Hijiri88

• Welcome back- and good luck. Reyk _YO! 09:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
• Happy editing! ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
• Apparently I missed this. Welcome back, Hijiri-san! Double sharp (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

I thought I'd let you know that I reverted your edits in apple because I neither saw a point nor an improvement. I say the same thing in my edit summary but with more words; feel free to see my edit here and lmk if you've any problems. I sound pretty rude in this talkpage section—I'm not trying to be mean—I just keep these short for everyone's sake and it sounds especially curt in this one; I apologise. —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Peter coxhead: You thanked me for my edit and apparently chose to let it stand for four days thereafter, implying that you saw the benefit of the edit. I think the benefit is pretty self-evident even disregarding my edit summar[y/ies]. What do you make of the above? If the majority of third-party input is negative, I'd be happy to drop the stick and just agree to disagree, but I get the impression this is not the case here. Apart from you, I can only assume that a not-insignificant proportion of the 57 "page watchers who visited recent edits" were also aware of my edit and either approved of it or at least didn't disapprove. The lack of a coherent explanation for the revert, however, implies that it was made primarily because of a subjective WP:IFITAINTBROKE interpretation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Well, I agree that the great majority of our readers are not going to know where Xinjiang is, so by itself it's not helpful, and readers should not have to follow wikilinks if a short gloss can be provided. I guess a compromise could be something like "Xinjiang, northwestern China" or "northwestern China (Xinjiang)"? Peter coxhead (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

All interpretations of WP:IFITAINTBROKE are going to be subjective. I did say that I thought the vaguer 'northwestern China' was less ideal than simply 'Xinjiang' with a wikilink in my edit summary; however I should've made it clear in my edit that I do have a reason specific to the context of the paragraph for choosing the latter. You make an understandable point about 'southern Kazakhstan' in your most recent edit summary, but to be clear 'northwest China' is a more vague term when compared to the former in this context—which is strictly geographical. 'Hills of southern Kazakhstan' unambiguously only refers to the hills in the Kazakh Tian Shan in the far south of the country, the same mountain range that spans across much of the rest of hilly Central Asia, while what conventionally constitutes 'northwestern China' contains multiple mountain ranges with different climates (Tian Shan, Mount Hua, Qilian Mountains, the mountain ranges of the Tibetan and the Loess Plateau). Only Xinjiang's hills (the Chinese Tian Shan) were the native range of the wild apple tree is the impression I get from glossing over the article text. This makes 'northwestern China' a decidedly vaguer term to refer specifically to the Chinese Tian Shan, in Xinjiang, than southern Kazakhstan is for the Kazakh Tian Shan—so it is not an apples to apples comparison. In summation, "Xinjiang, China" is precise and unambiguous both in the geographic sense for that paragraph and also to the layman (I explain this is my second point more) while also being the shortest possible; "Xinjiang, northwestern China" or "northwestern China (Xinjiang)" does remedy all my concerns, but so did the first phrasing and it didn't need to be as wordy or precise and preserved WP:LINKCLARITY; and I hope we can stay off "northwestern China" with what I just said.

Secondly, also for you @Peter coxhead, I agree that usually it would not be ideal that something is only put in proper context to readers when they click into another article, but here in this paragraph it is straightforward to infer from the context that Xinjiang is a place in Central Asia and it has hills where the wild apple tree grew/grows. Which is more than sufficient context for this article and that paragraph about the original range of the wild apple tree, is what I was saying. If a reader wants to know more about the Xinjiang they easily follow the wikilink. I am opposed to a pipelink on 'northwestern China' like it is rn, because of WP:LINKCLARITY—I don't see the point in pipelinking when "Xinjiang, China" is concise, precise, unambiguous, and follows link clarity. I am also not in support of either "Xinjiang, northwestern China" or "northwestern China (Xinjiang)" when "Xinjiang, China" is on the table and perfect in my eyes. —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think you missed my point about IFITAINTBROKE -- it's subjective and so is not a good rationale to unilaterally revert an edit that other third parties have already (tacitly) approved of. And speaking of subjectivity, your definition of "northwest" is definitely not something most readers would agree with, as most of the mountains/ranges you refer to are kinda in "northwestern China", but only if you take "China" to refer to China proper as opposed to the modern political entity. Almost all of our readers would consider the places you list to be in north-central or even just central China, and definitely not "central Asia". "Xinjiang", to most of our reader, just sounds like "some place in China", and almost none of them would read "northwest China" as meaning "northwest of the Han Chinese homeland that constitutes the southeastern portion of the modern country called China" (and even those who, like you and me, know about "China proper" should be able to tell from "central Asia" that it is talking about Xinjiang and not, say, Shaanxi).

