can read and type in Japanese. Our main question is, does typing in this language feel natural in the visual editor? (Language engineer David Chan needs to know.) So, would you do me a favor, click here and try to type something? (To make things super-easy, I provided a short sentence that you can try and replicate by typing it on that page). Let me know how that went - you can post a reply on your talk page and just ping me. どうもありがとうございます! --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You were involved in one of the prior WP:FAC or WP:PR discussions about Emily Ratajkowski. The current discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive4 needs more discussants. In my prior successful FACs, success has been largely based on guidance at FAC in reshaping the content that I have nominated. I would appreciate discussants interested in giving guidance such guidance.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kiyoweap-san. I hope you are well and in good health? Are you sure you did not cut some valid information in Diff of Providence (religious movement)? Best regards, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sam. I looked at the diff which was harder to tracker, but I also did a comparison of your reverted version (Sept 2015) versus my updated version (Oct 2015) and I dont thinke there was substantive well-sourced content that was taken out as far as i could see.

But I wrote up a report on the diff in Talk:Providence (religious movement)#Updating revert to 24 Oct '15 version fyi. --Kiyoweap (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kiyoweap, I don't have a lot of time to edit Wikipedia these days. Most issues I've found can be solved by simply rewriting an article in line with GA standards, particularly when it comes to folklore. The Nuckelavee article is one of many hack-jobs we've got on the site at moment (albeit at least it isn't a cryptozoology promo piece), no doubt because there were no folklorists involved with the development of Wikipedia's early folklore articles. A shame, really. However, if you start to prepare to a rewrite at any point, let me know and I'll help out when I can. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bloodofox. I didnt realize Nuckelavee made main page in March drawing a flurry of activity.

Since I did have material on its etymology gathered up, I did a rewrite of the section, though it of course got reverted.

I found the link to Jakobsen's Norn dictionary in Danish (1921) hathi trust. I havent accessed the Jakobsen in English (1928), but under neugle in the SND is an excerpt on the description of the Shetland neugle, which says it was appeased by offerings of meal strewn from the mill. I guess smilar info is in Karl Blind's piece too but I'd forgotten details. And I guess this is somewhat similar to the Nisse who loves porridige? Didn't realize Nisse or Nils derived from Nicholas by the way. Interesting tidbit.

Seems you were also backing me on the Stoor worm etymology getting reverted. Thanks for that. I'd misread the definition of storðar-gandr in Cleasby-Vigfusson, thinking it stood for snake, but I now see it is a kenning for either "fire" or "wind". So the Stoor worm article carries a fine piece of misinformation stating storðar-gandr is kenning for the Miðgarðsormr.--Kiyoweap (talk)

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	I appreciate your efforts on improving Gog and Magog. It means a lot and speeds up the FA process, so thank you very much! JudeccaXIII (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Great work with the headless men article! I've had it on my watchlist for a while, but had never found the time to get around to it. Thanks! Matt Deres (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kudos Matt Deres. Still working on this article. --Kiyoweap (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dagnabbit, I keep forgetting to turn off "Millennials to Snake People" when I edit WP. I'll fix it. — Texas Dervish (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Perilla—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Diospireiro (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Charles R. Knight, 1922)

Thank you for all you did for this project in 2016, Kiyoweap. May your house be safe, and may you and those having the privilege of your company enjoy good health in a Happy New Year 2017! Kind regards, — Sam Sailor 02:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] Pass on! Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages. Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.

Much thanks for looking into Megalia. The editing looked as though someone's manliness feelings had been hurt.
My wife and I just discovered Daiso, Tokyo Central & Main, and Marukai. They are a short distance from us in San Diego. We have seen and own most of Miyazaki's works on DVD. My wife likes Totoros. She just saw a solar-powered dancing Totoro, so I need to find and buy her one! Thanks again for everything! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 10:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim1138. I didn't have an inkling about Megalia, but after digging, I'm finding there aspects to this story pretty intriguing.

None of these stores like Marukai on the West Coast are near me. But there's a secondhand bookstore Book-Off, which also sells DVDs, games, and even has a small offering of toy figures and anime paraphenelia as well at a discount. There's seems to be a branch in San Diego. Now that I recall, the local Kinokuniya bookstore used to hang cels from Princess Mononoke, and they used to be for sale, but they made them not for sale later on.

