Talk:風魔
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
Added by Special:Contributions/2.125.74.75. Just from the kanji, the word might mean "wind demon". However, it's clear the IP user never read the JA WP article they linked to, which is all about the Fūma ninja clan (c.f. w:Fūma Kotarō) and makes no mention of wind demons. This Fūma clan mention makes sense in the context of the shuriken compound listed, at least.
- google books:allintext: の "風魔": 560, mostly about the ninja clan.
- google books:allintext: の "風魔" "悪魔" (adding in "悪魔" as the word for (deprecated template usage) demon): 12, but all seem to be either mentions of Fūma Kotarō or the Fūma clan, or are scannos.
- google scholar:allintext: の "風魔": 162, mostly scannos but at least one real use in this paper at Waseda.
- google scholar:allintext: の "風魔" "悪魔" (adding in "悪魔" as the word for (deprecated template usage) demon): 11, but again all scannos or mentions of Fūma Kotarō or the Fūma clan.
Blah. I'm spending almost all my time lately tracking down IP user rubbish. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- That makes me wonder if it's acceptable to block someone for very poor quality entries. The blocking policy is that it should be done to users who (1) "hinder or harm the progress of the English Wiktionary," which I must say very emphatically is what these IP users do, and (2) where "less drastic means of stopping these edits are, by the assessment of the blocking administrator, highly unlikely to succeed", which is also true, as they do not communicate or take advice.
- The first one had a quality rate of about 5%--I'm not exaggerating--and the newer one probably is around 40%, and the second one at least may edit in good faith but they both seem to have a serious disregard for checking the accuracy of their contributions. The time it takes to fix one of these spurious entries could have been devoted to multiple high-quality entries, which leads to the conclusion that they are hindering the progress of WT.
- They are incompetent in the language they contribute to. They make mistakes with hiragana. Hiragana is not hard. It took me two weeks. I daresay editors of English entries are blocked for much less. Thoughts, anyone? Haplology 13:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- If it's ongoing and fixing it is sapping everybody's time then I would block for the "disruptive edits" reason. Equinox ◑ 13:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I'll post a note on the Talk pages of the two IP users in question pointing them to this thread and explaining what the current consensus seems to be regarding their activities. If/when we block them, my suggestion is to allow them to edit their IP user Talk pages, to leave some avenue of communication open, and to allow them to create regular log-in accounts -- if they had regular accounts, then at least they would get that orange New Messages banner when someone writes on their Talk pages, no? Or do anon IP users get that too, and they've just been ignoring that? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Anons see it.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, okay. I have much less respect for what these two anons have been doing, then -- a number of us have tried numerous times to get in touch with these folks via their Talk pages, at the bare minimum to explain why we reverted or changed their edits and to point them towards the proper way of doing things (or at least which reference pages to read to learn this). User_talk:2.125.74.75 has never replied, and User_talk:90.215.199.167 replied once to ask a question about an etyl, but that's it. I suspect that I and others have been trying to talk with these two users across multiple IPs, generally all starting with 2.xxx and 90.xxx respectively. I had the most success over at User_talk:90.209.77.78 back in January of this year.
- I'll write both of these IP users later today and let them know that they're on track towards substantially longer blocks if they continue with their current MOs. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- 風魔 is simply the nickname used by the clan leader, which yes literally translates to wind demon and is not idiomatic in anyway. It is otherwise an oft-used name for various Game/Anime characters and/or titles. It will not pass CFI. I'd have deleted it on the spot. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 04:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Anons see it.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I'll post a note on the Talk pages of the two IP users in question pointing them to this thread and explaining what the current consensus seems to be regarding their activities. If/when we block them, my suggestion is to allow them to edit their IP user Talk pages, to leave some avenue of communication open, and to allow them to create regular log-in accounts -- if they had regular accounts, then at least they would get that orange New Messages banner when someone writes on their Talk pages, no? Or do anon IP users get that too, and they've just been ignoring that? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- If it's ongoing and fixing it is sapping everybody's time then I would block for the "disruptive edits" reason. Equinox ◑ 13:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)