I'm not sure where you hail from originally, but I can tell you from experience that Japanese tourism companies often like to refer to Kyoto as being in "west Japan" because that's how they talk to other Japanese people, because the Japanese school social studies textbooks (which of course focus on "east-of-the-barrier" and "west-of-the-barrier" rather than using a ruler or compass to establish where the "western half" and "eastern half" of the Japanese archipelago is), and oftentimes it's my job to (try to) tell them that foreign tourists who don't know about Japanese history and culture are more likely to look at a map and consider Kyoto to be in central Japan rather than western Japan. English Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written with a "general reader" in mind, and general readers don't know anything more than the tourists in my above analogy. (I have to imagine that no sane tour director in China would use the phrase Northwest China and assume that American and European tourists know what it actually means without an explanation -- our articles on China can use it, but preferably with language like our Shaanxi article that makes it clear that it is talking about an official designation and not objective placement on the map. Our article on apples is not an article on China, and no reader is going to assume we are using GOC-designated region names rather than general-use English. And again, even those who are familiar with the Chinese government's terminology should be able tell from the reference to "central Asia", since no one considers Shaanxi to be in central Asia.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

BTW, the above argument for using "Xinjiang" (that "northwestern China" includes other mountains to which the statement doesn't apply) could almost certainly be turned on its head as an argument against using "Xinjiang", since I strongly suspect its not "all mountains in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region" that are being talked about. (That said, I just checked both sources and couldn't find where the information was taken from.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nardog (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, can I suggest you only create new pages or edit those with zero people disagreeing with you. Though basically an intolerable imposition, the Encyclopedia is nearer the start than the end and it still leaves plenty of pages current and future. Clearly you have lots of enemies here and likely others who will try to take you out via noticeboards rather than engage in meaningful discussion. It's basically the course I follow. Much more fun in reality and productive that way, though the temptations are great, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: I think I know what you're referring to, and it has nothing to do with creating new pages. You might also note that, in the discussion in question, I was quite clear several times that I would be happy to agree to disagree if I wasn't in the clear majority of uninvolved editors. The "fight" wasn't even mine to begin with -- one editor with whom I have a history of agreements reverted another editor with whom I have a history of disagreements, but in this case it was my opinion that the latter editor was clearly in the right. If you disagree, please make a coherent argument to that effect on the article talk page. That being said, per the below I'd like to disengage from the discussion in question anyway.

I see that there's also an ANI notice above this. I guess it was a mistake to edit the article in question in the manner that I did.@Nardog: I'm sorry that I hurt your feelings. This was not my intention, and I am honestly quite surprised that this found its way onto ANI. I had a sincere belief that your edit harmed the article, and the fact that another editor whose edits to that article over the last month I have generally disagreed with seemed to share my belief led me to believe that it was highly likely the majority of Wikipedians would as well. I am on a self-imposed ANI page-ban for the purpose of avoiding drama, so I will not respond to you there or interact with this dispute about the IPA in that particular article's opening sentence again. If you still believe you are in the right and no other editors decided to revert you, you have my blessing in reinserting the disputed content.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

I just saw your edit deleting 1,444b at Mottainai. Was rather shocked to read the edit summary ("Consistent consensus against this over the last three years"), which is disruptive, while interpreting a consensus where there is none in the sense you describe. Hope you're not going to cause trouble (again) at that article, per your unblock conditions ("... don't get in trouble again"). I suggest you revert that deletion, and apologise for its less-than-constructive edit summary. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have self-reverted. The vast majority of the "1,444b" was tag rationales written by me. The content was unsourced, and I only removed it because I thought no one was still arguing about this. I have no idea what your interest in the page is, or why you are here. Please leave me alone. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I would just like to leave here for posterity's sake that this wikipedian was harassing me on my own talk page, see here. Please leave me alone. I am allowed to make edits on Wikipedia. You do not own the haiku page. static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 10:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I apologize if I gave the impression of harassing you. This was not my intention. I went to your talk page because it seemed inappropriate to ask you for clarification of what you meant on the article talk page, which is for discussing improvements to the article, and I was under the impression that the article edit in question was already resolved. After I attempted to discuss it with you on your talk page further, however, you went back to the article and reverted your text back in, without explanation, simply leaving a cryptic message that I can "change that sentence, if [I] want ..."