I don't really collect anime goods, but here's a website I found that interviews an ultimate Totoro collector, and shows off his collection.[1]--Kiyoweap (talk) 07:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kiyoweap. Thanks for the website. My wife enjoyed it very much! That collector is very dedicated, I'm very impressed! I think all we have of Miyazaki are most of hist DVDs and a Totoro. Our "collection" consists of feeding a swarm of hummingbirds. Last year, we used about 500 kg of sugar. That, depending on how much they manage calories, would feed about 1500-2500 hummingbirds full time. Just before nightfall, they "tank up" and I can see about 100 birds at once. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Megalia was down for awhile and someone changed "is" to "was". It's back again. A bit of an EW over content. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was just heading over here to basically express the exact same sentiment as Jim, so I'll hijack this thread rather than open a whole new one. Appreciate you pitching in and helping to reshape the article into something more encylopedia-worthy; good work. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious... Does Google translate convert Korean to Japanese than to English? I find reading machine translated Korean to English really challenging to say the least. Best Jim1138 (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases, a piece of Korean text that turns into garbled nonsense when you convert to English will turn into an intelligible translation when you google translate it into Japanese.

So, one technique you might employ is to first translate the text into Japanese (even if you dont understand it), then machine translate that into English, and you might get a "second opinion" that makes better sense. --Kiyoweap (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try it. Thanks! Jim1138 (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 Dodes'ka-den page, your edit caused a redundant parameter error (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) 00:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Boleyn. Kiyoweap, thanks for creating Otohime!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add sources

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boleyn. It seems you have this impression I created an unsourced stub article out of vacuum.

However, I didn't so much create Otohime as correct the misconception that Otohime was identical to Toyotama-hime.

As I wrote in the edit summary, I feel Otohime doesn't merit an independent article of it's own. And just like a Japanese Wikipedia (jp:乙姫) it should probably be just a dab article (currently created as Otohime (disambiguation)).

However, this replacement would involve eliminating the "References in popular culture" section. And I am disinclined to engage in wholesale purging of trivia lists that other editors compiled. What would you suggest?--Kiyoweap (talk) 12:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kiyoweap. I think with this many fictional characters apparently named after her, she may well be notable. I'll clean it up. Boleyn (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Coroebus (disambiguation), Kiyoweap!

Wikipedia editor Babymissfortune just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for taking the time creating this page.

To reply, leave a comment on Babymissfortune's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

^{Babymissfortune} 08:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to link to Coroebus of Argos but Coroebus was a stub article for three personages. I renamed this to Coroebus (disambiguation) at first, but reconsidered.

So now Coroebus is the "main" guy, Coroebus (Argos) is split off into separtae article (with version number and date noted in edit summary to "maintain continuation of revision history") and a Coroebus (disambiguation) as standard dab page. --Kiyoweap (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Tatzelwurm shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giving you one more heads up about this. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please cut the bullcrap Jytdog. The edits you performed on Tatzelwurm were inept because you did not properly consult and digest what was written in the multiple sources which were in German. You did a bungled job because you did not take time to do side-research on the local geography of Switzerland, Austria, and Germany, and the fact that local dialects were involved which were not standard German.

If your hubris has been wounded by the fact I pointed this out, it is not proper behavior to accuse the opponent you are edit-warring with with frivolous charges of being "credulous" about the tatzelwurm being real.

As I pointed out in Talk:Tatzelwurm#Cryptozoologists, the article contained far-fetched descriptions of "dragons" described as "cat-headed serpents" whose description were obviously far-fetched. It is so blatantly obviously far-fetched unless you are a two-and-a-half year old or still living in the dark ages, that I did not find it necessary to parse the entire article with constant disclaimers that these are just alleged reports, not actual organisms known to exist. --Kiyoweap (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, delayed reaction. You would do well to mind the DS described above. Jytdog (talk) 02:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog engaged in a frivolous accusations that someone advocates pseudoscience re Tatzelwurm (in March). He later repeated this accusation reacting Mokele-mbembe without participating in that article (in July). This is really not responsible mature adult behavior.

