User talk:Martinthewriter

Spelling
Please stop changing the spelling in articles to your preferred version, as you did in the Candaules article and others, which I've reverted. Candaules is an article about a British artist written in British English, and that's how it stays. In general you should always leave an article in the spelling style in which it was originally written. See Manual of Style Jimfbleak - talk to me?  07:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also please leave an edit summary when you make changes so we can see what changes you claim to have made Jimfbleak - talk to me?  07:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Please be a bit more careful
In your recent edit to Mottainai you not only restored text (and an article structure) that was inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, but also restored text that was added six years ago and was directly lifted from this source, without restoring the citation. "Mottainai is an old Buddhist word" may be too short for WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE to be an issue. it is, however, "creative" (and therefore theoretically copyrightable) in that mottai nai actually can't be "an old Buddhist" in that it is actually two words, the latter of which is the modern form of nashi. Even if it were technically accurate or theoretically defensible (in modern colloquial usage mottai is essentially a dead word -- it appears in Kojien but the first three pages of GNews hits brought up only two instances of its being used without na(i), both instead using tsuke(ru) -- and so it could be argued that that makes mottainai a standalone word, which is why I'm not culling uses of the word "word" from the article), it's original source is clearly unreliable for claims about Japanese religion and historical linguistics. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019
Your recent editing history at Mottainai shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You already have violated 3RR rule. You will be blocked if reported to WP:AN3―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * There is, actually, a report at WP:AN3 involving this edit war. I note that you stopped edit warring after this notice, so I do not plan to block you, but that needs to be your last revert on that article until a consensus is reached. If you and Hijiri88 cannot resolve this on your own, there are options at WP:DR you can follow. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, any dispute resolution procedures need to take into account that the previous status quo was instituted as a compromise consensus 21 months ago. It is not my place to speak for editors like Margin1522, Curly Turkey, and Nishidani; unless they explicitly state that they no longer have opinions on the matter, it really can't be seen as a 1-1 gridlock between me and Martin. There has to be a very compelling reason for throwing out the previous consensus, and I don't think "These sources say X" is good enough (even though, as has already been demonstrated, the sources often don't even say X). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Martin, please indicate whether you plan on continuing to revert of the previous version if the article is restored. I assumed you were done, since you hadn't posted any substantial defense of your additions on the talk page, and had stopped editing once the above warning was placed on your talk page, so I reverted, and so I restored the previous version. I don't know what your actual motivation for going quite was, but if you were hoping I would revert back thinking you had given up and get myself brought to ANEW -- well, you were right. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Martinthewriter: Now that Hijiri88 self-reverted his 4th revert, you should self-revert your 4th revert. Otherwise, you may risk being blocked for edit-warring.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * See this. I'm really not sure what the point is in continuing to try to "discuss" with this person, and he clearly has no interest in self-reverting. Should I ask for him to be blocked? Do you want to? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you actually read Japanese?
Your user page claims you have an advanced understanding of Japanese, and you've claimed as much several times on Talk:Mottainai, but you haven't actually given me any reason to believe you can read Japanese, and at this point the only acceptable good-faith excuse for your not having read Hasegawa would be that you can't read him. Therefore, assuming good faith, I would like to ask you to translate the following short quotation from Hisao Yamashita's paper "Ueda Akinari no Ōmi Kōto Karon nitsuite". 「したがって」などの接続詞や助詞は「アバウト」でかまわないので！

"したがって、人麻呂や黒人が、宮廷歌人として天武や持統を賛えこそすれ、敵朝下での意に添わぬ出仕で常に「憾慨の情」を抱きつつ歌っていた、などとは誰も考えはすまい."

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I have read Kohei Hasegawa, but that's just one source. I respect the views of all the many scholars who have studied this matter in depth and have a full understanding of it. Not all of them are linguists. Kohei Hasegawa certainly isn't. However, the Wikipedia article should reflect the viewpoints of many scholars, not only one of them. Mottainai is indeed of Buddhist origin according to the scholarly community, and, as others already mentioned, Hasegawa did not deny that either. My view is that you are far too often relying on your own opinion over the scholarly community. One shouldn't conduct their own personal analysis of primary sources and use that against the professional academics. Again, it simply appears to me that you're showing excessive distrust not just to your fellow Wikipedia editors, but to the whole scholarly community.
 * Anyway, I don’t have a copy of the essay you want me to translate, but I suppose if you were unable to translate that one passage yourself, I could assist you. It appears to say something like, "Therefore, Hitomaru and Kurohito did praise Temmu and Jito as court poets, and no one would think that they always wrote their poetry while feeling 'deep emotions' due to their involuntary service under an enemy dynasty".
 * When it comes to mottainai though, I can see that most of the participants in the discussion clearly did read and understand the texts. I don't know how well you understand Japanese, but it’s the English language texts you seem to be misreading in particular. Francis Schonken provided some excellent and insightful commentary showing you where you erred. I can see he certainly understands the scholarship and knows what he's talking about. Anyway, as much as I would dislike seeing your unsubstantiated opinions and misreadings inserted into the article on mottainai, we will eventually both need to accept the consensus, whatever it may be. Even if we can't convince each other, we have to respect what the community wants. Currently, the community is 3 in favor of the misinformation and 4 against, which is not really a consensus either way yet. Even if you don't personally like the latter 4 editors, in truth, they are the ones who did their research and got their facts right. I hope that in the long run the community will not endorse factual inaccuracies, but if there's currently no consensus either way, it means that we'll have to revisit the matter later in the hopes the Wikipedia community can eventually make up its mind.Martinthewriter (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That is an adequate translation. I do not intend to apologize for doubting you, however, since your being able to read Japanese simply means your refusal to read and acknowledge what Hasegawa and others have written was either (a) laziness or (b) deliberate gaming of the system. Either one of these would actually be worse than not being able to read Japanese but claiming you were.
 * There is clear consensus not to endorse the factual inaccuracies you re-added to the article. RFC closers are supposed to discount obviously WP:POINTy !votes based on personal dislike of one or more of the involved parties, and Francis's commentary (he admitted several times he wasn't willing to read the discussion or the sources) made it clear that that was what he was doing.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

December 2019
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
Thanks for the kind words Lightburst. You do outstanding work for the project.Martinthewriter (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Indians in Uganda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asian. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Empty link?
Please stop indiscriminately removing WP:REDLINKS. Except for cases where you are certain the links were removed correctly, please undo them at your earliest convenience. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say it was indiscriminate. I only removed them when I couldn't imagine that they would become full-fledged articles, given lack of substantive sourcing on the subjects.Martinthewriter (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)