Anyway, with regard to the response to me that you have now posted on your talk page, while simultaneously banning me from responding to you there for some reason: if you still intend on inserting question material, based on unreliable English poetry sources, into an article that is specifically about Japanese poetry (the Haiku in English article exists for this reason), then I am going to have to ask you to stop. This is not because I feel I "own" the article or that you are not allowed make edits to this article (or any other article on the encyclopedia) -- this is about repeatedly reinserting content that has already been debunked, while refusing to engage in civil discussion over it.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Staticshakedown: Please refrain from making counterproductive personal remarks in edit summaries, as you did here. Your personal attacks and off-topic accusations against me on my talk page can be removed by anyone at any time, but that edit summary will need an admin to remove it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

Any chance you can find anything for this one, or maybe you know who to ping? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

Category:Works by Ishikawa Masamochi 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your name is listed as a participant of the WikiProject Countering system bias in religion.
I would like to know if you agree with this edit: DIFF.
24.78.228.96 (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

I have left the discussion on this topic. I want to let you know that I have felt your tone to be aggressive and it has left me upset and not wanting to take part in this encyclopedia project at all for the time being. Please consider others' mental health and try to be more civil in future rather than lashing out. All my comments were honestly made, despite the fact that I made a comprehension error (and an error on who the original post was made by). please assume good faith more often? Mountaincirque^talk 14:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry if you felt intimidated, but you quoted my words at me as though I had made the exact opposite point that I had actually made, I asked you not to do so, and then you did the exact same thing again. It is good practice to (i) not do this kind of thing in the first place and (ii) immediately and frankly apologize when it is pointed out. Doubling down and then playing the victim is extremely poor form -- I made numerous attempts to be welcoming to you and to accommodate your apparent interest in creating an article on female martial artists in Japan, and politely explained to you how, for example, LLC books (i.e., Wikipedia mirrors) cannot be used as sources, and you have reacted with nothing but passive-aggressive hostility and distortion of the record. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I didn't knowingly 'double-down' on anything, I didn't realise you were the original proposer of the move until a few minutes ago. It was a comprehension mistake. I'm sorry you felt my comments were frustrating, I'll aim to be more careful with snipping people's comments in future but I still feel you came back way too hard and assumed I was trying to mislead when in fact I was inviting you to comment as I thought you were a responder to the original move request. I'm bowing out here, let's both agree to be better? Mountaincirque^talk 14:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

You responded to my saying that "onna-musha" may not be an ideal title for a hypothetical article that discusses the lives of women of the buke class but that "onna-bugeisha" is substantially worse by quoting the first part and cutting out everything after "but".[1] The fact is that I was clearly never talking about "onna-musha" being an inappropriate title for an article on women warriors like the one we have now; you may not have known this until I explicitly set you straight the first time, but there was no excuse for doubling down after that. Anyway, if you want to bow out, that's fine -- I would prefer if you'd acknowledge that you were wrong (I'm still worried that you will insert LLC citations into other articles...), but as long as you leave me alone, that's fine. Happy editing! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello Hijiri,

I'd like to request your expert eyes on the article Yasuke. There has been a surge of media reporting on the man (particularly with the upcoming Netflix anime about him), and there's some back-and-forth in the article's history with respect to him being a samurai or not. There's the book African Samurai: The True Story of a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan by Thomas Lockley and Geoffrey Girard about him, if that's any help (Lockley is often interviewed by the media for the aforementioned pieces). I'm only getting bits of the book's info on Google Books, but it says something about him being a hatamoto: "It is not known exactly which rank Yasuke held, but it would probably have been equivalent to hatamoto. The hatamoto saw to the lord’s needs, handling everything from finance to transport, communications to trade. They were also the bodyguards and pages to the warlord, traveling with him and spending their days in his company." This put a red flag for me that some of the nuance is lost in the media, which often uncritically calls him a samurai.

Your insight and knowledge would be much appreciated. — Goszei (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Goszei: I might take a look, but (i) I'm not that familiar with the Azuchi-Momoyama period to begin with, (ii) Japanese encyclopedias generally don't have standalone entries on him (which both makes it difficult for me to go about preliminary research in the way I normally do and makes me skeptical about the standalone notability of Yasuke as a historical figure, at least as a figure of Japanese history), and (iii) I suspect recent interest in him may be politically motivated: white power-brokers in America and Europe trying to play up the importance of an African man to pre-modern Japanese history to avoid addressing systemic issues in their own countries at the expense of people in "the far off Orient". As a white European in Japan (who by necessity must frequently interact with other white westerners who, despite living in Japan, still get most of their information on the country's history from American popular media) this topic makes me quite uncomfortable in the current climate—and this isn't even getting into the abominable goings on in Atlanta last month and the aftermath thereof. I am inclined to say the best move would be to wait until the hype around the show dies down, then go in and excise any information attributed to popular media sources not backed up by professional scholarship.