People who do this sort of thing should be subjected to sanctions as well, just as athletes receive yellow cards in soccer for faking injuries.--Kiyoweap (talk) 03:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There may still be time for you to respond at the complaint and agree to stop and wait for consensus. At first glance, your edits appear to go against our WP:PSCI policy and they may lead to admin action. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Thanks for the heads up. Yes, I guess I shouldn't let this be an absentee trial situation while I was busy trying to tend to the Tatzelwurm article itself.

I put it an pretty stern rebuttal that Jytdog is his editing without reading up or checking even the inline sources I give as a reason as to why I revert his edits.

It is quite unfortunate that certain editors by merely slinging this "pseudoscience" and "cryptozoology" label around can cause an appearance of WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE breach to editors such as yourself.

However, there is no pseudoscience in describing the content of a 17th century book which records dragon sightings. I consider it self-explanatory to all readers that cat-headed dragons in reality do not exist, so I didn't bother to stating the obvious. And I realy can't state even the obvious unless it can be sourced, and other sources don't state the obvious either.--Kiyoweap (talk) 01:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed some options at User talk:Jytdog#Your AN3 complaint. I was going to check the Loch Ness Monster article and use that as a counterexample but it appears to have many citations to people who are not folklorists. Though the lead makes clear that regular science doesn't believe the the monster exists. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Loch Ness Monster is unable to cite one single folklorist, perhaps you are more inclined to believe I cant find much folklorists analysis papers on Tatzelwurm.

Sightings don't provide the basis (tale motifs) for folklorists to base their theories on, so there is little for them to say (Dübi 1940[2]).

If you are suggesting there might be a blanket statement of skepticism as scientific opinion, I wont gainsay anyone from inserting it, but I doubt such will be found. Naturalists and others have talked about tatzelwurm being possibly some reptile, etc. The situation is not the same as Nessie, which has no real mistakable counterpart big enough.

I was still in the process of doing the article, and I don't really have the motivation now. If there is no real prospect of me reasonable protection for WP:DISRUPT until this frivolous WP:PSCI accusation isnt settled on some other forum, I'm just going to close shop on this article for now. At least you didnt listen to the guy who was pretending to work with me on the article while at WP:AN3 posting "please do block", here. Thanks. --Kiyoweap (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing up another of my early shameful attempts at articles. I honestly was about to AFD the page, which I wrote back in 2005 based on an obscure once-produced play that definitely failed GNG, when I noticed you had changed its focus to something much better. Interestingly enough, one of the sources you used was actually written by an old friend of mine. The Japanese community in Ireland was always really small, and everyone knows each other. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88: I hope it's better protected now from WP:AFD. I guess I didn't cite them but I believe a couple of academic papers have mentioned the work as well (like "ラフカディオ・ハーンと浦島伝説－アイルランドとの繋がりと近代化との対比においてみる他界観－伊野家 伸一[3]), so I think it should be considered notable. Hearn is probably a minor and obscure author in the eyes of English-speaking Wikipedians in general, so they wouldn't appreciate that he is an author most everyone knows in Japan.

As to Hearn's "The Dream of a Summer Day" being somewhat inspired by the Irish legend about Oisín and Niamh (mythology) in mind, as his biographer pointed out the work was probably developed from an "enchanted memory" of Hearn's Irish aunt who told him Celtic tales, rather than his Greek mother.--Kiyoweap (talk) 05:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Storm-Bogatyr, Ivan the Cow's Son, Kiyoweap!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

An interesting article and a useful addition to Wikipedia.

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue your tendentious editing and edit warring at Mokele-mbembe, you risk being topic banned from the article and the subject. Please see my comment here for more details. Bishonen | talk 16:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen. Jytdog or anyone else under the flimsiest of grounds can slap on this warning message of "pseudoscience" at their pleasure. Why did you automatically assume it was merited? It was not.

Next time, please review the actual edit-warring that was involved, as was the case here with Tatzelwurm. I reverted the editor's attempt at simplifying, because he strayed from what was stated in the multiple sources in German. It was sloppy editing, period. Not a pseudoscience related edit-war.

