User talk:CurtisNaito

Welcome!

Hello, CurtisNaito, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Dismas|^(talk) 05:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar for You!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring Death toll of the Nanking Massacre to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work!  — ₳aron 09:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

		The Original Barnstar
		Impressive expansion on Iwane Matsui MChew (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Sign your posts

You posted a few times at Hijiri88's talk page without signing your posts. You should do that in the future. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcoming obvious sockpuppets who make dubious edits to continue screwing around with the encyclopedia!?

Curtis, one of these days, posts like this might come back to bite you in the lower back. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

His edits were excellent, and you still haven't presented any evidence that he is a sockpuppet.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Only because you have refused to acknowledge all the evidence I have presented. Plus, "his edits were excellent" is only, and I'm using your words now, "your opinion" -- an opinion with which numerous other users have already disagreed. He lied inline about the author of one of his sources; he inserted an internal contradiction into the article, making it cite Ramsey as saying that the relationship between katakana and gugyeol is obscure, but also that katakana was almost certainly based on gugyeol; he referred to Yamanoue no Okura as "a Korean living in Japan". How can any of this be called "excellent"!? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

He didn't lie about the author of the source. He just confused the editor with the author and then immediately corrected himself. Regarding katakana and gugyeol, there was never any contradiction. Nishidani also introduced information on katakana and gugyeol AFTER TH1980 had put Ramsey's version in. There was never any time at which both Nishidani's and TH1980's versions were included simultaneously. Also, there is no doubt that the sources indicated that Yamanoe Okura was "a Korean" and no doubt that they said that he lived in Japan. There should be no problem with calling "a Korean" who lives in Japan as "a Korean living in Japan". His edits were excellent. It was your reverts which were reckless and unnecessary.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

He didn't correct himself; I was forced to correct him. And how could you read an article so closely as to be able to pick out a tiny detail that runs counter to the main theme of the article, and not notice the name of the author? Nowhere anywhere in that book is there any implication that "linguist Ho-min Sohn" wrote it. Okay, I see now that you are right, there was no internal contradiction in the article at any point; there was only the extratextual contradiction between our gugyeol article that says gugyeol started to be developed in the tenth century, our katakana article which (in accordance with near-universal consensus) says katakana developed in the ninth century, and our Korean influence on Japanese culture article which said that katakana was certainly based on gugyeol! And given that maybe 0.01% of English Wikipedia readers have ever heard of gugyeol, and about the same know the history of katakana, what are they expected to do but click the links and learn that our katakana article makes an unsourced claim that katakana originated in the ninth century, but gugyeol originated in the tenth century and the former was derived from the latter? Please explain to me how this is not a contradiction. You said several times on the talk page that it was not. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

You're just pointing out a problem with the gugyeol article, not a problem with the article Korean influence on Japanese culture. Maybe it is true that the person editing the gugyeol article should have done more detailed research. However, that is still no reason to make attacks on TH1980.

Scholars do not know for certain when gugyeol was developed. However, the theory that katakana was derived from gugyeol is widespread among both Korean and Japanese scholars. That information is well-cited in the article Korean influence on Japanese culture and hopefully it will also be well-cited one day in the article on gugyeol. What we can say for the time being is that good edits were made to the article Korean influence on Japanese culture, hopefully to be followed by more good edits to both that article and the article on gugyeol.

Also, I think you should stop calling TH1980 a sockpuppet, because it's against Wikipedia protocol to make such accusations without evidence.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

You're just pointing out a problem with the gugyeol article, not a problem with the article Korean influence on Japanese culture. It's not a problem with the gugyeol article, it's a problem with the Korean influence article. As Nishidani already pointed out, Ramsey stated elsewhere, much more clearly, that the relationship is complicated, in that gugyeol developed later than katakana (something not contradicted by our gugyeol article) but that the similarities indicate that perhaps they had a common ancestor in some earlier (Korean) script. That is not the same as saying katakana was based on gugyeol. When I pointed out that the vague source was being cherry-picked because, being mostly about Japanese influence on the modern Korean language, it didn't actually discuss the point in question in any detail, it could be expanded to say something that the author never meant it to say, I was not wrong. The gugyeol article cites two Korean encyclopedia articles, and given its lack of hard Gregorian calendar dates (instead naming the Goryeo dynasty) I wouldn't be surprised if it's just a direct translation of them -- i.e., it is a straight copy-paste job of a reliable print encyclopedia. That might be a copyright issue in itself, but it also means the article is more reliable than a Wikipedian's dubious reading of another, less specialized tertiary source like the Ramsey article.

