User talk:Oda Mari

Thanks...

...for your contribution to the article Akita Inu!

Japanese swords (external links)

I noticed that you removed two external links as not appropriate, did you go to the links and look at them? One link explained why some ww2 Japanese swords are considered to be nihonto and why some are not actually traditionally made blades, the other link is to the largest forum in the world for the discussion of nihonto, this forum has some of the worlds foremost experts in nihonto participating including Clive Sinclaire and Ian Bottomley. If you remove these links then I suggest that you take a close look at the other external links also. Instead of removing helpful links have you thought about doing some reading on the subject and adding some references? The whole article on Japanese swords as huge sections with no references backing up the information in the article Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I went to the links. The first one is selling products and the forum requires registration. That is why I removed them. Please read Wikipedia:External links. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• • The nihonto forum does not REQUIRE registration to view (Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content) only to post. Two other external links>> (About Japanese Katana Swords) and (Japanese Samurai Swords and Ninja Techniques) have no real research and seem to be selling or promoting the sale of swords etc and they seem to fall in this category>>> (Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research) I suggest that they also be removed...and since you are so interested in wikipedia rules and helping the article...do you know what "unreferenced and unverifiable research" means? The whole article on Japanese swords is full of inaccurate and unreferenced information...I think that is more important than a couple of links, have you thought about doing some research and adding some references or removing inaccurate information based of research? If you look on the discussion page for Japanese swords you will see a whole list of books that can be used for citations and references for editors who actually want to help the article be adding citations and references.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Then add the forum to the EL section. But not the personal site, please. When you find inappropriate ELs, you can remove them. And please remember, you can ask me anything, but it's only I who decide what I'd do and what I don't at WP. Best regards. Oda Mari (talk) 09:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Your right about the other site, I did not think about the commercial aspects,..of course your the one to decide what to do, nothing personal....I just get tired of seeing more and more unreferenced information added to articles with no one willing to cite or find references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuraiantiqueworld (talk • contribs) 02:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Your revert on Tokyo

Hi Mari. You reverted an edit to Tokyo saying "Macron is not needed".[1] However it is not an English word but a rōmaji. See template:nihongo. Regards, ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 07:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Phoenix. I see. I reverted my edit. Thank you for pointing that out. Happy editing! Oda Mari (talk) 09:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

Hi Oda Mari,

It appears to me that you do not absolutely understand what you've been doing with regards to some of your actions. I'd advise you to read some relevant contents more carefully before making accusations of personal attacks. After all, the term "idiots" was only used a handful of times and never specifically applied to anyone.

At the same time, you should be a bit more careful in your thought process when it comes to the Remin Ribao article. It was already stated and illustrated beyond a doubt that the article had never made a connection between the Japanese Okinawa Prefecture and the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. This is also something you've agreed upon.

Since the Japanese reference articles and the associated sentences that dealt with the Remin Ribao figured argued Japanese sovereignty of these islands on the basis of the seeming Okinawa association (that we agreed was wrong or made-up), then they are also wrong by extension. Being a reputable Wikipedia editor, I believe you would be more familiar than I am to what contents should belong in Wikipedia and not. So, perhaps you'd have to show me why in this case you'd feel fraudulent ideas and references based on known fallacies deserve to remain in Wikipedia.

I understand that there can be idiots that will unrelentingly protect their favourite fantasies of reality (such as how Nanking Massacre never happened or how atomic bombs were dropped on non-belligerent victim nations in WWII), but I trust you are an editor with a great sense of honour and integrity who'd have a great justification for all this.

Oh by the way, I intend to add back some of the October protest contents that we discussed in the past. I believe our agreement is that all but the Swastika-related content was fair game. What do you think? Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do not talk about any editors you have disputes with. As for the content issues such as Remin Ribao and the October protests, please use the article talk page and ask for consensus. This is not the place. Oda Mari (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

My dear Oda Mari, I appreciate your efforts in educating me on Wikipedia matters. But unfortunately, I don't see a need to restrict myself from commenting about other editors. After all, my conduct is considered acceptable within the bounds of Wikipedia policies. Should you feel otherwise, you are welcomed to file a complaint to an admin and have him or her sort the issue out for you.

As for the issue that involved Remin Ribao, I need to remind you that it was agreed that the translation was incorrect. If you feel a need to conspire with like-minded editors to retain misinformation within Wikipedia articles, you are welcomed to do so. My reminder for you is that the issue was well-discussed and no legitimate objections were raised. Considering that this is an unambiguous case of fraudulent information, I find it doubtful that a consensus is needed.