The editor subsequently changed his tact and decided to level these accusation that the edit was "credulous" regarding the existence of tatzelwurm. This is tantamount to people accusing you of believing in Santa Claus, but he went on and on about it Talk:Tatzelwurm#Cryptozoologists. That I retorted to his arguments should not have led you to the conclusion that I believed in Santa Claus. Thank you. --Kiyoweap (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Building a load of content from very old, credulous sources.. hmmm. Jytdog (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Jakob Scheuchzer from the 18th century was not so credulous. You in your arrogance thought you knew his mind, but you are wrong. And I already pointed out you were wrong in Talk:Tatzelwurm, where I cited the book which should have read. Stop continuing to spread the falsehood I already corrected you on. And don't go around accusing people of credulity -- because you are now documented as being lousy about being able to discern the truth of this.

The book states it plainly. Although Scheuchzer was "later lampooned for excessive credulity" Scheuchzer had written earlier that: "I myself, although very skeptical about this material, have been assiduous in collecting all the Swiss dragon stories and have had them [the dragons] painted according to the descriptions, but if they [the paintings] should someday become public, I will not give them out as factual but rather as very dubious, and most of them as made-up.'" (Hansen, The Summits of Modern Man, p. 42, Harvard U. Press)[4] --Kiyoweap (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When an editor automatically assumes that I have automatically assumed something, and that I have not reviewed the editing I'm warning them about, then it tells me something about that editor's attitude. Of course I reviewed the edit warring at Mokele-mbembe. You would apparently rather talk about some other article, but that's the one I was talking about. Just remember you've been warned. Bishonen | talk 12:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

You issued a "final warning" alluding to existing warnings, which is predicated on previous warnings. The first and full text was issued on the tatzelwurm article. You are now telling me you did not consult this "other article" at all, so you did take this on face value, and I am asking to please go back and review it. What is the big deal? I am not saying you should do it now or within 2 days. I am not as impatient with time as you are.--Kiyoweap (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request translation: ja:烏丸家 (Karasumaru family), ja:山本顧彌太 (Koyata Yamamoto), ja:亀井重清 (Shigekiyo Kamei), ja:片岡常春 (Tsuneharu Kataoka), ja:伊勢義盛 (Yoshimori Ise), ja:駿河次郎 (Jirō Suruga), ja:鷲尾義久 (Washio Yoshihisa), ja:富樫泰家 (Yasuie Togashi), ja:村田勝志 (Katsushi Murata), ja:藤井恒久 (Tsunehisa Fujii), ja:宮根誠司 (Seiji Miyane), ja:諸國沙代子 (Sayoko Shokoku), ja:世界一受けたい授業 (THE MOST USEFUL SCHOOL IN THE WORLD), ja:にっぽん丸 (Nippon Maru (1990)), ja:馬場元子 (Motoko Baba), ja:生ハムと焼うどん (Nama Ham & Yaki Udon), ja:いず (巡視船・2代) (Izu (PL 31)), ja:かめりあ丸 (Camellia Maru), ja:京都府警察 (Kyoto Prefectural Police), ja:柳川次郎 (Jirō Yanagawa), ja:花形敬 (Kei Hanagata), ja:小林楠扶 (Kusuo Kobayashi), ja:毎朝新聞 (Maiasa Shinbun), ja:田中六助 (Rokusuke Tanaka), ja:角田久美子 (Kumiko Tsunoda), ja:安村直樹 (Naoki Yasumura), ja:三枝夕夏 (Yūka Saegusa), ja:少年ケニヤ (Shōnen Kenya), ja:チャンピオン太 (Champion Futoshi), ja:ジャイアント台風 (Giant Typhoon), ja:引田有美 (Yumi Hikita), ja:松岡巌鉄 (Gantetsu Matsuoka), ja:鈴木理子 (ホリプロ) (Riko Suzuki), ja:谷内里早 (Risa Taniuchi), ja:尾崎仁彦 (Kimihiko Ozaki), ja:アーサ米夏 (Aasa Maika), ja:吉村道明 (Michiaki Yoshimura), ja:沖識名 (Shikina Oki), ja:芳の里淳三 (Junzō Yoshinosato), ja:篠原光 (Hikaru Shinohara), ja:沖野ヨーコ (漫画家) (Yōko Okino), ja:徳住有香 (Yuka Tokuzumi), ja:とみながまり (Mari Tominaga), ja:堀内博之 (Hiroyuki Horiuchi), ja:永野椎菜 (Shiina Nagano), ja:諏訪道彦 (Michihiko Suwa), ja:阿部ゆたか (Yutaka Abe), ja:渡部陽一 (Yōichi Watanabe), ja:吉岡昌仁 (Masahito Yoshioka). Thank you very much, if you can help me. --95.244.236.110 09:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite unlikely I will take up your request on any of these articles, especially pop culture related.