Scholars do not know for certain when gugyeol was developed. However, the theory that katakana was derived from gugyeol is widespread among both Korean and Japanese scholars. That information is well-cited in the article Korean influence on Japanese culture and hopefully it will also be well-cited one day in the article on gugyeol. Sources, please? Which scholars "do not know for certain when gugyeol was developed"? Among which Japanese scholars is the theory that katakana was derived from gugyeol "widespread"? The gugyeol article's citation style (including a bibliography that would probably verify 80-90% of its content but no inline citations) is problematic, but at least it has one -- you are just pulling facts out of your lower back and expecting me to buy them.

Also, I think you should stop calling TH1980 a sockpuppet, because it's against Wikipedia protocol to make such accusations without evidence. I have evidence he is a sockpuppet, and I have presented it to you numerous times. He showed up suddenly on an article he had never edited before, and reintroduced text that had been removed months earlier, during a period when under his present account he was not actively editing Wikipedia at all, let alone that particular article. Jagello, KoreanSentry and TH1980 are all very obviously either sockpuppets of, or engaged in off-wiki collusion with, the editors who had originally introduced this text years ago. That this area is rife with sock-/meat-puppetry is not something I invented: User:Canterbury Tail broached the subject over a year ago, and more recently User:SamuelDay1[1] User:Hipocrite[2] and User:Eurodyne[3] agreed that the behaviour on this particular article since the AFD is suspicious -- were they also in violation of "Wikipedia protocol"?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

If you had evidence, then TH1980 would have been banned. He will not be banned, however, because you have no evidence. Just because someone makes reliably sourced, accurate, and relevant edits to the article Korean influence on Japanese culture, as TH1980 did, does not somehow make them a sockpuppet. Let's be clear, you have no evidence whatsoever to support your completely baseless accusations against him.

According to the article Korean influence on Japanese culture, "many in Japan as well as Korea believe that the beginnings of katakana and the orthographic principles they represent, derive at least in part from earlier practices on the Korean peninsular." And of course, Ramsey is already on record as arguing that this connection "seems certain". All you are really doing here is quibbling with the scholarly viewpoint. TH1980, by contrast, made edits in accordance with the scholarly viewpoint. His edits were very solid and ought to be praised.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Curtis grow the hell up and learn to listen. Just because someone makes reliably sourced, accurate, and relevant edits to an article, does not somehow make them a sockpuppet, this is true. But when someone makes the same edits that other users made months or years earlier, that had been reverted months before that user under his/her current account had ever shown any interest in the article, does provide very valid cause for suspicion of sockpuppetry. I do not "have no evidence whatsoever to support my completely baseless accusations". I have a large enough body of evidence to make me and the vast majority of other good-faith Wikipedians highly suspicious of either misuse of multiple accounts or inappropriate off-wiki collusion. By the way -- "no evidence whatsoever for completely baseless accusations"? Redundant much? Your argument that "if I had evidence, then TH1980 would have been banned" is a red herring -- the only way to get an account blocked for sockpuppetry is to open an SPI or ANI thread on them: for an SPI, I would need to know the identity of the sockmaster/main account (something I have never claimed to know, and which would be very difficult to establish under the circumstances); for an ANI thread, the account would need to have been engaging in a longer-term pattern of disruptive behaviour than has taken place already (the fact that I've never opened an ANI thread on you yet should be evidence of my high degree of tolerance for disruptive behaviour); I did this with Jagello and KoreanSentry in February, but because both of them stopped editing the thread got archived with no result -- the next time one of those accounts edits suspiciously it will probably result in them getting blocked as probable sockpuppets. Jagello got one chance back in October before the first ANI thread was opened, and I will grant TH1980 the same courtesy; next time TH1980 does something sock-ish I will report him on ANI, everyone else who comments will say "Yeah, it does look super-suspicious -- TH1980, what other accounts have you been using? Who told you off-wiki to edit that page?" like they did last time. If TH1980 doesn't respond and goes quiet for another few months, the thread will again get archived with no result; then on TH1980's third strike he will most likely be blocked.

