User talk:Hijk910

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Hijk910, 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 discussion 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Lionratz (talk) 09:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kazutaka Kodaka

The article Kazutaka Kodaka has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. ~SS49~ {talk} 05:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Kazutaka Kodaka for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kazutaka Kodaka is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kazutaka Kodaka until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shōnen Jump+, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kadokawa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Shōnen Jump+

Hello! Your submission of Shōnen Jump+ at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to List of Hensuki volumes, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. there was no "consensus" at the origianl version Unnamelessness (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Shōnen Jump+

Hello! Your submission of Shōnen Jump+ at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Morgan695 (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Quintessential Quintuplets, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Niigata.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Shōnen Jump+

On 28 July 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Shōnen Jump+, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that due to its explicit content, a manga series on Shōnen Jump+ cannot be accessed via its iOS app, but is available on its website and Android app? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Shōnen Jump+. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Shōnen Jump+), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Ryuo's Work is Never Done!, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Naniwa.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Volume list

Hi Hijk910. Thanks for updating the number of volumes in the infobox in anime/manga articles, but next time, could you please update the table as well? Cheers. Xexerss (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• No, I am lazy. -Hijk910 (talk) 02:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Your edit to Gods' Games We Play

Hi, I have reverted your edit on Gods' Games We Play. The date you added is both unnecessary and incorrectly placed in the sentence.

Using later instead of a more specific date is the preferred way of writing a format confirmation. I have provided some examples from the following articles:

Kaguya-sama: Love Is War

...a new anime project was announced to be in production. It was later revealed that the new project is an anime film...

KonoSuba

...announced plans for a new KonoSuba anime project, later revealed to be a new movie...
...confirmed that a new anime project was in production. The project was later revealed to be...

Sasaki and Miyano

...it was announced that the series would be receiving a new anime project. It was later revealed to be an anime film...

Furthermore, the date is in the wrong part of the sentence. If it were added, it should be positioned as follows to provide a more natural flow to the sentence: The anime, revealed to be a television series on July 24, 2022, ...

I hope you take this into consideration and decide not to revert the page again. Siebrenvde (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Siebrenvde: For record, I adjusted the position of the announcement date. Thank you for your suggestion. -Hijk910 (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2022

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to My Stepmom's Daughter Is My Ex, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at The Magical Revolution of the Reincarnated Princess and the Genius Young Lady shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bishonen | tålk 12:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Bishonen: With a 12-hour interval of my edit not being reverted (and Drmies did have an edit after my last revert), I assume Drmies and I have reached consensus already (which is "the source is reliable"). The following revert against Gerda Arendt was for this consensus, given that Gerda Arendt not knowing Japanese and probably not familiar with the manga topic. Hijk910 (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Drmies "did have an edit"? You've got the wrong attitude. Reverting three times is not an entitlement, and I'm sure Drmies didn't want to edit war with you. That does not mean you have consensus. I'm amazed that you should think you have, considering Drmies' arguments on this page alone, which show clearly that the source is not reliable. And you thought yourself entitled to revert Gerda because she doesn't know Japanese? You are being completely disruptive, and you have already violated the bright-line 3 revert rule. You have been blocked for two weeks from The Magical Revolution of the Reincarnated Princess and the Genius Young Lady. Note that you can still edit the talkpage (as well as the rest of Wikipedia), and attempt to get actual consensus on it. You can request unblock by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Bishonen | tålk 15:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Followed your instruction and try to get consensus from Talk:The Magical Revolution of the Reincarnated Princess and the Genius Young Lady. Feel free to express your view. -Hijk910 (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bishonen: The reply from Drmies starts with "What's the point of discussing with you?" and I do not feel I can get consensus from him after reading the whole reply. I cited tons of policies and guidelines to justify my edits. Do you have any suggestions what I can do to archieve consensus? -Hijk910 (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Two people who disagree so much are hardly going to do it on their own. You can try WP:3O (simple) or WP:RFC (more elaborate, takes longer). I'd recommend WP:3O, which is specifically tailored for disagreements where only two users are involved. Read about it and see what you think. (And no, I'm not going to express an opinion. I'm acting as an admin here, not a content editor.) Bishonen | tålk 17:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Thank you for your suggestion. I have posted the disagreements there. -Hijk910 (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The Magical Revolution of the Reincarnated Princess and the Genius Young Lady