The first few seem to be on minor medieval people relating to Yoshitsune, but the original articles seem to lack citations, so risk being immediate delete request candidates. --Kiyoweap (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those related with Yoshitsune appear often in Japanese movies, anime, and manga, then you can create them with proper sources. --79.54.23.199 14:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, consider the Togashi Yasuie article which is tagged as {{unreferenced}}. Unfortunately it is not just a matter of finding "proper sources". It makes spurious claims:

<He was appointed governor/shugo>

<Togashi[no suke] of historical romance (Gikeiki) is based on the historical Togashi Yasutoki>

When I googled, the first claim is rejected by several sources. And I don't find proper scholarship that concurs with the second statement, though some local historians in the past or novelist Yoshikawa Eiji might have believed it.

So it probably needs to be rewritten. It is not a good candidate for translation in its state.--Kiyoweap (talk) 03:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't forget it, if you can. --79.44.235.28 08:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Utsubo is a fictional character, appeared also in Yoshitsune (NHK Taiga drama) del 1966 (ja:義経 (NHK大河ドラマ)). Please, can you create her own voice, with a detailed story, because she is a very important character in this series? The 49 episodes are here. Thank you. --80.180.94.96 13:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.180.94.96 (talk) [reply]

I am personally more interested in learning whether the favorite delicacy of Romans was utsubo (moray eel) as stated in Yamazaki Mari's Thermae Romae or if it was the unagi (eel), as depicted in Wazarai Shizuya [it] Cestus (manga) [it].

However, I did translate a pertinent paragraph about Utsubo (performed by Ueto Aya) on Talk:Yoshitsune (TV series). --Kiyoweap (talk) 01:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want her own page about the character from Yoshitsune TV series 2005. Please, can you do it, because I'm too busy? --80.181.63.195 06:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.181.63.195 (talk) [reply]

No.

A page on Utsubo does not belong here, since it does not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability criteria.

Non-notable articles get WP:DELETEd. --Kiyoweap (talk) 08:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then, can you create List of Yoshitsune (TV series) characters? --82.52.174.30 08:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.52.174.30 (talk) [reply]

I am not really interested in getting involved with such an article. And the amount of translating involved is pretty substantial. --Kiyoweap (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	A treat for you
	Thanks for creating the new Kakiage article, and for improving coverage of Japanese cuisine on Wikipedia. North America1000 19:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kudos. --Kiyoweap (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's the list with all characters, but they don't have their description yet. Can you do it, maybe with the translation from ja.wikipedia? Thank you. --79.44.90.127 08:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've never read this comic, having not actually read even Versailles no Bara by the same author. Although I watched a Takarazuka production version of Versailles (starring Suzukaze Mayo / Amami Yuki) on TV and maybe browsed some old anime episodes. It seems to me you should try to find a core BeruBara fan to mount on such a task as you seek.--Kiyoweap (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kiyoweap: Today I have been updating all of the articles under "Category:Fédération Cynologique Internationale" and was completely stumped when I got to the Japan Kennel Club article. I see you mention on your user page that you speak Japanese. Maybe you would like to do some updates to the article, even if it may be some rudimentary updates. Thanks in advance. Normal Op (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the ja:ジャパンケネルクラブ and this is basically a stub article with little sourcing. It has a lead paragraph similar to the English version, and a short bulleted chronology. I guess there is an English source on the beginnings, I'll add info about its precursor. I'll generally not be editing any dog-related articles after this week, and going back to my usual interests. --Kiyoweap (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		A beer on me!
		Thank you for your earlier help and support on the Japanese-related topic and others. Hopefully the weather will have improved by the next time you check your watch, inbox or watchlist. Have a pint on me. Thanks again. Normal Op (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you've received it before although it's renewable every 12 months. It is possible to avoid receiving these by posting a message at the top of the page saying you already are aware of them ({{Ds/aware}}).