As an aside, from everything I've read, even the word "samurai" is problematic: professional Japanologists seem to prefer to talk about "the warrior class", meaning that "samurai" is essentially slang. As for Japanese usage, Kojien gives the primary meaning of "same as saburai, i.e. someone who serves a lord closely" (by which definition it would be a truism, but practically meaningless, to say that Yasuke was a "samurai"), and below that says that in the Japanese middle ages (the period in which Yasuke lived) the word was used to distinguish certain people from common peasants (in that case, it's a truism that Yasuke and other foreigners were neither samurai nor common peasants).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

BTW, there's also the distinct possibility that a lot of this goes back to the fantasy manga/anime Afro Samurai: the title of the book you refer to is almost certainly deliberately playing on that show's title. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have noted what you said. Just try to see other editors as potential helpers/allies, rather than opponents. Even if you're not in agreement, if you remain calm and even light-hearted you can easily win people over. John Smith's (talk) 08:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I mean... I know that, but I'm not trying to win anyone over. I wanted to fix the "onabu-geisha" hoax, and unless you or some unnamed third party are trying to undo that, I don't see any disagreement, let alone a need to argue or convince anyone. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

--Rosiestep (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

Retarget Wait, what!? It seems like anyone who knew about the automated retargeting of double-redirects could have anticipated that the bot wouldn't know to fix the said redirects once the vandal edit was reverted, but was this all a long-game plan to TFD the legit redirect 3.11 that I created back in 2013 as part of a mass-TFD of others that another NZ IP (the same person?) had caused to be created in 2019? All of these TFDs were opened today by the same person, and the 2019 vandalism geolocates to the same place. Call me paranoid, but this is super-fishy. I also got a notification that Polyamorph (talk · contribs) "reviewed" the 3.11 page at roughly the same time as the above TFD. Does anyone have any idea what's going on here? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Assuming you mean RFD rather than TFD, then it doesn't strike me as problematic at all. When someone spots one bad redirect to a page (either stumbling across it or seeing it at RfD) it's not unusual to look and see whether there are any other ones that also need looking at - the connection between "3.11" and the target is not at all obvious to me I've never seen it referred to as such and it doesn't get any prominence at all in my google results. Assuming that someone in Australia/New Zealand is seeing something similar to me in the UK, then sending it to redirects for discussion is perfectly reasonable. As for the vandalism, not everybody thinks (or even knows) to check for any collateral damage when reverting a page move. Thryduulf (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I reviewed the 3.11 page because it came up on the new pages feed, given that it is at RfD I marked it as reviewed. Polyamorph (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User causing disruption in Catholic topic areas. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Elizium23: I cannot speak to Natemup's behaviour in the area of Roman Catholicism specifically, but when I interacted with him on Talk:Yasuke and Talk:Samurai, I found his sourcing standards to be woefully inadequate (on the former, he insisted on citing popular media sources even when they disagree with sources written by specialists in the relevant field, while on the latter he cited no sources for the better part of a month before eventually citing Wikipedia, while repeatedly vandalized the opening sentence of a relatively prominent article to make a WP:POINT). Despite his own edits to these two articles leaving a lot to be desired, he has repeatedly accused me and others of "vandalism"[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] and sockpuppetry (he repeatedly conflated multiple users with accounts with at least two and probably more IP users and implicitly with each other -- I can get the diffs if you need them), and even made what looked like a threat.[9] I am not sure if his involvement in these pages is related to Catholicism: he seems to be subtly pushing the ahistorical idea that the Jesuits in particular and the Catholic Church in general was always opposed to slavery of Africans, and seems to be either ignorant of or willfully pretending to be ignorant of the Catholic Church's blessing being granted to Portuguese and Spanish colonial ambitions in Asia and the Americas, but it's very minor and I might be reading too much in. I am still, frankly, concerned about the possibility of further repercussions for me personally and the articles I have worked on (his behaviour on Samurai implies he has no problem vandalizing even a highly visible Japanese article for no purpose other than "revenge" against Japan-focused editors who undermined him), and I would rather not involve myself any further, but I can be reached by email. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

Hijiri 88, it's perfectly OK to suspect editors or IPs of sockpuppetry. It's also OK to publicly mention this suspicion once or twice, in order to draw the attention of other editors to this possibility. It's not OK to go on publicly speculating about this or representing it as facts. Please take this to WP:SPI and stop posting about it on ANI. Thank you! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 04:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, I did only mention it once (if that), and I was only repeating something someone had already said without incident. I then was met with two editors saying, completely out of the blue and without justification "Why are you accusing me of sockpuppetry!?" time after time after time.

