User talk:CyberIdris

Yukio Mishima

You keep labeling Mishima as an "ultra-nationalist" in your own research, but there is no such exaggerated label in the sources of Mishima research. You may know very little about Mishima, but he had many foreign friends and respected and understood the cultural traditions of Europe and China. Of course, he was Japanese, and like many ordinary Japanese, he respected the imperial culture, but that doesn't mean it's appropriate to label him as an "ultra-nationalist," and at least in Japan, only far-left extremists say such things, so it's a biased label even from a neutral perspective. It's the same as not calling ordinary British people who respect and support the British royal family or people who have Catholic faith "ultra-nationalists."

The perception of "restoring direct imperial rule" is also misguided. Even in prewar Japanese history, the Emperor never ruled directly, so the fact that you wrote "restore" is your own original research.

The official titles of English translations such as "葉隠入門" (On Hagakure: The Samurai Ethic and Modern Japan) are the names I edited. This is also listed in Japanese sources, and is easily understood by looking at published translations.

As for links, there is no point in making red links for people or magazines that are not likely to be or do not need to be listed in the English version and are only notable in Japan, so I think the appropriate method of linking is to make it easy to go to the Japanese version as before. However, it may be better to make this more understandable for English-speaking people, so I will try to improve it.

We appreciate your understanding. みしまるもも (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His ultra-nationalism and extreme politics are referenced in many sources. As far as I can see you are the only one engaging in original research.

Based on your user page you likely have a conflict of interest too. CyberIdris (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "many sources"? Information on the Internet and elsewhere is often questionable from a neutral perspective, and compared to proper academic specialist literature and sources such as Mishima research books, some of the labels are exaggerated and unreliable. Of course, some people may see him as an "ultra-nationalist" depending on how you look at it, but Wikipedia values ​​a neutral perspective, so it is appropriate to call him a "nationalist," and in that case, it is not a definition that deviates from the content of specialist literature. みしまるもも (talk) 07:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi CyberIdris! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome! CyberIdris (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to login

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made any edits while logged out. CyberIdris (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Yukio Mishima) for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  voorts (talk/contributions) 19:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National varieties of English

Hello. In a recent edit to the page History and culture of breastfeeding, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the first author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Remsense ‥ 论 23:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:COMMONALITY. CyberIdris (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? -ize / -ise is not an opportunity for commonality; it's one way or the other—unless you're deliberately misreading the passage as to make the notion of writing in a specific English variety meaningless (almost any variety is nearly 100% legible to almost all readers accustomed to any other variety). Remsense ‥ 论 00:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since you've just recently been blocked for edit warring and seemingly haven't learned, if you revert me again over this before the discussion is over I'm going immediately to ANI, as it's not worth any additional frustration on my part trying to explain this basic reality of the MOS. Remsense ‥ 论 00:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your reading of the manual of style is not correct. I think you are being needlessly pointy toward some of those new editors (who are indeed making some grammar mistakes), however your reverts are extending beyond that into cases where it isn't necessary.

Given that you've been challenged on this by multiple people, you need to take it to talk and stop edit-warring. CyberIdris (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Remsense ‥ 论 00:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring in the first edits after a block for the same behavior.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

---

Request reason:

A little confused. Clearly not an appropriate block, widely out of proportion, and improper for a discretionary block (if this were at AN3, half the admins there would likely decline to even 48 hour block due to no 3RR violation and my suggestion to discuss on talk). It appears to be in retaliation for voicing concerns of a bad block on a new editor mentioned here[1]. It also worth noting that ToBeFree has a history of bizarre indef blocks on people who get into content disputes with User:Remsense. There are 3-4 recent examples of this: [2][3][4] CyberIdris (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were edit warring after a prior block for edit warring. Edit warring does not require violating 3RR(as stated in the policy). 3RR is prima facie edit warring, but you can be determined to be edit warring with fewer reverts. Grievances with an admin's general conduct are not handled via unblock requests. I see no specific policy violation that warrants removing or changing this block against the wishes of the blocking admin. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

Going to try to lower the temperature here since while WP:POINTY is probably not wrong, trolling is yet an unfair conclusion to draw. That said, you are making several pretty befuddling mischaracterizations in this appeal:

1. User:Orrin Pfannerstill and I were never in a content dispute. This is because Orrin Pfannerstill is famous long-term abuser Hamish Ross. I am not sure how the fact they were a vandal wreaking havoc was not clear to you immediately unless you didn't check.
2. I have no clue how User:Sheldon Plankton J is an egregious block.

I'll abstain on the other one, since I was clearly wrong there and have admitted such, but if you actually look at what TBF did it's pretty unacceptable to portray them as somehow captured by me. I probably cause them more headaches than they'd like, actually.

Point being, if these arguments are sincere, they clearly come from a good place, but I have to level with you that your totalizing concern for the serenity of new editors is not compatible with the realities of maintenance. New editors are disruptive, and many of their contributions need to be reverted in the best cases. I am sometimes harsher than others, or than I should be, but I observe this only because your preferred tendencies from experienced users would seem to require the conclusion that onboarding is more important than preventing disruption whatsoever or any of our content policies. It is not and cannot be so, and my hackles were immediately raised since your concerned tone surrounded actions that were as totally inflexible and dogmatic as you were characterizing basic adherence to the MOS as being. I've been WP:POINTY, but a cloying "you're outvoted so please seek consensus on the talk page as to whether recognize is British English" is at least as pointy as I've ever dreamed of being.

I did not expect an indef here, and I didn't want one at all. I'm saying all this because if you come back, there's this huge gap between the way you feel reasonable to balance conduct and content, and how it must pragmatically be balanced (in my limited experience anyway). If you cared to read all this, and you didn't have to, thanks. Remsense ‥ 论 01:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I probably cause them more headaches than they'd like, actually. – heh. I had to look this up, but I see where that might come from. No, none of this is about Remsense. It's also not about Special:Diff/1260120847, which I might not even have looked at but was certainly not aware of. I see someone returning from an edit warring block edit warring, I block. Some decisions are far more simple than people seem to think. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, to be clear I assumed that incident was something I would remember while you would have no reason to—that was a more general anxiety I suppose, nothing to see here. Remsense ‥ 论 09:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CyberIdris,

I'm an admin but I don't review a lot of unblock requests. But I see quite a few and it's not a winning attitude to attack the admin who blocked you, regardless of what you think. Your unblock request should focus on your own editing and how any disruption that occurred will not be a problem in the future. Attacking other editors or admins in your unblock request is usually seen as an effort to deflect attention away from your own editing that resulted in the block. I encourage you to review WP:Guide to appealing blocks. Liz ^Read! Talk! 06:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]