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

—PaleoNeonate – 18:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleoNeonate: Thanks for the heads-up info, I decided to put up {{tl|Ds/aware|ps}}. I do hope it will prevent subsequent ego-bruised users from tag-bombing me with frivolous accusations of credulity of "monsters" when I revert their editing efforts based on correctness of content.

I will hold off on other WP:DSTOPICS which looks like a long list I cant commit to memory. --Kiyoweap (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your sentence "I hope JoePhin's isn't overly disheartened by the believers of the POV Wikipedia article (not an WP:RS) sling their usual substance-less WP:SYNTH or fringe criticisms at you at Talk:Cryptozoology is a little hard to parse, syntactically, but I get the gist, and it's a very offensive way of talking about fellow editors. Please be civil and assume good faith. Bishonen | tålk 20:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, the gist was that WP:SYNTH, etc. was asserted by fiat on JoePhin's edit, without an explanation of what particular claim was synthesized.

Joe prompted for clarification: What in the edit did you find to be WP:PROFRINGE or WP:FALSEBALANCE, Crossroads? Joe (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC), yet the plea went ignored, meanwhile a different user also charged him that his "edits do not pass muster", again without specifics.

So I commiserated with the person who is having to take the vague criticism and not knowing what to rebut on.

Sorry I sloppily write "substance-less WP:SYNTH or fringe criticisms" but it should have been → "substance-less WP:SYNTH or WP:PROFRINGE criticisms". This was inadvertent; I didn't mean to reciprocate the other parties for calling me "fringe", but can I complain to you for their slanders and be paid attention? --Kiyoweap (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's what "by fiat" means. Anyway, I disagree with your characterization of the arguments against Joe Phin's edit. There's a limit to how many times something needs to be explained. When you ask about getting my attention for slander, do you mean slander of you yourself? (Because I certainly don't see any slandering of Joe.) Yes, of course, where is it? Tell me about it. As long as I'm here, I'll mention that I find your tone on that talkpage altogether belittling. For example, please don't diminish your opponents by ridiculous namecalling like "Bloodo" (is Bloodofox's name really inconveniently long to type?) or "Hob Gadling person" (we're all persons here). Bishonen | tålk 10:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

If the accuser of a WP:SYNTH fails to explain the infraction, he/she is making a "by fiat", arbitrary accusation. Period.

A prosecutor in court isn't allowed to say, "Some part of the bunch of stuff is unlawful, Your Honor, but I've argued the case law before, so figure out the rest of it". How ridiculous is that? Bishonen is saying this is OK. No, it's not.

I will buy this "how many times" justification for stonewalling (in the sense of "refusing to answer") if it were about overall balance, but not for SYNTH which can be specified.

There are several other options you could have exercised as a fair-minded admin here: explain it yourself if obvious, urge the accuser to do so, or caution all not to accuse SYNTH unless he can clarify on demand.--Kiyoweap (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see, you got nothing re what you call "slanders". OK. Bishonen | tålk 16:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Actually I consider it a slander for anyone who believes all of cryptozoolgy to be pseudoscience to label me as "resident cryptozoologist", which I said I don't identify as.

I don't knowingly own any cryptozoologist books, except perhaps a book on Hawaiian history translated by Hiroshi Aramata, who is probably easily considered a cryptozoologist by the broad definition.