Where in the quote you provide is gugyeol even mentioned!? You seriously need to stop editing Wikipedia if you genuinely think that quote supports what you were claiming above. Ramsey is on record as saying the modern Korean language shows strong Japanese influence; the article you are misquoting is about Japanese influence on Korean culture; you are cherry-picking one truncated statement near the start of the article and misrepresenting it as putting him "on the record" that "katakana was derived from gugyeol".

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, you've accused a lot of people of sockpuppetry relating to this article, but it's really no surprise that you haven't managed to ban any of them because you don't bother to present any actual evidence. You certainly have no specific evidence against TH1980. The material TH1980 was adding to the article was original. The citations and the wording of the text were completely different from what had been in the article before. This information was clearly worth including. If that's all the "evidence" you have then, as I said, you need to stop calling him a sockpuppet. That is NOT even remotely sufficient reason to make personal attacks on other users. What Ramsey is on record as saying is that the Japanese language shows strong Korean influence, including the possible or likely influence on gugyeol on katakana. The relevant portions of the text have been quoted to you many times so it makes no sense that you keep on denying the quotes that are placed directly in front of you.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

you've accused a lot of people of sockpuppetry relating to this article, but it's really no surprise that you haven't managed to ban any of them because you don't bother to present any actual evidence Please stop throwing around the word "ban". The word is "block". Also, that's a pretty outrageous allegation, that I have presented no actual evidence. Care to elaborate? The folks over on ANI seemed pretty convinced that my evidence was adequate...

The material TH1980 was adding to the article was original. Again -- pretty extraordinary claim. Care to elaborate? Maybe provide some evidence? It looked to me like he was restoring the same anachronistic material that had been removed previously, in at least one case using almost the exact same wording.

This information was clearly worth including. Your opinion, with no bearing whatsoever on whether sockpuppetry has taken place. Again, the reason I posted here was that you seem to be encouraging sockpuppetry solely because you agree with the sockpuppets' POV in this case. This is pretty outrageous behaviour.

If that's all the "evidence" you have then, as I said, you need to stop calling him a sockpuppet. Again, it's your opinion, and an opinion with apparently the majority of other Wikipedians disagree.

That is NOT even remotely sufficient reason to make personal attacks on other users. Again, it's not a personal attack to speculate based on extremely suspicious sockpuppet-like behaviour that an account is a sockpuppet. The fact that TH1980 has not even attempted to deny this is yet more evidence. Your bad-faith accusations of personal attacks, on the other hand, veer very close to NPA-violations themselves.

What Ramsey is on record as saying is that the Japanese language shows strong Korean influence Sources, please? The book currently cited in the article is about the Korean language, not the Japanese language, and the article TH1980 was misquoting is all about the heavy Japanese influence on the modern Korean language -- if you are too stupid to understand that ... well ...

including the possible or likely influence on gugyeol on katakana. Wait ... what!? "likely influence on gugyeol on katakana"? Do you mean "likely influence of gugyeol on katakana"? Again, please cite a source that says this. The currently-cited Lee/Ramsey source appears to say that katakana (which dates to the 800s) and gugyeol (which dates to the 900s) appear to be related and may share a common (Korean) ancestor, but that the relationship is obscure. That's not the same as what you are claiming.

The relevant portions of the text have been quoted to you many times so it makes no sense that you keep on denying the quotes that are placed directly in front of you. I don't see any place where the relevant portions of the text have been quoted. I went and tracked down the text on GBooks, and fortunately the whole essay was available for me to read for free. I read it. It was about the Japanese influence on the Korean language, with a single, obscure reference to gugyeol and katakana in the introduction. You on the other hand do not appear to have read it.

AND HOW DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE SOCKPUPPETRY ISSUE!?!

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)