First of all, "announcements" are nothing. They are meaningless. Events means something, and here you are, adding a verified but useless announcement while leaving the actual event unverified. In addition, your source is a blog, and the "verification" is a user-generated comment that's one sentence long. There is no way in which that is a reliable secondary source. You are so much better off trying to verify the actual fact, rather than adding trivia, of which there is already plenty. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies: For record, it is a primary source, as mentioned in the edit summary. Next time hope you learn Japanese first before reverting my edits and causing me troubles. Thanks. -Hijk910 (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

That would make it even worse. We're talking about a website reproducing user-generated content--it is really no different from citing WordPress, which is a thing we don't do. While my Japanese could probably do with some brushing up, I can read English pretty well, on this English language Wikipedia, and I have read WP:RS, WP:N, etc., and if you had done that you'd know that this isn't an acceptable source, that we write content based on secondary sources, and that you're basically spamming. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies: I don't understand why you raised out the term "publisher", which is irrelevant. It is a blog written by the "author", and therefore is a primary source, regardless the platform (WP:PRIMARY: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved). The use of primary source is not prohibited by WP:PRIMARY. Seems you haven't read WP:OR. -Hijk910 (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for {{Third-party}}, I just knew about WP:ABOUTSELF: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities". -Hijk910 (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Drmies

If you have something of substance to say, please say it with an appropriate note, preferably in reply to Drmies' personal note above. Don't lecture experienced editors with templates, and donm't tell me "it's just an essay" and ignore me. Acroterion (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

And I can most certainly remove it. There's a reason for that essay. You have chosen to use templates rather than engaging in a discussion about Drmies' concerns. Stop doing that. Acroterion (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Acroterion: Noted with thanks. I wrote a message to him, instead of a simple template, to customizedly show how unhappy I am with his ridiculous edits. -Hijk910 (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

If you haven't yet, I highly recommend you enable Preferences>Gadgets>Nav Popups and use it to inform yourself about the relative experience level of editors you are arguing with. When multiple editors with hundreds of thousands of edits are telling you you're wrong, you're probably wrong. Valereee (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee: As you might find out already in our discussion or on my user page, I may be way more experienced than you thought. -Hijk910 (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm fully aware you're experienced on zh.wiki. En.wiki has different policies. Here we consider badgering, as you're currently doing at Talk:My Stepmom's Daughter Is My Ex, to be disruptive editing. Valereee (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee: The policies and guidelines in enwiki and zhwiki share the same spirit and rationale. Besides, if you want to reduce the number of times I ask for your clarifications, please do not put an incorrect tag in the first place. I asked for a clarification only for the first time after you put the Third-party tag, and suddenly what I did is badgering? -Hijk910 (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Friend, when I told you I was done, you replied "You are not done" and demanded I stay and satisfy you after I'd realized no amount of patience on my part was going to do that. You have two editors placing these tags. As I've said at the talk, we are not asking for the information to be removed. We are asking for unaffiliated reliable sources. And after a few thousand more edits you may find that "sharing the same spirit" is not the same as requiring the same things. Please stop pinging me. I've told you I'm done. Valereee (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee: I don't think your explanation is enough for keeping the tags. -Hijk910 (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Seriously, I tell you I'm done, twice now, I ask you not to ping me, including in the above post, and you not only ping me but bring the argument to my user page? WTaF? Stop. Valereee (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thanks for taking part in a healthy debate about sourcing (Talk:My Stepmom's Daughter Is My Ex). It's great you took the time to discuss your perspective and requested a third opinion to make sure it did not escalate in a 1v1 fight. Thanks for your contributions and I hope to see you around! AlanTheScientist (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

Hello, I'm Lemonaka. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Miss Shachiku and the Little Baby Ghost, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Lemonaka (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)