But if you yourself are actually interested in the Japanese subculture, I will tell you right now that you will not win very many Japanese friends among them if you think it is okay to paint this guy and others like him as part of the lunatic fringe.--Kiyoweap (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May Peace and Blessings be upon You... Forgive me if my response (from your message you left on my talk page) is unbecoming or intrusive, or perhaps not in it's appropriate place. However, I begin by humbly saying "thank you" for your input; it will be duly noted. I am responding about the subjective statement about the many, countless scholars that spoke upon Dhul al-Qarnayn being Alexander the Great, and the informed should ideally take their account as being utmost accurate. Mind you, the great intellects of history, from the pre-socratic period until after Galileo, all proclaimed that Earth was the center vice the Sun of the universe (or planetary order). And that is to also argue the Earth being flat or round, again from countless archaic scholars of before. Most, if not all, people had taken them as being factual or otherwise correct. Today, we know this is contrary to our actual findings from modern scientists, or by itself, astrophysics. May I suggest that it is purely fallacious to say that some subject be considered fact because of the words from scholars. Shall the appealing to authority of scholars, who collectively agree with each other, on context...be taken as a grain of salt...and their views be treated as subjective (opinions or short-finding of their teachings)? Which is also not considered.. there are four madhhaab (schools of thought) in mainstream Sunni Islam, and they don't necessarily agree on Dhul al-Qarnayn be or the interpretation of the Hadith concerning it. Rest assured...that is the stance I took upon that article. If I violated the rules of Wikipedia which you pointed.. then I may have approached the whole situation wrongly. At least u spotted my mistake as folly, and not personnel of Wikipedia themselves. As being arbitrary to Dhul al-Qarnayn true identity...I was intended to inform the readers about what is, or not, explicitly written, as per Qur'an. Islam in the western world is viewed negatively in the minds of the people...and Muslims, such as myself, are producing terrible examples. Again, forgive me if this was inappropriate... and may Peace and Blessings be upon You. RekonDog (talk) 06:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote on this matter in Talk:Gog and Magog. The Gog and Magog legend and was associated with Gates of Alexander back in the 1st century or earlier, hundreds of years before Islam.

Therefore the Quranic "take" on the legend deserves only so much space, and not an inordinate WP:UNDUE amount.

Therefore, instead of UNDUEly rehashing the controversy in G&M, the pros/cons arguments regarding Hypotheses about the identity of Dhu al-Qarnayn should be dealt with in that article yonder.

Alexander during his lifetime associated himself as a horned divine being associated with Ammon.

Whether or not the Dhu'l Qarnayn in the Quran conflates this two-horned Alexander is never going to be an open shut case like refuting geocentrism, where we know as scientific fact that the Earth is much much less massive than the Sun. --Kiyoweap (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for your amazing works on Bixia Yuanjun. If you don't mind or If you have a free time, pls kindly research on Lishan Laomu, she has other myths in Chinese or Japanese texts but I can't read it. I'm heavily interesting on the goddess of Mount Li. Keep up your nice work ! Cheers 🥂 Thanks. VocalIndia (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@VocalIndia:, I can' actually read Chinese texts, but since the preexisting edit seemed to over-rely on the websource lishiquwen ("historical tidbits"), I've added additional primary sources (zh,wikisource) and some English language scholarly secondary sources.

The Japanese wiki is scantier, but it had the additional factoid that Lishan Laomu is mentioned in a [theatrical play] version of the Journey to the West.--Kiyoweap (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing ! Thank you so much. VocalIndia (talk) 07:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the info. It is enough to answer my questions.

Jonrysh (talk) 06:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for the edit on Mintuci kamuy. If you are interested in Ainu mythology, would you like to read more on ja:モシレチク・コタネチク and expand/translate into English? There is little info on that story available online (and a lot of search results is Okami) so I wonder if you have some good sources and if you would like to work on it. KamillaŚ (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks KamillaŚ for the info. I'm planning on researching a different topic next, so prob won't work on it right now.

I see that Kindaichi actually uses モシレチクチク・コタネチクチク romanized as "Moshirechikchik kotanechikchik". The modernized spelling is given as mosirecikcik by a different source, though in an entry for an apparently separate deity called "mosirecikcik iwaecikeik" aka "iwaetunnay" for which there is a separate article in the ja wiki: ja:イワエトゥンナイ--Kiyoweap (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, but if some day you want to return to this, I'd still be grateful KamillaŚ (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Template:User WP Mythology/doc is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 02:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BRD for how not to start an edit war, and WP:DAB for what a disambiguation page is and is not. And don't accuse me of meddling. You convert a longstanding redirect page to a different purpose and make a complete hash of it, it got reverted, deal with it. Now I'll leave it for another reviewer to look at because you're clearly just going to edit war over it. Lithopsian (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The point was you were "meddling" without fact-checking. Had you done your books.googling, the first several hits (1, 2, 3) would have provided prima facie evidence that scholarship uses Chronica principum Poloniae to refer to a work by Piotr or Peter, and not use it as shorthand for Wincenty's Chronica seu originale regum et principum Poloniae.