Personally, I think it is super-suspicious that, when someone says "The OP logged out to file this report, and hasn't disclosed the name of their account", an accounted editor comes along and assumes, without justification, that the account being referred to is their own, but I didn't even say that I found this suspicious until like the third time it happened in a comment in which I was pinged (and the first time I was pinged wasn't even the first time it had happened within that same thread).

I think I've made it clear that I'd rather remove myself from the discussion, and I would be happy to let Wally have the last word as long as he doesn't ping me to do it. I do think TOA should be blocked for the multiple unprovoked and unapologetic personal attacks against me (Comparing editors to Nazis is actually one of the specific examples listed at WP:WIAPA -- it's actually what got the famous Til Eulenspiegel initially banned from editing English Wikipedia), as well as his continued harassment of MPants, and the fact that he is an indeffed vandal who was given WP:ROPE and has been abusing it, but I would prefer to leave that to the community to decide. Hijiri out.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 07:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

@Blue Pumpkin Pie: I decided to remove myself from the toxic atmosphere of the "main" Yasuke article two months ago because of the hell Natemup created. (Email me for the details if you want. I'm not comfortable disclosing them on-wiki.) I am therefore not going to post the following to the talk page itself.

However, if you would like to continue handling the matter, I can offer you whatever advice/assistance you may want (beyond the above replies that I decided not to post) here on my own talk page.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

BTW, I'm only talking about "samurai" thing (which shouldn't have been brought to that article to begin with -- it was blatant WP:FORUMSHOPping/WP:CANVASsing). I'm still happy to chime in on the stuff that can still be handled as a good-faith content dispute (even when two or three of the editors are apparently not good-faith actors), and that includes the use of the phrase "Sengoku period of samurai conflict" that makes the Wikipedia article look like it was written by James Clavell. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Hijiri88 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, TOA The owner of all ☑️ 17:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hijiri88, I have been working on fixing dangling references that have no corresponding sources, and it appears you added a ref to Aisome-gawa (otogi-zōshi) in this edit. Do you know the source? For now, I have hidden the source. Let me know if you need any assistance if you do know the source! - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 04:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Aussie Article Writer: Thank you for the message! It was likely a copy-paste error: I'm pretty sure I was copying pieces of the formatting from Aisome-gawa (Noh), which I had written two weeks earlier. I just checked, and the Tokue article was the source for this sentence as with the rest of the article. Sorry for the confusion! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I’ve fixed it now. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

An arbitration case you were a party to, Hijiri88, has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. Committee members indicated that the dispute does not currently appear to be an issue the community cannot solve on its own. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@CycoMa and Crossroads: I don't think I was the referent of this edit, but I think it probably applies to me just as well. This was not a conscious or deliberate decision on my part, but rather how things just tend to work out because, per WP:PACT, I have a tendency to assume that whenever someone expresses skepticism about my knowledge of a topic that I definitely know substantially more about than they do (in this case, Japanese pronouns), they are asking a good-faith question and it is my responsibility to explain as thoroughly and carefully so they can gain the same level of understanding and therefore, hopefully, come around to my way of thinking.

My WP:FORUMSHOPping the Utada discussion to WP:LGBT was actually a complete accident -- the initial post was really just a general question that, if I had got a straight answer up front, would have made it easier to argue coherently. Being a straight cisgender male who has lived in Japan since around the time Twitter was invented, most of what I know about "preferred pronouns" comes from randomly consumed pop culture rather than any academic study or the lived experience of myself or anyone I know personally. It's therefore difficult for me to understand the way of thinking of someone who is not an Utada fan but came to that article because of an interest in LGBTQ+ topics. And for the sake of full disclosure, under the influence of some friends who are much bigger J-Pop fans than me, I bought a few of Utada's CDs from Book Off back in the early 2010s and enjoyed them, and given Utada's status as a household name in Japan I would have been familiar with her/their work regardless, but I wouldn't consider myself a "fan".

Anyway, upon noticing the above comment by CycoMa, I decided that it might be a bad idea to post this:

Your thoughts?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

--Rosiestep (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

--Innisfree987 (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

I won't go into details, but I'd like to thank the editors (they know who they are) who have helped me through this relatively very difficult time. :-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your <small> tags on your comment here appear to be breaking the rest of the page - at least for me. Could you fix them. Thanks.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Someones fixed it now.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

As a courtesy see here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

FTR I have no idea who Cavalryman is. I guess it refers to either Reyk or Piotrus. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