But you are right, I feel it is possibly inappropriate to delete such unambiguously faulty information in the face of such strong opposition from highly passionate editors. I'd say I should explore the option of WP:Arbitration and advise the ban of certain obstructive individuals who somehow had developed an unfortunate fetish for opposing appropriate editorial processes. Do you happen to have the capacity of educating me on how to go through such a process? Your experience as a lawyer of Wikipedia policies is likely second to none.

Best. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I've answered Fish's question here. -- Hoary (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikisource

Image of page in January 8, 1953 edition of the People's Daily.

Oda Mari -- I was vexed by what I read about you and me here. In the context this short diff creates, a meaningful way to demonstrate "good faith and editorial integrity" is by enhancing and highlighting "all contents and references associated with that Remin Ribao article."

This also happens to be consistent with core wiki-policies.

Perhaps you did not know that the January 8, 1953 article has been uploaded to Chinese Wikisource and to Japanese Wikisource?

• 琉球群岛人民反对美国占领的斗争 "Ryukyu Islands, the struggle of peoples against U.S. occupation," 人民日報 (People's Daily), January 8, 1953.
  • Template:Ja琉球群島人民による反米闘争

I will try to figure out how to add an appropriate English translation to the English Wikisource. Perhaps it can be easily accomplished. We'll see. --Tenmei (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The first step in a constructive direction. --Tenmei (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. I join the discussion. But as for the English translation, I'm not sure how much I can help as en and zh are not my first language. Oda Mari (talk) 09:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the burden of proof is on Bobthefish2. You don't need to translate the article. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Locked article

I'm very sorry that Senkaku Islands dispute was locked -- not because of a short-term problem with the current version of the article, but because of the unintended consequences.

Even if this action does succeed in mitigating some kind of short-term dispute, I anticipate longer-term problems as a result of Nihonjoe's decision. I tried to explain at User talk:Nihonjoe#Locking of Senkaku Islands dispute; but the effort was not well received:

• diff . . User talk:Nihonjoe‎; 04:07 . . (-33,990) . . Nihonjoe (talk | contribs) (Reverted to revision 411729997 by Nihonjoe; rv edit war spllover from Senkaku Islands, please keep your discussion on THAT talk page, not here.)

IMO, this is a problem which didn't need to be a problem. I do not know how to be a force for good in this context, but I will think about it over the next few days. --Tenmei (talk) 08:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I knew it was locked. You didn't have to inform me. I'll post my comments on appropriate threads when I want to or when I think I have to. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 09:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