But you decided to delete my easily substantiatable target Piotr, and restore the "longstanding redirect" Wincenty as sole target, even though it is very iffy to anyone who did his fact-checking. --Kiyoweap (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! On behalf of WiTricity and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I've shared a draft entry for Japanese Wikipedia, which is a translated version of the English Wikipedia article. I'm searching for an editor who is willing to review this draft and update the entry appropriately. Might you be willing to take a look? Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for reviewing the draft. I've updated the entry per your permission on my user talk page. On the off chance you know an editor who may be able to help at Korean Wikipedia, I've posted a similar request at ko:토론:와이트리시티 Thanks again! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who reverted the change is not responding. Perhaps they do not understand I was given permission to implement the draft. Are you aware of somewhere specific I should go for assistance, or are you willing to copy over ja:利用者:Inkian Jason/WiTricity appropriately? If not, I'll keep trying to find editors to review the draft. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that you mention having a book on Hawaiian history translated by Hiroshi Aramata that *could* be considered cryptozoology, which book is that? KanyeWestDropout (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Nevins Armstrong's Around the World with a King (1904).

Aramata translated this as Karakaua ō no Nippon gyōten ryokōki ("King Kalakaua's stupendous Japan-travelogue" ISBN 4094031170, avail. amazon.co.jp)

NHK's historical tv documentary ja:その時歴史が動いた aired an episode "幻のハワイ日本連合～カラカウア王・祖国防衛に賭けた生涯～" in 2006 concerning this material, where the part of David Kalakaua was portrayed by ex-sumo wrestler Konishiki. --Kiyoweap (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shippeitaro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hijiri.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Celtic folklore has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lisa Nakazono, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Nakazono until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Lisa Nakazono. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: My bad. I was looking at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 6 page, and there it looked like a "speedy keep" closure had been performed at the end with some sort of a glitch that didn't frame the entire discussion. It didn't occur to me that the "keep" was for a separate motion to delete talk:Lisa Nakazono. --Kiyoweap (talk) 05:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)reworded Kiyoweap (talk) 06:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And please don't mischarcterize me as actually removing other people's comments from Articles for deletion page, when what I did was to excerpt an IP comment and hide the rest of it within {{collapse}}, then adding my own summary/explanation.

A similar cleanup had been performed by another user (the deletion nominator) who likewise hid comments using {{collapse}}, added the explanation of "irrelevant..", etc., and relocated it to a lower part of the page. --Kiyoweap (talk) 06:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to thank you for your efforts on the Lisa Nakazono article. You did find some real sources, which I though might lead to a marginal keep, but the article has gone now, unless someone wants to work to try to make a NPOV and properly sourced article. I am now looking at a couple of other pages: Kento Masuda and Hiroko Tsuji (musician), both egregiously promotional. The Hiroko Tsuji article is also odd, because of the separate article for a different Hiroko Tsuji, which should mean a disambiguation page. This article is very thin, and notability doubtful. The Masuda article is stuffed with things like bogus "nobility" awards, which are well-documented paid for schemes, and picking a random reference (no. 45) I traced it to a paid-for scheme. There is a note on the talk page to the effect that the wp:ja page was recently deleted; but the page has been (MT-)rendered into something like 20 languages. Anyway, I thought I would ask your opinion: should I just start an AfD, or do I need to plough through each page simply removing each bit with an improper source. Imaginatorium (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of musicians and other entertainers are not really within my field of interest, and I do I participated in the foregoing pianist, and clearly, I only acted on a translation request.

Since you are not sufficiently skilled or sufficiently motivated at finding resources in the Japanese language, the one advice I would give, though I doubt you would heed it, is that you stay away from trying to delete pages of foreign entertainers altogether and stick to the English language. --Kiyoweap (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kitsune, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tanuki.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kuda-gitsune, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tanuki.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Pacific herring, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ainu.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kazunoko, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Haida.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Feather cloak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Cooke.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Feather cloak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freja.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]