No, there is an actual user named Cavalryman and he's not the same person as me or Piotrus. Reyk _YO! 17:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Reyk: Sorry, I had hoped it would be clear that I was joking about the absurdity of Cavalryman having "invited" me to participate at ANI when I had known about the ANI thread(s) almost a month ago, mentioned it on the talk pages of both you and Piotrus (who was the first one to notify me), expressed my simultaneous feeling of responsibility and reluctance to comment multiple times, and actually commented before any interaction with Cavalryman (who I only responded to in a capacity that I felt was so peripheral to the discussion that I made my text small). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm pretty sure that the wording of my questions to the various ArbCom candidates just now would have been permissible even if BANEX did not cover questions to potential Arbitrators who may be assessing an appeal of a ban to which my question applies in the future. However, I feel fairly confident that it does apply, at least as much as my question on Beeblebrox's talk page here (which, unlike my question to the ArbCom candidates, actually mentioned the other IBAN party by name six times). And yeah, sorry about not getting around to posting that appeal yet. It was always a pretty low priority, and I haven't even been able to write any WAM articles this year, so it looks like it'll be another while. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I couldn't find a way to properly phrase this as a question without simply saying "Would you support my appeal if I made it again at some point next year?", which doesn't feel appropriate. Opabinia regalis's answer (courtesy ping) was excellent, but I'm kinda regretting not going further in on the specific details in my initial question (which, needless to say, was worded with deliberate vagueness). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

#{{ACE Question |Q=To clarify, I'm referring to an instance where an Arbitration case was nearing conclusion, and in the "Proposed decision" phase one of the findings of fact was {{tq|User X has hounded User Y}} (which passed) while one of the remedies was {{tq|User X: One-way interaction ban}}, which failed, resulting in an alternative solution {{tq|User X and User Y interaction banned}}, which passed. (There were other sanctions placed on both User X and User Y in the same arbitration case.) The hounding persisted for several months thereafter, with a combination of the two-way IBAN and a one-way TBAN on User Y being used as a shield, until the community separately applied the same TBAN to User X. Several years later, User Y (who I might as well disclose is me) found that people who were looking for an excuse to get under his skin would say "Look, he's got an IBAN!" and be unable to explain the context without violating the ban (and eventually being unable to participate in practically any community discussion because of fear of said IBAN being brought up out of the blue for seemingly no other reason than intimidation[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=1056249312&oldid=1056246381]), and so was forced to appeal. In this case, voluntarily agreeing not to interact is a given, and since User X is still subject to the community TBAN from 90% of the articles User Y edits, interaction wouldn't be likely to begin with. Would you support repealing the ban solely to protect User Y from future "Look, he's got an IBAN!"-type harassment? |A= }}

I need to notify you that an IBAN enforcement report will be filed here[10]. TH1980 (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Further to this AE report, I have blocked you for two weeks for violating your interaction ban with TH1980, which was imposed as an arbitration remedy. The permanent link to the AE report is here. You were given some good advice there from reviewing administrators about avoiding the subject of editors you've quarrelled with entirely, which I hope you'll consider. I'll give you the standard template below, because it contains information about appeals and specific instructions for reviewing administrators as this is an AE block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

--Innisfree987 (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

@Crossroads: For reasons that should be obvious, I decided not to post the following. I was initially going to shorten it by deleting everything after ...cares enough to pay for that., but figured it'd be better to just share the whole thing and allow you to do with it as you will. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

See my stricken comment: it's not "publicists" but almost certainly a freelance translation agency, and nothing was "changed" but rather a few new articles were added with they. The main profile page and all news articles prior to this week (assuming this was a "batch" translation), including those since last June, continue to use she. It's likely that the only reason for the inconsistency one way or the other is that it would cost extra to pay a professional copyeditor to change one or the other and neither Utada nor anyone involved in the maintenance of the website cares enough to pay for that. If it were me doing the translation (and it wasn't) it would be unthinkable to change the pronouns without also directly notifying the (non-English-speaking) client that I had done so and recommending that they change the older pages for consistency, so it is important to note that no such change has thus far been made. This may come as a shock to people who live in America or Europe and have never spent time in Japan or dwelt on the websites of Japanese companies, celebrities, etc., but people really care that little about the quality of the "official English versions" of their websites: even the great Mitsubishi's official global site has a history section whose front page that reads Presented here is Mitsubishi's journey in the automobile industry since the its establishment., says "News Release" where it should say "News Releases" or just "News" (it's not a list of press releases but simply news updates), their Corporate Profile page uses full-width commas instead of commas followed by spaces in their address, and what should be Number of Board Members is Member of the Board and what should be something like CEO and Representative Director is instead the utterly bizarre Member of the Board Representative Executive Officer,�President & CEO; if a multinational corporation with overseas investors and a massive overseas market has a website that looks like this (definitely the result of being farmed out to a general translation service and then "proof-read" in-house by people with minimal English proficiency), then why would we assume the website of a popstar who is almost unheard of outside of Japanese-speaking communities is better when all evidence supports the opposite assertion? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Probably should also ping User:Tamzin and get her take on the matter. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