and in Lithuania

Somebody who can read materials in Japanese a lot faster than I can (and who is not battling with a computer that doesn't like him) may be interested in this. I imagine that you're busy too, but if you are interested in this, then of course feel free to disagree with me there. -- Hoary (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. But I read/comprehend materials in English a lot slower than you do and the thread is very long. I try to check the matter. BTW, what's wrong with your computer? My old 2k is still working fine, it's slow though. Brrr, It's cold outside, isn't it? Keep warm! Oda Mari (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You'll be happy when I say that it's probably not a good idea to say anything more here at RS/N. But it could be a good idea to comment judiciously at Talk:Chiune Sugihara. As always, one major problem is that looking in libraries for materials -- even if one knows where to look (which pages of which issue of which magazine) -- is tiresome, while what's available on the web in Japanese is so insubstantial compared with what's available in English. (Regardless of what one may think about the relative value of the Guardian and 朝日新聞, virtually everything from the former is freely available on the web, whereas almost nothing from the latter is.) Anyway, see this. At best, it's a blatant copyright violation. Worse, it could have been tampered with. Still, it does appear to be an article in Aera with serious implications for the credibility of a book that's taken seriously by editors of the article on Sugihara. Meanwhile, there are reputable books in Japanese about Sugihara, but few editors of en.WP who have the ability, and can spare the time and effort needed, to read and digest even just part of one of them. IFF you're interested, your input would be welcome. ¶ Although I tend to distrust anything published in the 1990s by the Free Press (before then an excellent publisher, and for all I know excellent now as well), it's not a good idea just to say (even with good reason) that we can't believe HL when he writes X. Instead, if there's a conflict between HL writing X and some other author (let's call her SOA) writing not-X, then we have to see which account (X or not-X) or which author (HL or SOA) is more credible. ¶ I have an excellent Win2k computer too, but unfortunately it lacks the puff to run Gimp on any but small files, and also I presume that it's full of security holes and hardly dare connect it to the net. But Win2k was fine in its day. When XP came out, I was eager to jump ship. Mac OS X is very good but I'm underwhelmed by Apple hardware, always seemingly designed to look good in Yodobashi Camera but mechanically dubious. So I've been using (K)Ubuntu. However, I'm not happy with the upgrade process, and so my newest machine is running Debian. Except that right now it's only running 95% or so of the needed bits of Debian, and getting the missing 5% is troublesome. But I'm pretty confident that today I'll get it all sorted out. ¶ Whatever you think of the relative appeals of Windows and GNU/Linux, it's good to have a bootable ("live") CD for emergency purposes. And this means GNU/Linux (or something more exotic). I recommend "#!". (The ja:WP article about it is seriously out of date.) ¶ Yes, too cold! Yesterday I walked out to Doutor to get an espresso that's better than coffee I can make myself, and then found that I'd left my money at home, so I had to walk back home. Then I had to thaw my hands. Coming on top of computer problems, that was a bit much. -- Hoary (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it was a good idea, but I posted my comment on RS/N. It made me tired. BTW, I need your help on this article . See the ja article. It's a TV program. I'll provide sources later. Are you still battleing with your computer? Oda Mari (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your good work at RS/N. I think that the person who started the thread had his heart in the right place but was far too vehement for his own good, and that this alienated a lot of his readers. He makes some good points. But the article is not about Levine, it's about Sugihara; the thing to do is of course to find and use sources that are better than Levine. ¶ Shichiji ni aimashō is still an utterly dreadful article, but now it's merely uninformative, uninteresting, unsourced, and possibly fictional; whereas before it was all of these and also self-contradictory. I'll keep an eye on it. ¶ Yes, thank you, I am now happily using my Dell laptop running Debian 6.0.0. 日本語入力も平気。 I bought the computer over the web and in principle could make many choices. The choice not to have Windows was not among them. I had a choice of colors, but the choice not to have two "Windows" stickers was not available. I was able to correspond with email and asked there if I could have it without Windows, without the stickers, or (best of all) without either Windows or the stickers, and with no reduction in price. No, was the answer. Aren't "antimonopoly" laws wonderful! ¶ A great thing about having a computer with a US keyboard, with Ctrl and CapsLock switched around, and with Debian installed is that nobody is going to ask if she can borrow it, even for a few minutes. Or if I am asked, once I start explaining they should lose interest in a few seconds. (Actually it all "looks and feels" much the same as Windows or Mac OS X, really.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits on Shichiji. The TV program was too old to find RS on the web. Though the ja article has no RS, it seems to be generally correct. It's not a controversial topic. What I could find are [2], [3], [4], [5], and see 44 and 45. The June 8th episode was first sold in VHS format in 1995 as a memorial video ten years after Sakamoto's death. The director of the program was Akio Jissoji. That "あいま" is not "interval". It is "あいましょう"/let's meet with a pun "show". I'm glad to hear you tamed your computer. Debian sounds fine. But I want to use several applications probably working only on Windows/Mac, and I stick to Windows. Oda Mari (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about the mistake in the article. I fixed that a couple of minutes ago, but now unfortunately am too sleepy to do anything further. Good night! -- Hoary (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

A small step forward...your thoughts?

With the input of some previously uninvolved editors, we've developed a compromise wording on the Remin Ribao article sentence at Senkaku Islands dispute. As one of the prior discussants in this issue, I'd appreciate your input in the very last section on talk as to whether you could accept the compromise we've cobbled together. The short argument is that 4 of us (including 2 uninvolved editors) that the article will be better if we clearly attribute that interpretation of the Remin Ribao article, in the sentence, ""The Japanese government and U.S. researchers have claimed that a 1953 article in The People's Daily, a daily newspaper which is the organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), stated that the Senkaku Islands were a part of the Rykuyu Islands, and that this further implied that the Senkaku Islands were a part of Japanese territory" (keeping all of the current sources). I sincerely hope that you might be persuaded to accept this as a compromise that clearly includes the sentence, all of the sources, and doesn't state that the translation may be false, while also clearly indicating the that the translation is an act of interpretation. I'd love to hear your input. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)