To be totally clear, are you okay with me posting it there as a quote from you? I think these are good points. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that's totally fine! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

--Lajmmoore (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

Hi. Your moving description says ""Yamato-kotoba" has technical uses that differ from "wago"'s; both are encyclopedic and merit articles, but they should be separate articles, and this article appears always to have been primarily about wago, NOT yamato-kotoba, so moving page". Can you explain this further? I have been reading linguistic sources about wago/yamato kotoba and every one of them uses the term interchangably, with wago merely being the more wide-spread term, of Chinese origin. Can you show sources that separate them and show how they "differ"? Xia ^{talk to me} 08:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Are you sure? Most linguistics sources I have read uniformly use "wago" (perhaps because it definitely makes more sense as a pair with "kango"?), while I've mostly seen "yamato-kotoba" used in works of literary history to refer to the poetic lexicon of post-Kokinshū waka and/or non wakankonkō prose. I may have been wrong in my statement four years ago that the latter should have it's own article: if you disagree with said statement, feel free to follow my lead and continue to not create such an article. I fail to see how expecting de facto semi-retired editors like me to formally renounce all statements from years earlier that we may no longer agree with does the project any good. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I merely came across this as I'm writing the hu:Vago article on huwiki. No need to bite my head off for asking. Your statement startled me, because it goes against of what I personallyread in sources. So wanted to know where you have read that. All of those sources on the bottom of my huwiki article merely say yamato kotoba is just another name for wago.

"Investigations of each aspect of these and other properties have elucidated the degree of productivity and of creativity of mimetics in comparison with words in the other strata such as Yamato kotoba or wago (native Japanese words)" -- Taro Kageyama, Hideki Kishimoto: Handbook of Japanese Lexicon and Word Formation. Page 135.

"Words in the native stratum, also called wago, are words peculiar to Japanese and form the core of the Japanese lexicon. The wa of wago originates from ancient Chinese 倭(wǒ; ancient Chinese name for Japan) and the go 語(‘word’) also comes from Chinese, so the term wago itself is from Chinese. The term Yamato kotoba ‘Yamato language’ (Yamato being an old name for Japan) is also used to refer to words that are originally Japanese." -- page 16-17.

"Traditionally, the Japanese lexicon is characterized in terms of three strata. The terms wago 'Japanese words' or Yamato-kotoba 'Yamato words' refer to the stratum of the native vocabulary, and kango 'Chinese words' refers to loan words of Chinese origin" -- Masayoshi Shibatani. The Languages of Japan. Page. 142.

So I would be interested to see those sources that separate the two. Simply because of encyclopedic reasons of showing a topic from several aspects. if there IS serious research about them being different, it should be discussed in the article. I just own a bunch of Japanese language books and none of them do. Cheers. Xia ^{talk to me} 10:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Forgive me if I'm misremembering, but did I ever claim I had a source that explicitly stated the distinction? My above reply to you certainly did not make this claim, nor did my edit summary from 2018. In any case, if I recall correctly, this is the linguistic work in which I first learned about wago and kango (and gairaigo). Yamatokotoba, meanwhile, was a word I heard in casual conversation numerous times for at least two or three years before that; when penning my reply to you above, I scanned this book, which (I think?) doesn't mention "wago" but uses "yamato kotoba" in the context of wakan-konkōbun as addressed by Meiji-era literary historians. I hope this has been of some use. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

Happy Holidays and Happy New Year, Hijiri88!

The other day, I was having a conversation with someone about holiday cards and social media. It occurred to me that, in the years since I left Facebook, the site I use most to communicate with people I like isn't actually a social media site at all. If you're receiving this, it's pretty likely I've talked with you more recently than I have my distant relatives and college friends on FB, at very least, and we may have even collaborated on something useful. So here's a holiday "card", Wikipedia friend. :) Hope the next couple weeks bring some fun and/or rest. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

Medarduss (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

--Lajmmoore (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

--Lajmmoore (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

  The redirect Evermeet has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 24 § Evermeet until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

--Lajmmoore (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

--Lajmmoore (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

--Victuallers (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

Category:Heguri clan has been nominated for deletion. 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. Mason (talk) 04:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

Hi, Hijiri88,

I came across an SPI case you filed and realized it had been a long, long time since I ran into you on the project. I hope you are well and just busy with off-line life. A lot of the ANI crowd from 5 or 7 years ago has either left the project and retired or are not hanging out by noticeboards any longer so things seem much more quiet lately (although I don't frequent noticeboards like I did as a new editor so my judgment might be off).

I hope you can return to contributing should you be grabbed by the desire to improve articles. Just thought I'd let you know that I noticed you've been gone and that you've been back recently. Take care, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Liz: I've been well. I'm not really fully "back" at the moment, but I do appreciate your message. The reason I largely stopped editing Wikipedia a few years back was partly because of the drahma, but primarily because of a number of systemic issues not (directly) related to ANI, so I'm still not sure if I'm ready to fully return. (Also, shortly before I was eligible for permanent residency I had to switch employers because of pandemic-related issues, which was pretty hectic, and I still don't have the kind of free time I had during most of my more active periods.) I do still want to finish (or continue) a number of the projects I started back in 2015, 2017, and 2018, and I will probably continue on-and-off editing for the time being. But thank you for your gracious message -- I do very much appreciate it! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please, can you help me with these translations from Japanese to English: Kotanbetsu (ja:古丹別駅), Onishika (ja:鬼鹿村), Brown Bear Storm (ja:羆嵐), Japan Hunting Friends Association (ja:大日本猟友会), Hokkaido Government Police Department (ja:北海道庁警察部), Haboro Police Station (ja:羽幌警察署), 28th Infantry Regiment (Japan) (ja:歩兵第28連隊), Japan Action Enterprise (ja:ジャパンアクションエンタープライズ), Kaoru Takagi (ja:高木薫), Hokkaido Wine (ja:北海道ワイン). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.21.33.91 (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Can you do it? 79.16.244.59 (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) Hijiri hasn't edited since November 26....be patient. Lectonar (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@79.16.244.59: Sorry, but I'm somewhat busy IRL at the moment. If you could clarify what kind of "help" you want, I might be able to help in my own time; are you planning on posting machine-translations from Japanese Wikipedia to the draft space or something?

@Lectonar: Thanks for the assist!

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Category:Motoori Norinaga has been nominated for deletion. 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. Mason (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Mason and Marcocapelle: (Sorry to be late on this.) Out of curiosity, how many articles do you think this category should have included? I've been told (I forget when and by whom, but it was likely between 2015 and 2017) that a cat that includes only one article is a violation of our guidelines. I have, therefore, since been careful not to create categories without including at least two articles. (Hence why, when I created Category:Fujiwara no Teika, I apparently added exactly three articles to it before I considered it "safe" and stopped before adding Shin Kokin Wakashū, Matsuranomiya monogatari, or Historical kana orthography.) But your comments at the above-linked discussion both seem to imply that this category would have been deletion-worthy even if English Wikipedia already had articles on Norinaga's other highly influential works like Tama no Ogushi and Kokinshū Tōkagami. (In theory, a navbox would make even an amply filled category redundant, wouldn't it?)

Would either of you be opposed to me immediately recreating the category and adding Motoori Norinaga, Kojiki-den, and Mono no aware to it? Or would it be necessary to create some more articles on?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

• You seem to confuse goals and means. The goal is to have more articles on Wikipedia with relevant content. So if you can create more articles, please start with that first, regardless of in whuch categories the articles will end up. Categories are a means to navigate between related articles easily, they are not a goal in itself and there is no hurry in creating new categories at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 20#Category:20th-century Japanese short stories. – Fayenatic London 14:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Category:15th-century Japanese literature indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Category:16th-century Japanese literature indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Category:14th-century Japanese literature indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

--Lajmmoore (talk 19:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

Hello, pardon before. But if you dont mind, may i ask if this source is credible for wikipedia?

https://kokusho.nijl.ac.jp/biblio/100164361/48?ln=ja

Im on reviewing Tachibana Dosetsu page and found this link in the japanese version of Wikipedia 139.193.50.17 (talk) 04:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

--Lajmmoore (talk 06:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

A tag has been placed on Category:Kyōka poets indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Category:Fujiwara no Shunzei has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. Mason (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

--Lajmmoore (talk 07:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

--Lajmmoore (talk 14:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

would it be possible to have your support on the Yasuke-article? i saw in the archives your name and i think, that your knowlege about Yasuke could benefit the article and the sources about paper in Japan about this figure. I am personally mainly interested about the Japanese academic view about his slavery background. --ErikWar19 (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, no. I don't care about Ubisoft videogames and I am frankly disgusted having expressed an interest in Japanese history on this site and elsewhere has now caused people who clearly have no knowledge of or interest in Japan to see me as a "brother in arms". I don't know why someone whose account is two months old would be reaching out to mostly retired editors about articles they worked on three years ago, but this is super suspicious. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello Hijiri88, Apologies for the interruption. I have sent you an email regarding your comment at RSN. Rotary Engine ^talk 03:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

--Lajmmoore (talk 19:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply