User talk:Enkyo2: Difference between revisions

	Talk Daruma
	Kangen 寛元 1243; Hōji 宝治 1247; Kenchō 建長 1249; Kōgen 康元 1256; ; Ōei 応永 1394; Shōchō 正長 1428; Eikyō 永享 1429; Kakitsu 嘉吉 1441; ; Ōnin 応仁 1467; Bunmei 文明 1469; Chōkyō 長享 1487; Entoku 延徳 1489; Meiō 明応 1492; Bunki 文亀1501; 地震; DYK;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:32, 11 April 2009

Tenmei (天明) = "dawn"

Tenmei (天明) was a Japanese era name (年号, nengō, lit. year name) after An'ei and before Kansei. This period spanned the years from 1781 through 1789. The new era name of Tenmei (meaning "dawn") was created to mark the enthronement of Emperor Kōkaku-tennō (光格天皇). The previous era ended and the new one commenced in An'ei 11, on the 2nd day of the 4th month.^[1]

How best to make good use of this venue?

It seems odd to me that you should blank your talk page, as it prevents anyone from knowing what has been previously discussed, what your responses and views were, etc.... LordAmeth 11:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...I recommend keeping a talk archive rather than blanking your screen every once in a while. Bendono 10:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth. -- Mohandas K. Ghandi

Use of Japanese era name in identifying disastrous events

First of all, I'm curious to know why you thought of contacting me about this, since I have been inactive in this wiki for quite some time and I'm not in either Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan or Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management. Next, please note that I haven't gone through the discussions and I am only sharing my general views (as I am & will be almost inactive in the near future).

Coming to article renaming, my take is summarised in the last comment in the thread: Talk:Kolkata#Does anyone else think this article should be called Calcutta?. I have settled to being content with having a redirect at the place where I want the article to be. As long as readers are able to access the article from the place, I think it is pointless to have a heated debate on moving the page, with there being a lot more important work to do, e.g. important topics that don't even have an article, unencyclopaedic stuff that get articles, etc. [My prediction about Bengalooru isn't currently true (it could have come true in the past, with the article moving back & forth — I haven't checked) but my views haven't changed.] -- Paddu (talk) 07:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paddu -- Yes. Thanks for the feedback.

1. Your initial curiosity is easily addressed. As you know, I'm interested in creating some kind of consensus about an exception to WP:DM naming "guidelines" for disasters occurring in Japan (645-1867). At the same time, I plausibly guessed that questions about Wiki-nomenclature for events in pre-20th century Japan, also known as pre-Meiji period Japan, would likely disinterest the participants in what I construed to be a more future-focused WikiProject.

For this reason, I took the extra step of posting a specific invitation on the User talk-pages of contributors to any discussion on the 2007 WP:DM talk-page. I encountered Paddu in the following context from May 2007:

Bridge disasters categorisation

There is some discussion going on about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bridges#Bridge failures category. -- Paddu 04:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the points raised in that discussion is whether all engineering failures are disasters. Specifically, it has been suggested that Millennium Bridge (London) was an engineering failure that wasn't a disaster. In the light of this, should we rethink about having Category:Engineering failures as a descendant of Category:Disasters? -- Paddu 20:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is elegant; and, it happens that the sway harmonics of the Millennium Bridge (London) is a subject which interests me quite apart from anyy fascination with Hayashi Gahō's 1652 Nihon Ōdai Ichiran, which was the relatively obscure context from which I first approached WP:DM ....

In terms of your Millennium Bridge posting, I wonder if you'd be interested in at least the first of the following external links:

Strogatz, Steven. (2003). Sync: The Emerging Science of Spontaneous Order. New York: Hyperion books. 10-ISBN 0-7868-6844-9; 13-ISBN 978-0-7868-6844-5 (cloth) [2nd ed., Hyperion, 2004. 10-ISBN 0-7868-8721-4; 13-ISBN 978-0-7868-8721-7 (paper)].

2. The Dutch Japanologist Isaac Titsingh died in 1812 before completing his translation of the seven-volumes of the Nihon Ōdai Ichiran which he brought to Europe in 1796. Titsingh's French translation was published and disseminated posthumously in 1834. Digitized copies of that 19th century text have been uploaded on-line as part of the Google Books Library Project; and I've taken on the multi-year task of furthering metastasis of the Hayashi/Titsingh data-set throughout en:Wikipedia and fr:Wikipedia. This essentially dull Imperial chronology identifies serial earthquakes, tsunami, floods, fires, and volcanic eruptions; and I'm understandably persuaded that it will be easier all around if I try to make any reference to these recurring disasters seem as non-controversial as possible -- which is why I came to engage the issues involved in en:WP:DM and en:MOS:JA naming guidelines.

This is patently trivial, of course; but my willing investment of time and care may appear less foolish in the context of meta:Translation of the Week. Each week, a stub or the first paragraph of an important article is chosen to be translated into as many languages as possible. Ideal candidates are (1) short, (2) easy to translate, and (3) lead to potential translations of other topics; and I believe that one of 2007's selections becomes worth noting:

Week 42: en:Isaac Titsingh/nl:Isaac Titsingh (16 langs total)

Aha! Yes? Do you begin to appreciate the impetus for devoting such close attention to such small details?

3. As for your informed cynicism at Talk:Kolkata#Does anyone else think this article should be called Calcutta?, I do acknowledge that you and others are indisputably correct. Yes, certainly. Nevertheless, my optimistic outlook encourages me to wonder if we shouldn't try to be a little less ready to discount the possibility of constructive outcomes in these kinds of exercises?

Again, thanks for the feedback. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1695 Coin on Japanese Yen

dunno yet

Hi Ooperhoofd, I'm the original user who took out that particular line (later reinstated by Nik42) since I am not familiar with any copper coins with the gen (元) character on the obverse that were issued by the shogunate in 1695, and none of my catalogs lists one. It was interesting to see how the thread progressed at Nik42's talk page. :)

As mentioned by Nik42, there is indeed a bronze Kanei-Tsuuhou　(寛永通宝) coin that features a "gen" as a mintmark on the reverse. This indicates an Osaka mint issue of 1741. However, this is a minor variety among many and not actually a coin type like the Kanei-Tsuuhou or Bunkyuu-Eihou. The following coins from the 17th century contain the character "gen" in the name: Genpou-Tsuuhou (元豊通宝)　was issued by Nagasaki merchants at the behest of the Dutch as trade money in 1659. However, this was not a shogunate release that circulated in Japan, and it was merely a copy of the Chinese Yuanfeng-Tongbao. Genna-Tsuuhou (元和通宝) was issued in 1617. There is debate as to whether it was an official release, but it was issued before standardization of coinage in 1668.

I was also confused when I checked the referenced work, Annales des Empereurs du Japon, at Google Book Search. But as you indicated, I was looking at the Stanford version with missing pages. I have since looked at the other edition and have found the passage in question. As the Kanei-Tsuuhou coin with the gen mintmark was released in 1741, it is probably not what this book is referring to. The dates for the two other coins listed above do not match either. Since the 1695 date is during the Genroku (元禄) period, I agree with Oda Mari that the "gen" mark is probably a reference to the gold koban (小判) and silver chougin (丁銀) coins that were minted at this time. I'm inclined to think that the Annales was actually referring to these coins and that "copper" is an error. However, getting back to the issue about Japanese Yen, overall, my stance is that these coins with a "gen" character don't have a bearing on the etymological origins of the term "yen." Buu (talk) 07:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Fuji

Hi! It's me again. According to the Ja WP, the hoei eruption began on Dec.16, 1707 (Nov. 23, the 4th year of Hoei) and ended on Jan.1, 1708. So the previous edit seems to be correct, unless the Ja WP is incorrect. I advise you to see different references and books. Oda Mari (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent beginning to 2008! Thank you for your continuing attention to minor, but ultimately important details. So this is how Wikipedia evolves, eh? I'll revert my edit immediately, if you haven't already done so. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found another page, actually a Shizuoka Univ. page, says the same thing with Ja WP. [1] Sorry it is Japanese. But you can understand the dates. Wish you a happy new editing year! Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 17:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saiō

No need to invite me to accept your edits, they are much appreciated! I was introduced to the story of the Saiō when invited to participate in the 2005 Saiō Matsuri, and was fortunate enough to receive a private tour of the museum from the curator, Emura-sensei. Meiwa Town has no real industry other than rice, but it is fiercely proud of the fact that it used to be an imperial residence, and the town Historical department has a small number of bi-lingual pamphlets on the subject (I'm currently working on translating another one for them). When I started digging into the story more, which is tied up in the whole Ise Shrine story, I noticed that, apart from the locally produced pamphlets and the information posted in the museum itself, there seems to be nothing anywhere on the Saiō. If not for this little town's work, it could have been a story that virtually disappeared to time. That's why I've been working to expand this whole area in Wikipedia. I created articles on the Saiō, on Yamatohime-no-mikoto, expanded the Ise Shrine article 5-fold, as well as numerous other areas that have branched out from this, including leads that have lead to Emperor Temmu and the establishment of the divine imperial line myth/belief. Talk about opening a can of worms!

But on saying all that, my focus is definitely only from one direction, the ancient view. I have little to no academic knowledge of the Heian Period or later times, so having you come in and add to those is a great help for the article. I've had another user add the list of Saiō, which has also helped (though there are many errors, Saiōs were daughters, nieces or even sisters of the emperor, where the list only lists daughters - I'll fix it soon ). I also have a group of 5 Heian images that depict the Saiō in junihitoe. Any advice that you may have to improve the article, please let me know. I think this is a fascinating aspect of Japanese history that is fairly unknown. As I said, thanks for your help! Ka-ru (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Heinrich Hertz

I'm sorry but I cannot help about it. The matter is the definition of the category ethnicity and the category religion, isn't it? It's a too big and too complicated issue for me to think what is most appropriate. In my humble opinion, unlike Kuki Shozo, religion influenced little on his work. I didn't know about how his religion and ethnicity influenced the relation with colleagues and other physicists though. That's what I thought. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joyfully Hertzian?

As it happens, I ony stumbled on this curious dispute by accident. Hertz was amongst the recipients of the Japanese Order of the Sacred Treasure-(singular) which had been mis-titled as Order of the Sacred Treasures-(plural). In the context of correcting that trivial error, I was simply double-checking the links for each of the honorees with Wikipedia articles. As I quickly scanned the articles' text and talk pages, I hoped to learn more about the decision-making process of the Japanese Decorations Bureau. This is perhaps more than you wanted to know; but there it is.

I approached this article with a mind-set focused on abstracting what I could about an opaque reasoning process, so my perspective was a bit skewed. I was attracted to the array of reasoning processes which were combined in this thread, and I rather expected to encounter more difficulty in breaking through with a structure-based resolution to a dispute which seemed more concerned with whether or not Hertz' ancestry were Jewish. In contacting you and others, I hoped to attract fair-minded allies; or alternately, I was on the look-out for a point-of-view I hadn't yet considered.

In that regard, I did succeed in a way. Your response was not anticipated; but I do hope you now understand that my thinking was at least thoughtful, if mis-guided. I apologize for any inconvenience ... but I guess you could say that I was just barking up the wrong tree. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Heinrich Hertz#jewish ancestry

I'm not sufficiently familiar with the issue to be of much help. Peter Horn 02:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese era

The best way probably is to convert the list into a table.
Second suggestion: move the English translations to the list of Japanese emperors. --Reklamedame (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese nengō (Chronology template)

There are other points of debate on the Regnal year and Era name pages that should probably be addressed before "my" little template is taken to task. I'm not proprietary about the template; this is Wikipedia. :) However, a solution presents itself; I've added Era name to the template. I leave it to you to fight for its exclusion from Regnal year! -- Yamara 02:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reposted from my talk)

I was wondering where that cycle was hiding. I've reconfigured the calendar section of the Chronology template, but emphasized the cycle's Chinese origin, as it will be more familiar to English speakers (i.e. "Chinese New Year" is better known than "Japanese New Year"); currently, the article does the same in its first sentence.

And I did not suspect you of taking me to task. I can sometimes be too tongue-in-cheek. Thank you for your kind praise.

Good luck with the historiography of these ancient methods. It's important to know not only how people counted the days, but when they began to count them in what fashion. Cheers, Yamara 14:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Emperor Kaika

Hello and thank you for your message. It is indeed quite a trivial issue, but I shall make clear regardless. Wikipedia:CITE#Footnotes puts it quite well; "It can be helpful when footnotes are used that a separate "References" section be maintained". I find that it often presents a more structured layout. Being such an inconsequential issue, you are, of course, free to revert my edits if you so wish. I hope this helps. Regards, Chris.B 20:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Thanks -- the result of this exchange will be that I modify my future edits to conform to Wikipedia:CITE#Footnotes. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help. :) Regards, Chris.B 20:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Emperors of Japan

Thank you. It is an exceptional list. I believe that it would be a good candidate for Featured List status, with only a little work on the lead. Geraldk (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Nihon Shoki...

My suggestion was simply to cite a source that states that "most scholars" dismiss the first several Emperors. Most of the sources I have seen (The Japan Encyclopedia, The Story of Japan, to a lesser extent Japan - A Short Cultural History), while somewhat cynical about the dates and even existence of many of the early Emperors, still adhere to the full canonical list starting with Emperor Jinmu, and so seem to disagree with this statement. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elvenscout742 -- Yours is a nuanced point of view, but it encompasses a subtle post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Given the current status of Wikipedia and of Nihon shoki, I admit that the informed points I might otherwise want to make are relatively unimportant. However, in a different context -- in a 1940 context, for example -- with much more at stake, the "conservative" point-of-view you would seem to espouse becomes significant, meaningful, worrisome. If you have an interest in the issues have become inextricably linked with any discussion about the legendary founding of the Japanese Imperial dynasty in 660 BC, I's suggest you consider the following:

National Foundation Day
Imperial Order of Meiji ... see diploma text: "2,589th year from the accession to the throne of Emperor Jimmu (1929)"

Brownlee, John S. (1997) Japanese historians and the national myths, 1600-1945: The Age of the Gods and Emperor Jimmu. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. ISBN 0-7748-0644-3 Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. ISBN 4-13-027031-1 ... Click here for limited preview of book's text -- engage book-specific search for "1940"
- See Brownlee's Chapter 11: "Eminent Historians in the 1930s:The Betrayal of Scientific History," pp. 131-179.
- See also Brownlee's Chapter 12: "The Commission of Inquiry into Historical Sites Related to Emperor Jimmu, 1940," pp. 180-185.
Brownlee, John S. (1991). Political Thought in Japanese Historical Writing: From Kojiki (712) to Tokushi Yoron (1712). Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfred Laurier University Press. ISBN 0-889-20997-9 ... Click here for limited preview of book's text

Historiographical Institute of the University of Tokyo

By all means, if you would prefer to substitute a different in-line citation for the one I have added, or if you would like to augment this section with other in-line citations, I'm happy to encourage you. In due course, perhaps we'll figure out a way to work together to move beyond a plausibly trivial dispute which can only remain unresolved for the time being.

I'm going to move this thread to Talk:Nihon Shoki--Ooperhoofd (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correia da Serra

Hello Ooperhoofd! First of all let me tell what a delight it is to see someone with such care and attention to original sources as you! Regarding your questions about Correia da Serra, there is no doubt whatsoever that, in the modern European Portuguese spelling (I believe since 1911), his name should be writen Correia. Notice, as in the document you linked to, that he did not write his name as Correa, but as Corrêa, with an ^ over the "e" (he also didn't wrote José, but Joseph, also an archaic Portuguese spelling). This is a huge difference in Portuguese. It implies, and always implied, that his surname was not the Spanish one, and that one should read it as Correia. The archaic spelling is still common in Brazil. Thus, and also given the fact that in French and in English Correia is generally rendered and read as Correa, his name started to be writen internationally as such, but never in Portuguese, where it is almost everytime writen Correia and only as Corrêa if someone intencionally wants to render the archaic spelling. Also, his name was not José Correia de Serra, but José Correia da Serra, I'm moving the article once again... Life is an unending struggle! Cheers. The Ogre (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WAN

Links to initials are not wrong in general however certain ones such as WAN link to pages which list multiple possible meanings rather than discussing a particular one. This type of page is discussed in detail at WP:Disambiguation. As general rule they should be linked to directly as they are used to help with searches. When I find these I try to change them to point to the specific article that applies assuming to context allows this to be determined. Your not only to do this most people don't think about this aspect of initials. I'll happy to check for any further such links on International Freedom of Expression Exchange#Members of IFEX. Phatom87 ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go-Momozono vs. Momozono, the second vs. Momozono II

konnichiwa Ooperhoofd,

I changed "Momozono, the second" because I remember a book that I used where the Go-emperors were listed with Roman numerals, thus "Momozono II". If there are books that refer to him as "Momozono, the second", then we can obviously leave both versions, I don't mind. The wording could be something like "Older books refer to him either as "Momozono, the second" or "Momozono II"." or something along those lines. sincerely Gryffindor 23:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Yes, of course. Yours is the obvious solution. Wny didn't I see it? Thanks. I'll make changes later today and tomorrow. Good working with you. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Domou, same here :-) I also just worked on Asuka, Yamato about imperial residences, if you have further information then please feel free to edit, it's always encouraged. Gryffindor 00:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for kashindan?

Ooperhoofd- I'm mulling over instituting a new sort of category set, and I was wondering what you'd think of it. As you've probably noticed, there are many articles for retainers of major Japanese clans here. Just by way of example, this list is interesting...so I was wondering, why not create categories for groups of retainers? For instance, tagging all the men on that list as "Category:Tokugawa retainers." Now mind you, there's an important distinction to be made, because after the establishment of the bakufu in 1603, "Tokugawa retainer" means hatamoto/gokenin at the lower levels, and fudai daimyo at the higher levels, so it'd be tricky...or perhaps if they're fudai daimyo, to start a "Category:Fudai daimyo" or something to that effect. With regards to the majority of Edo period retainers, perhaps tagging them as "Category:thus-and-such-han retainers" would be wise...tagging articles for men like Yamakawa Hiroshi, Saigō Tanomo and the like as "Category:Aizu retainers," tagging Saigo Takamori, Okubo Toshimichi et.al. as "Category:Kagoshima retainers," and so on. I suppose, to make a long story short, that it would go a long way to show more of the background such men came from...say, as far as the Satsuma men go, "Category:People from Kagoshima Prefecture" puts them with everyone post-1868, and while it's certainly not false (as they were born within the boundaries of what became Kagoshima Prefecture), these men were born into a different sociopolitical landscape, and it'd be nice to have some kind of category to indicate both their origin and the context of the original sociopolitical framework they fit into. At any rate, thanks for listening. Who knows where this will lead? -Tadakuni (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tadakuni -- By all means, yes. What you propose is inevitably going to be a multi-year project; and you will inevitably find that the problems which you're parsing now will fall by the wayside to a certain extent. After the first six months, the array of defining issues will include some -- but not all -- of the factors you now identify as relevant; and, of course, new factors will have become self-evident at that time.

If you view this as a task which you alone will struggle to accomplish, then the job seems too intimidating to me. So, my first suggestion is that you set aside any concerns whatsoever about finishing this in your lifetime. Try to ignore that entirely. Instead, focus initially on the ways in which the organization of Wikipedia can help you in the start-up process of refining the category sets ... and take it on yourself to be particularly alert to any unanticipated variations which occur because someone else doesn't see the process (or the problems) in the same way you do. This converts the exercise into a win-win venture. You have the benefit of an unrestricted team of go-go supporters, reflective colleagues, and plausibly constructive critics.

And, if I were you, I'd dare go a step further in the effort to create this win-win environment. I would specifically set out to identify how to go about dismantling any categorizing structure which does develop. As an intellectual exercise, why not assume the negative? As an exercise, why not construe this effort as doomed to failure a priori. In that context, you would probably want to clean up the "mess" your work will have created.

Obviously, I do not think this project is futile nor doomed -- no ... not at all. Rather, I'm thinking that the perspective you gain by attending to the practical steps which would be necessary to remove your work will somehow help the structure to appear more vividly in your mind's eye. I'm speculating that this would likely help you to develop a more fully-modulated, multi-perspective viewpoint.

I must tell you that, it seems to me, your approach here is scholarly. At a very modest level, you're hoping to introduce a very small parsing change in a complex system, and you want to pay attention to the ramifications of that small categorizing change. You're asking real questions, with real consequences, and you're prepared to put some real work into the effort. I'm persuaded that tenured university professors spend too much time despairing because of those graduate students who never seem to grasp the attraction of the not-quite obvious as you have done. I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone other than me were to tell you that this is exactly in tune with the contemporary thrust of Japanese historiography.

Good work -- yes. Whether you persist with this nor not, the fact of the matter is that original thinking isn't an everyday commodity. Thanks for brightening my afternoon with this interesting new idea. I'm turning it all over in my mind even as I'm tearing myself away from the computer so that I can head out for a dinner engagement ....

Category: Tokugawa retainer?
- Sub-category:Fudai daimyo?
- Sub-category:Hatamoto?

More later ... of course .... These are the initial, rambling, top-of-my head thoughts about your proposal. Perhaps I'll have more to say after I've had a change to mull it over a bit.--Ooperhoofd (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooperhoofd-- now Tenmei-- first of all, congratulations on the name change. Secondly, thank you for the feedback. I will need some time to mull this over myself, but I thought that if there was anyone I ought to share these thoughts with, it should be you. I can't help but wonder where this idea will go...but then again, that's the whole beauty of Wikipedia as an entity.

I like what you did with the following:

Category: Tokugawa retainer?
- Sub-category:Fudai daimyo?
- Sub-category:Hatamoto?

That's good for those categories; I suppose the other top-level category to institute might be Category: Tozama daimyo (as the category is indeed called on the Japanese Wikipedia). As for the shinpan, perhaps Category:Tokugawa clan is good enough, but as that category includes non-daimyo like the heads of the Gosankyō as well as women, perhaps a Category:Shinpan daimyo would be good? As far as domains go, perhaps an overarching Category:Feudal Japanese retainers (or something to that effect), and underneath, sub-categories listed by names of the han in question. I'm specifically thinking of domains like Satsuma, Chōshū, Tosa, Hizen, Aizu, and the like, which have many retainers (especially late Edo-era ones) listed, and as I said above, it would be nice to have the men in a category that groups them with other men of similar origin.

Well, at any rate, all things to carefully think about. I'm in no rush. Again, thanks, and I'll be in touch with you again sometime soon. -Tadakuni (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noinclude

RE: Template:Daijō-kan
Woohookitty -- I don't quite understand your recent edit to this template:

|}<_noinclude>[_[Category:"Politics of" templates|Japan|Daijō-kan]_]<_/noinclude>

I was the editor whose error you've corrected; and I would want to avoid making a similar mistake in future. When you have time, can you take a moment to explain briefly? [FYI: In case you wondered, I added the superflous "_" so the text of your edit would be readily seen here.] --Tenmei (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What adding noinclude does is that it stops the template's category from being added to every article in the category. Otherwise, by default, if you have a category such as Category:Navigational templates in a template, then every article the template appears on will be put into the Navigational templates category. Well obviously we don't want that since the template categories are for templates only. So before the categories in a template, you want to add <noinclude>on the left end and then </noinclude> at the left end. You can put it at the end of a whole group of categories if you have multiple categories in a template. Only caution is to make sure that you put everything on one line if need be. Otherwise, it might mess the template's appearance up.

Btw. Going through templates you will also see includeonly in brackets just like above. It's the exact opposite of noinclude. With includeonly, the category listed in the template is added to the articles that the template is on but NOT to the template itself. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 15:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. Thanks. I plan to share this exchange with User:Tadakuni, who may eventually decide to create one or more templates.

I wonder if templates might be helpful in the context of articles about Fudai hatamoto of the Tokugawa shogunate or about the flexible bureaucracy (the bugyō system) of the Heian through Edo periods of pre-modern Japan? This seems worth pondering. Maybe templates could be developed into a useful tool for parsing the sometimes obscure nature of pre-Meiji Japan. Perhaps the Template:Daijō-kan was only a tentative first step in plausibly constructive direction? --Tenmei (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. Templates are usually quite useful. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Osaka Castle External Links

if you'd like to discuss TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is speaking from personal preference and not so much WP:EL, although I think that may apply to some degree as well. I think the need to give something context in relation to other things, such as a harbor, is more suited to Wikitravel than to an encyclopedia. I think most readers would want to know about Subject X rather than Subject X's position in relation to Subject Y. I think it would be different if the relationship mattered, but I don't think the church or opera house's proximity to the harbor is relevant to the understanding of either item. Where I think it would matter, for example, is when the two are intricately tied, for example something in OsakaJo Koen in relation to the castle, or New York's Central Park's location within Manhattan. Does that make sense? Like I said, this is more personal preference but also looking at the guidelines which say: Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. I don't normally deal in images as a rule, like you I'm up to my eyeballs in other projects as well as grad work, but I dabble. Again I appreciate your input and discussion. You've explained well why you think they should be there and while I don't necessarily agree, I wouldn't remove them because you've made a good case. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll be pondering this for a while. Good working with you. You've provided food for thought. Ta everso. --Tenmei (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope I didn't break your brain :) I'll be thinking on it as well, maybe we'll end up revisiting this TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your courteous and detailed discussion of Emperor Jimmu. Any way you'd like the citations are OK with me. Thanks for the discussion. JaGa (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On FR: Wikipédia:Sondage/la représentation des noms en japonais

You are Ooperhoofd, right? On FR the fr:Wikipédia:Sondage/la représentation des noms en japonais has appeared. You may be interested in it. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm

I guess I'm not sure what you are getting at. Both of the things you described are navboxes. There really aren't any other terms for them. The reason why I changed the categories for the template in question is because all of the templates in the "Politics of" category are general templates that describe the politics of a nation. The Template:Daijō-kan template covers the politics of a specific history of a nation. I put the template in History navigational boxes since it's a historical template...and the Japanese navigational boxes cat because it's regarding Japan. I probably should've added the Politics and government navigational boxes category as well. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:...

Umm... thanks? I'm not entirely sure if you were making fun of me or what, but I'll assume good faith, especially considering you didn't revert me. elvenscout742 (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Osaka-jō

Deleting the picture is fine with me, though I balieve this one I just discovered is even better.

As an artwork, yes, of course it is a better composition. I especially like the reflection of the top of the central structure in the water. However, my preference remains with the one you've already posted because it presents the formidable walls and the expansive moat. I have the impression that the main reason that Osaka Castle fell to Tokugawa forces was because the moat was filled in; and in that context, the image already posted does illustrate that aspect of Osaka's history.

On the other hand, maybe my thinking is a bit too literal here. Maybe the evocative qualities of this new image will be more effective as the general reader learns from the article. Why don't you post this new one, while temporarily removing the other two which show the moat ... and let's see what feedback this edit engenders?

I've seen articles which have a gallery of photos at the bottom of the page, as for example: Tōdai-ji, Dutch East Indies Company. What do you think? Perhaps this is one of those cases where additional images would add to the overall value of this article. In any event, you should know that your contribution was successful in that it did inspire me to follow up an initial impression about that swell photo you posted. --Tenmei (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After taking into account what you have said, I think I agree with you that the other photo depicts the walls much better than this one. I also concur that a gallery at the bottom of the page would be a useful visual for someone reading the article and I suppose that we could try that, though I only recently became an editor on Wikipedia so I may require some assistance in executing this project. --Mmuroya (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The gallery was easy to create using copy-and-paste technique. This non-standard gallery format is innovative in that the images are grouped by subject; and it may not meet with general approval from other editors. We'll see ....

Now that I think about it: I'd like to give some thought to modifying the way in which other galleries seem to be presented. I think this appendix-like aspect of the article would be enhanced with a few sentences after each sub-heading; and if so, then a similar gallery at the bottom of the other articles on the other Japanese castles might be perceived as helpful?. For instance, what do you think of the tentative gallery appended to article about Himeji Castle? ... appended to article about Mount Fuji?

Explaining that photo in the "Moat and outer walls" section: The reasons for moving what we both see as the superior image to the gallery may seem a little backwards; but to my eye, the high quality of the other photographs made this choice seem better in that grouping context. The crispness of the photography is a little less stark in the one which remains above. In this placement, the image serves well enough to illustrate the width of the moat. In my view, the obvious redundancy seems more of a "plus" than a "minus" ...? What do you think?

These decisions are surely open to further editing by anyone and everyone. We'll see .... Maybe it makes sense to move our private exchange of views to Talk:Osaka Castle? --Tenmei (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew C Perry

Thanks for the heads up on that. Good eye! DBaba (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lifetime vs. defaultsort

I'd be happy to explain. Basically, {{lifetime}} does everything that {{defaultsort}} does plus more. In most articles about people there are categories for the year they were born and the year they died or [[category:Living people]] if they are still living. With {{lifetime}} there is no need to use separate categories for those things. You can do the same thing with parameters in the {{lifetime}} template. For example,

{{DEFAULTSORT:Lincoln, Abraham}}
[[Category:1809 births]]
[[Category:1865 deaths]]

can be replaced with

{{Lifetime|1809|1865|Lincoln, Abraham}}

And this

{{DEFAULTSORT:Clinton, Bill}}
[[Category:1946 births]]
[[Category:Living people]]

can be replaced with

{{Lifetime|1946||Clinton, Bill}}

because if the death year is left blank it assumes they are still alive. You can click here to find out more about the different options available. {{Lifetime}} should really be used for all articles on people even if the birth or death dates are unknown. {{defaultsort}} can still be used for other articles such as films

{{DEFAULTSORT:Godfather, The}}
[[Category:1972 films]]

I hope this helps. For An Angel (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

extra eyes

I am currently living in Shikoku, and have some French and Japanese. I noticed you've done some editing on Shikoku-related articles. I'm trying to learn more, myself. I have some French and Japanese, some Spanish, less German; I have done some editing of Wikis before, and added a few pages here (mostly on pre-midaeval Europe and Middle-Eastern poets)... If there's anything you would like an extra pair of eyes for, I would be happy to assist. Sjcarpediem (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guggenheim Museum

Hi Tenmai. Perhaps you can go ahead and fix it if you felt that what I did was not really the best choice? You may already know that trivia sections are against Wikipedia policy, see [2]. This trivia section in particular struck me as being pretty irrelevant to the article anyway; the listed items were not tied in in any way to anything significant about the museum. If you can take them all and integrate them in a productive way, or do something else creative or relevant with them, please feel free. Best to you, Invertzoo (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Trivia is disfavored, and while I understand and agree with this Wikipedia policy in other settings, I'm not quite prepared to jettison the list you've edited out. My reservations about my own rationale remain unaddressed as yet. When I attempt to articulate why not -- why not remove a mere trivia list -- I don't assess my own arguments as compelling. In such circumstances, I just have to wait for my thinking to mature -- or not. The main point I'm trying to clarify is that you were not wrong. Rather, I guess I'm thinking that a non-standard criteria-array needs to be applied in this unique setting.

Tentatively, words like "art" and "icon" seem relevant in terms of trying to explain why this article represents a unique exception to a general rule. I'm also persuaded that Frank Lloyd Wright would have considered each item on this bullet-listing as an accolade .... Enough for now. We'll see what happens next. Obviously, I'm not the only one with this museum/building on a watchlist; and I'm hoping that someone else will render the issues moot while my indecision plays itself out. There is nothing urgent here. The full list is retained in archived history; and it can be reintroduced. Sometimes it's best to let others take the lead, and this may be one of those instances. --Tenmei (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kamakura's Seven Mouths

Saw your note: thanks. It's a good idea, I will do something about it soon. Urashimataro (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Niel Stuart

Thankyou for your interest on this article, your input is appreciated. Please be careful however not to disrupt the text layout too much. This is a Featured Article and as a result it complies with WP:MOS. This means that the article should not contain any very short paragraphs such as you created in the Early Life and Post-War sections. I have changed these back to their previous configurations. The addition of the blue ensign is nice, but positioning it on the left of the page disrupts the text beneath it and so I have moved it back to the right. Finally, you have added "The Pacific fleet of the Canadian Pacific Railroad tended to hire its officers from the Royal Naval Reserves, and much was made of their long and faithful service to the company.[26]" to the article, but this does not add anything to the article because a) Stuart never served in the Pacific Fleet of the Canadian Pacific Railroad, he served in their Atlantic Fleet and b) he was not recruited by the Canadian Pacific Railroad, but instead joined a different company, Allan Line, which was taken over by the Canadian Pacific Line sometime later. Thus he was never recruited by Canadian Pacific and their recruitment policies have no bearing on his career. I have therefore also removed this text from the article. Again, thank you for your interest and if you have any comments or suggestions please add them to the article or let me know. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your feedback -- nice, very nice. This perhaps gives me an opportunity to pursue a few things a bit further ....

In terms of format, I always feel a bit unsure. My reason for moving the Blue Ensign to the left was motivated in part by an attempt to create a format link amongst the evolving series of articles about prominent Canadian Pacific captains, including Samuel Robinson, John Wallace Thomas, and Stuart. Your comments cause me to re-think that strategy. Would you qive a quick look at these other CP articles? Would you advise me to move the Ensign to the right?
And your comments cause me to ask you help me re-consider a couple of niggling points. In a context established by RMS Empress of Australia#Atlantic crossing and royal patronage in June 1927, your comments above make clear to me that I'd assumed without verification that Stuart joined the Empress in the Pacific prior to it's repositioning and re-fitting in 1926-1927 -- in short, I had perhaps misunderstood that Stuart was promoted to the rank of staff captain in the Pacific. There is no question that the majority of his career was spent in the Atlantic; but I did think that the sentence you've deleted was technically accurate. Only now do I recognize that I'd made an under-supported presumption. Plausibly, the promotion to staff captain may well have occurred post-refitting -- after the Empress had been modified for the colder climate affecting North Atlantic voyages. This causes me to wonder anew: Why do you say that Stuart never served in the Pacific? Is this one of those trivial points for which you do have a reference source? If so, I'd like to suggest that you add just one more in-line citation to this text.
In the same vein, it happens that CP's acquisition of the Allen Line in 1910 was kept deliberately fuzzy by Thomas George Shaughnessy and William Cornelius Van Horne so that the contracted Royal Mail subsidies for both steamship lines could continue to be collected; but there is no question that Allan Line was a wholly-owned CPR subsidiary after 1910. In short, Neil himself would not have disputed that he worked for CPR's steamship arm before and after the Great War. I make this point because of the subtle difference between the meanings of "recruit" as a noun and as a verb. As I understand it, the verb recruit would have applied equally well to anyone added to the list of CP ships' captains -- whether promoted from within or attracted from outside the company. The point I was trying to make is relevant -- that the special qualities which distinguished Stuart were unique, of course; but like special cachet associated with "Commander James Bond, RNR," there was a cachet in the company of peers Stuart joined when he was promoted to the CP captains list. Unfortunately, my well-meaning intention becomes irrelevant without a further source which explains that the conventions of the CP Pacific Fleet were replicated amongst the core officers of the Atlantic fleet.

In other words, your edit wasn't off-point, but your explanation for why I was wrong didn't go far enough. I only realized my broader error when I read your note.

So, my bottom-line inquiry becomes this: Can you identify another source -- something other than Tate's Transpacific Steam: The Story of Steam Navigation from the Pacific Coast of North America to the Far East and the Antipodes, 1867-1941 -- which describes a CP policy of filling the captains list with RNR men? If you have no answer today, fine. What I'm hoping is that you'll keep this in the back of your mind so that you'll be ready to follow through whenever you do stumble across something in 2009? 2010? 2011? etc. Do you see my point? --Tenmei (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your point and I appreciate the level of detail into which you have gone on this. Just to clarify, I was not disputing that CP deliberately recruited RNR officers to their fleet, this sounds eminently plausible and I am sure it is accurate. Neither was I questioning the reliability of your source which I am sure is acceptable. My problem was initially with the information's placement, which I felt disrupted the narrative flow of the article. On a closer reading however I realised that the information as written did not seem to relate to Stuart. To break down my objection, Whilst I think it unlikely that CP differentiated in their recruitment policy between Atlantic and Pacific fleets, Stuart's service was predominantly on Atlantic vessels and thus it does not seem likely that he was recruited specifically into their Pacific Fleet. I admit, I interpreted the term "recruit" differently to you and this too formed part of my objection. I will experiment with reinserting the information in a way that I feel flows better with the text, take a look and see what you think. Regarding the flag, my problem was by no means with its presence in the article or even its appeareance on the left. It was simply where it was situated in the article that I found disrupted the text (mainly due to the USS Cassin image just above it). I will move it to the left slightly lower down and see if this has a positive effect. Give me a little while to make these changes (I have to go offline for a minute) and then let me know what you think. Many thanks for your input.

Jackyd101 -- No, no. You've no cause to re-edit. Let me re-state: What interested me was the extent to which my serial mistakes here were a little bit more complicated than what you'd identified. I really only sought to engage your attention in a minor point which may come to have relevance in the future, not today. I was merely sharing my thoughts, not expressing an objection nor anything remotely intended as critical of anything except my own work. The article on Ronald Neil Stuart is just fine the way it is. It's excellent, in fact .... No question about it. --Tenmei (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well thankyou very much, I appreciate that. Actually, although there were some stylistic problems with your edits I thought the information you raised was interesting and that article has definately benefitted from you attention. If you have anything else to add let me know and I'll help integrate it into the article effectively. Nice to meet you.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese era name

Hi Tenmei, thanks for the comment. The reason I protected it was because it was receiving a high level of concentrated vandalism over the few days before protection. However the page is now unprotected (and has been since the 23rd I believe), but the "lock" symbol was still there. A bot should remove those, but yeah, it's now unprotected. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 07:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impoverishment

Hi, Tenmei. Thanks for the comment, and thanks even more for calling yourself a collaborator of mine. Best. urashimataro (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FRS

Hi, thanks for your message. In the Picture caption was a link to FRS, which is a disambiguation page (it lists lots of subjects which could all be abbreviated to FRS). I changed to link to Fellow of the Royal Society, so that readers who click on the link go straight to the right article. I hope this makes sense - and I certainly wasn't criticizing the article in any way, just trying to help readers. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tenmei, yes, that's it exactly! You can learn more about dablinks at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. Lots of acronyms and initialisms shew up as blue links, but link to disambiguation pages. Fixing them is one of my little hobbies on Wikipedia :) Best, DuncanHill (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One easy way of checking links is to use "navigation pop-ups". You can get these by clicking on "my preferences" at the top of the page, then on "gadgets", and then checking the box marked "navigation pop-ups". With pop-ups, when you point the mouse at a link, a little preview of the linked page shews up on your screen, without having to click - I find it saves a me lot of time when checking that I have linked something correctly. DuncanHill (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. I've made the change you've suggested. It may take me a while to get used to it, but I can see how this will help avoid dablink mistakes. I appreciate your follow-up. --Tenmei (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK - and if there's anything else I can help with then please do ask :) DuncanHill (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Coalinga, California earthquake

In view of this post, please feel free to chime in at Talk:Coalinga, California earthquake on the name of the artilce. Bebestbe (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USS General S. D. Sturgis

The responses, in order, are:

Per MOS:IMAGES, it is best to have no hard-coded images so as to allow users who do have a preference—due to screen size, device limitations, etc.—to change it globally. The exception that I observe is for a picture in a ship infobox. The box is designed for images up to 300px in width and the coding for the template is such that an image size must be specified.
In regard to the caption: Wikipedia is designed for the readers. Editorial notes such as the one I commented out (it is still in there to be seen if someone were to edit the page) are more appropriate on the article's talk page.
The purpose of an image in the infobox is to illustrate the subject in question. An image of a wave, however expertly or artistically photographed, would not illustrate the ship in question. Furthermore, it's generally frowned upon to have images that do not illustrate the subject and serve only as decoration. The consensus among WP:SHIPS editors is that the No Photo Available.svg image is acceptable for use in an infobox to help encourage readers and editors to look for photos of the ship in question. It worked in your case, right? After all you found the image in the article…
At the time I created the USS General S. D. Sturgis (AP-137) article, the ship infobox did not have a location for miscellaneous identification information as it does now. As I now see it (and I was not aware of the 'no decoration' preference), the box takes up a lot of space for not a whole lot of information. I cannot speak for others, but I feel that if it were brought up, a consensus of WP:SHIPS editors would prefer the call sign to be listed in the infobox, if listed at all.

— Bellhalla (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. Yes, I see. Thanks. I will bear this in mind in future. --Tenmei (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

31-star US flag

Jacobolus -- As you know, Wikipedia's wealth of images includes a graphic you created showing the American flag with 31 stars.

As it happens, I found your work posted on the article about Matthew C. Perry. Curiously, it turns out that in 1853-1854 when Perry led the Far East squadron into Tokyo Bay, his flag was configured in a unique design, markedly unlike any other American flag flying anywhere else in that period. For further details, please consider what is posted here. You'll note that the in-line citation is linked to a Honolulu Star-Bulletin article. If you click on that link, you'll discover a photo showing that a replica of Perry's unique flag has been mounted on the veranda deck of the USS Missouri, now docked at Pearl Harbor.

I wonder if you might be persuaded to modify your work to create a "new" flag which is configured in this non-standard manner? Off hand, I can think of a number of articles in which posting your "new" flag would be a plausible enhancement.

I've located a relevant photograph in the National Archives. The Perry flag is clearly visible in the background of a photograph showing the Supreme Allied Commander speaking at the ceremonial signing of the instrument of surrender. --Tenmei (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. See also here. I don’t have the time to make any more svg flags at the moment, but you should feel free to. —jacobolus (t) 18:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tsurugaoka Hachiman-gū

Hi, Tenmei. Some days ago we were talking about [Tsurugaoka Hachiman-gū before the Shinbutsu bunri. I found by accident a site that includes two excellent and high resolution prints of the jungu-ji in Edo times, plus some photos of the demolished temples within the compound taken by one of the Beato (it's unclear which). You might find them interesting too. Take care. --urashimataro (talk) 04:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flawed reasoning

Fuji-san -- ukiyo-e by Hiroshige.

Tenmei, in response to your comment, I too would like to keep a source like that but Buskahegian added the same citation to John Perry (engineer), Josiah Conder (architect), Henry Dyer, and Edward S. Morse, all without adding any other information to the pages. Since the publication is fairly recent and those other pages only mentioned Japan in passing (no earthquakes mentioned), this seemed like a promotion. I did explain this in the edit summary. Whether the contributor is directly associated with the author is beyond me. I hope that Buskahegian will return to the pages with additional information and then read the citation. He did however add a citation to John Milne when he added the reference. Granted, he provided no new information to the page, but he at least made some sort of in-article notation of why the source is included. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and let the chage stay. I won't revert your revert, but take into consideration my reasoning. Ando228 (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ando228 -- Your broader viewpoint explains very clearly what was happening here. I'm glad that I took the time to comment, because your feedback helps me understand what you were doing and why.

As a constructive gesture, I thought the least I could do would be to try to find something in the online version of this book -- something which could be added to 1923 Great Kanto earthquake; but it was a tedious exercise and I had limited time. I'm happy to admit that your points have merit .... I'll get back to this later.

Maybe we can agree on one thing: This is one of those times when I've learned something worthwhile because of mistaken assumptions. I tried to add what seemed to have been as simple as 2+2 ..., but I was tripped up because my focus was too narrow. Sometimes we all find ourselves learning things the hard way. It happens to me all the time. The more interesting example of "flawed reasoning" in this case was my own. --Tenmei (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

34th_G8_summit#Notable_statistics

天明さん、Talk:34th_G8_summit#Notable_statisticsに英語に話しましょう、下さい。 Boud (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G8 articles

hello there Tenmei,

I see you have been doing quite a bit of work on the G8 summit articles. Please note that Wikinews and Wikimedia Commons normally go under "External links", while "See also" is normally reserved for articles within Wikipedia. Also if the venue such as "Windsor Hotel Toya" is already mentioned in the opening, it is not necessary to list it again at the bottom. The "See also" part is used for articles that did not have room to be mentioned in the main body, or for further leading information. Also I have put back the infobox you have removed. If you have an issue with the box in general, I suggest you better put it up for deletion or discussion, instead of just removing it without explanation. sincerely Gryffindor 22:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC) ps: Please also in future try to use the "Show preview" function instead of saving every little edit [3], it makes work easier for other users. I know it's more convenient to use and I am not always the best myself, but if you are doing various edits on the same article within a relative short span, it's really better to use the preview function. Don't forget to describe under "Edit Summary" what exactly it is you have been doing.[reply]

Gryffindor-- I'm having a little bit of difficulty in pulling my thoughts together, but I didn't want to delay any longer in simply responding very briefly. Yes -- in general -- I do think the infoboxes are a very good idea for this specific 30+ set of articles; but until more of the logos are uploaded to commons, I'd tend to think that it made more sense to position a series of tired, dull "family photo" images in that prominent position -- not that these group pictures are better, but rather that the 30+ group photos from the serial summits are probably easier to deal with as a first step towards populating the array will relevant images ...? More tomorrow or the next day. --Tenmei (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FootNotes

The short explanation is WP:Foot, section 1.2 Setting a Ref so it can be used more than once. If a ref tag is named more than once <ref name = "SourceName"> Source</ref> followed by <ref name = "SourceName"> Source </ref> or <ref name = "SourceName"> See Above </ref> only the first instance will be used by the reflist. All others are ignored. As is your structure is not a problem, however if a user reorders the paragrahs such that <ref name = "SourceName"> See Above </ref> is the first instance then only the text 'See Above' will apear in the reflist and thats not very discriptive of the source. The best soultion is to use <ref name = "SourceName"/> (note the /) for all subsequent refrences. The long version <ref name = "SourceName"> Source</ref> need only appear once in the article (usually the first instance, but it doesn't really matter). This solution also makes the wiki-text shorter and more readable if the ref contains a long cite tag. As far as re-editing is concerned, don;t worry I'm on the case. --AdultSwim (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd seen this formatting style in others' work; but I simply didn't put 2+2 together by asking a quick question. --Tenmei (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. Real issues are a welcome distraction from the Gotcha bounty hunters. --AdultSwim (talk) 04:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, [4] [5] Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 13:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post-nominals

CFAO 18-4 -- Recommendations for Canadian Orders, Decorations and Military Honours

a, b, c, d. Bravery Decorations -- decorations, details of which are contained in 18-15, Canadian Bravery Decorations, to recognize courageous acts in all situations not in the presence of an armed enemy. -- OD&M of Canada -- OD&M of Canada
e. Meritorious Service Decorations -- decorations, details of which are contained in 18-12, Meritorious Service Decorations, to recognize the performance of a military deed or military activity in an outstandingly professional manner of such a rare, high standard that it brings considerable benefit to or reflects great credit on the Canadian Forces (CF).
f. Mentions in Dispatches -- awards, details of which are contained in 18-27, Mention in Dispatches, to recognize a mention in dispatches from a senior commander for brave or meritorious service, normally in the field.
g. Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) Commendation -- a CF commendation, details of which are contained in 18-17, Chief of the Defence Staff Commendation, to recognize a deed or activity above and beyond the demands of normal duty.
h. The CF Medallion for Distinguished Service -- an award from the CF, details of which are contained in 18-25, Canadian Forces Medallion for Distinguished Service, that recognizes service rendered to or in conjunction with the CF by an individual who is not an active member of the CF and that exceeds the expectations of the person's responsibilities.

Thanks for clearing up those unanswered questions. This subject was something I wondered about, but I didn't have an opportunity to ask someone who might know more -- or, more correctly, I didn't look very hard. So, in appreciation, I'm posting the Canadian FIN CS link to the appropriate pages, beginning with Orders, decorations, and medals of Canada. In future, I'll know where to look in Wikipedia. FYI -- The striken text above is just to help me keep track of what I'm doing.--Tenmei (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to know

Since you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Earthquakes, you may wish to know about this. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 18:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Glasperlenspiel: Huh? --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 20:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had not previously encountered [[User:Editorofthewiki|Editorofthewiki], and when I scanned your user page, my first-blush response was Glsperlenspiel -- aha. I hadn't construed the Wikipedia projects in that manner, and the focus of your attention came as a delightful surprise.

Just now I interpret "Huh?" to mean a question -- as in why did you leave a message on my talk page?

Please, think no more about it. It was only a whim. The allusion was complimentary, but too obscure. This does happen from time to time -- too often, but there you have it. -- Tenmei (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ribbons

I see you are interested in ribbons and medals. You may be interested in the discussion currently in progress at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Australian military history task force‎#Ribbons. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL

I'm merely putting the idea out there - I now intend to sit back and let people see if they like the idea, without edit-warring to keep it in. I do not want to ignore consensus, merely test it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vaucluse?

I'm not far from it, about 250m along and 50m on the left from the point in the picture--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you ask?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J. R. Wasson

Thanks for your comments and improvement of the punitive expedition article. It's obviously a notable military concept and consdiering how many articles refer to it, it surprises me that there wasn't an article sooner. Edward321 (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Image:DeGuignes_Pekin_livres.jpg

Copied message from the copyright talk page to make sure you see it:

Wait, wait, wait... These books are old, but someone took the photograph. The photo in this case is of several three dimensional objects, so such a photo would include new artistic decisions on placement, angle and lighting... is this photo taken by the uploader? If so, he owns the copyright and can release it through GNU or whatever. If the photo is by someone else, that person owns the copyright. DreamGuy (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me on my talk page how to delete this... The fastest way, I think, would be to add the speedy delete template:

{{del|Nominated for deletion by the uploader - copyright on photograph owned by someone else}}

or however you want to phrase that. Normally there's a deletion process that can take a while, but if the uploader him- or herself tags it an admin will usually just yank it. DreamGuy (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comments

Please read my comments, there is a change Caspian blue will remove them. here. Thank you. --118.16.163.13 (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

could you help with Edo Castle?

hi there, do you think you could help improve this article with content Edo Castle? thank you. Gryffindor 17:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best Wishes

I hope that your mentorship arrangement works out well. I think you have a lot to contribute to Wikipedia, if you can learn how to work with other editors a bit better. You should always assume good faith and keep your temper. I tend to propose a lot of articles for deletion and participate in AFD discussions; sometimes other editors become very angry with me. I try not to get angry myself - it serves no point, it would merely hurt the cause that I am advocating for. If another editor gets out of line, usually an admin will warn them or block them. Best of luck! Brianyoumans (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minamoto no Sanetomo's murderer

Hi, Tenmei. I have read Minamoto no Sanetomo's article and saw that you changed Sanetomo's murderer's name from Kugyō to Kokio. Are you sure Murray is right? Every single source I consulted, in Japanese and English, gives the name as Kugyō, and not Kokio, and that's what I used in the Tsurugaoka Hachiman-gu's article. The date of the event also does not correspond to the one I found in other sources. which again agree. I am not a specialist when it comes to dating Japanese historical events, and know it's tricky business, so I don't want to press this last point to hard, but I think we should solve these glaring inconsistencies one way or the other between the two articles. urashimataro (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--See response at Talk: Minamoto no Sanetomo#Assassination#Romanization of name and specific date of event. --Tenmei (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the current version of the article and I would say the problems have been solved. For the time being. Better no info that having info that may be wrong. As I mentioned in my comments, there are also conflicts regarding HOW he was killed, with an arrow or with a sword. Arrows sound for practical reasons more likely, but one never knows. The best way would be to read the Azuma Kagami, but I can't read it. It's too difficult for me. Thanks and bye. urashimataro (talk) 08:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Ouissam Alaouite

I'm not going to lie to you I typed the name Order of Ouissam Alaouite on yahoo and went to 3ed site: http://www.emering.com/medals/french/morocco.html. Also latter I found that the List of awards and honors of Wesley Clark also has a like to his own web page showing the Order of Ouissam Alaouite, in the picture you can see the medal's ribbon. Since I have never seen a ribbon that doesn't match the ribbon on the medal, I assume that how it would look? --EHDI5YS (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your research method shows initiative and logical thinking -- using the known data set to infer that which is not otherwise specified. I should have done the same thing myself; and frankly, I can't imagine why I didn't?

Now that I think about it, the fact is that I thought that the subject was too esoteric for Google. Thanks very much for your response. Not only did you provide a constructive suggestion, you caused me to stop and think ... and to laugh a bit at an unanticipated, self-imposed barrier which shouldn't have been perceived an obstacle. --Tenmei (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nisei

Dooitashimashite! I see you've put a lot of effort into the "-sei" pages; keep up the good work! —Ulmanor (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tenmei, for the MOFA citation on the Mexican immigrants. LordAmeth (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More about dates

Hi, Tenmei, and thanks for the feedback. I have a couple of things I would like to discuss with you, because I know you are interested in dating issues, and know a lot about them. You probably know already all I will say, but I am sure you won't mind reading it anyway.

I have been translating the text of 83 steles erected all over Kamakura in historical places (see this site for the original Japanese) for a future article and had noticed that event dates tended to change with the source, but couldn't figure out why. Now I think that at the root of the problem is the fact that in modern Japanese Gregorian dates and traditional Japanese dates months and days have the same name even though they do NOT mean the same thing. For example, in this stele元弘三年五月二十一日 easily becomes 1333年5月21日 but, alas, as you know very well the first 五二十一日 and the second are not equivalent. So now you have a hybrid date with a Gregorian year and a lunar day and month. And the error is impossible to detect unless you check the Nengō with NengoCalc. When you translate the thing into English, then, all trace of the confusion disappears and you are left with a date that is completely wrong. I find it interesting that 91 years ago in 1917, when the stele was erected, this error was already that common to appear in a monument (and in at least several of the steles too). In any case, this is why I said in the forum that I believe we should always use the original Nengō to compute the Gregorian date. So this explains part of our parked note.

There is a scholarly discrepancy in the specific date of the assassination -- on the 26th day of the 1st month of the 1st year of Jōkyū (Tuesday, February 12, 1219) according to Titsingh, p. 235; Murray, p. 504; Brinkley, Frank. (1915). A History of the Japanese People from the Earliest Times to the End of the Meiji Era, p. 339; Ponsonby-Fane, Richard. (1962). Sovereign and Subject, p. 140. Alternately, Sanetomo's death is recorded as January 27, 1219 according to Mass, Jeffrey P. (1995). Court and Bakufu in Japan: Essays in Kamakura History, p. 157; Kamiya, Michinori (2008). Fukaku Aruku - Kamakura Shiseki Sansaku. Vol. 1, pp. 17-23; Mutsu, Iso (2006). Kamakura: Fact and Legend, p. 103. Japanese Wikipedia identifies Sanetomo's death as February 13, 1219.

Part, because we are still left with another discrepancy. Why should there be a 24-hour difference between two dates (Feb. 12 and 13)? Have you got any idea? I believe it's not a simple mistake. I think it's systematic, because I found it already several times in different places. Could it be that some include the day in which an era change and some don't? I would like to figure this out, even though, after my decision to recompute on my own all dates, it's no longer all that important.

Also, do you know if there's a template dealing with Japanese Nengō? Thanks.

urashimataro (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Replied at the RfA. Asenine 11:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question followup

I am confused - the question is indeed based upon a hypothetical situation. What are you asking the candidates for? Asenine 16:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your support and your voice in the discussion of List of Chinese exonyms for places in Japan! --Atitarev (talk) 06:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: NIMS in wider context

Dear Tenmei, your message is deep, and I will first reply superficially and then will start thinking about it (yes,

most people do reverse).

Regarding the importance of the List of Independent Administrative Institutions (Japan) and List of National Laboratories

(Japan), most of the listed organizations are certainly important domestically and many internationally. Many of them have japanese wiki pages, but no english pages simply because of lack of english writers, attention or time. Wikipedia still needs to establish itself as important source of information, and I hope we can help this.

Regarding terminology, one must understand that the English proficiency in Japan is still low, that many people use web-robots or word-by-word lookup for translations, and that the Japanese language is often difficult to translate into English adequately. Thus many unusual terms are simply blunders, once given by officials and then hard to change. "National laboratory" and "National institute" both refer to significant organizations (here "laboratory" is by no means a couple of rooms). I can't tell you right away why this title difference (I can ask if you need), but I guess it originates from subtleties in correponding japanese titles - in Japan, orgnizations are thorougly distinguished by, e.g., their source of financing (which ministry group, etc.).

Finally, I absolutely agree that quality of NIMS (and many other) wikipedia articles must be improved. I appreciate your encouragement, and especially look forward to more specific suggestions. At the moment, my editing of wikipedia is rather sporadic, in a way of patching any holes I encounter by chance. Best regards. NIMSoffice (talk) 07:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: List of Chinese exonyms for places in Japan

If you would like the source code of the page, I can send it to you for working on. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afd are typically only left open for five days; the time period of that AfD had expired, ergo why I closed. What I mean by source code is that if you want to draft a reformed article in userspace, I can copy the information from the deleted article and give it to you. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied over the source to User:David Fuchs/scratch. Distributing the page history isn't feasible as there's no way to do that without restoring the article. As to your questions:

It's recommended, but not required.
As long as you aren't canvassing, you are allowed to notify wikiprojects/related contribtors
If you have such concerns, bring it up at WT:AFD. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the page histories I suggest contacting User:Noveltyghost and User:Koavf, as well as WP:CHINA and WP:JAPAN. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your follow-up. --Tenmei (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Richard Alton Graham

The two categories you included are not actual categories (they were red instead of blue to indicate this). You had "American feminist", which should be either of two existing categories: "American feminist writers" or "American feminists". "Cornell alumni" is also not a category and should instead be "Cornell University alumni". This distinguishes from alumni of Cornell College, an entirely different institution. I hope that helps answer your question. Cornell2010 (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September Newsletter

The September version of the WikiProject Earthquakes newsletter has been posted! Be sure to check it out! — Ceran thor [Formerly LordSunday] 14:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RfA Support/Oppose?

I've responded to the RfA in light of your comment. Essentially, like I've outlined there, I was foolish and I apologise. While the sarcastic use of "oppose" in the support section was intended to make a point, it made me seem entirely dismissive of the opposition arguments, which was not my intention. Many thanks for the heads-up. haz (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And speaking of the RfA in question (mine own!) --Tenmei, I TOTALLY failed to see your followup q to 11 til seriously JUST NOW. (At work, even. Jeez.) So I apologize for the extreme delay, for one thing--and for another, I plan to draft an answer tonight as soon as the groceries are put away. Because frankly? That's a heck of a good question. :) Gladys J Cortez 21:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All is for the best, in this, the best of all possible worlds

One of the advantages of not having many supporters at your RFA is that there are fewer people to thank at the end. Thanks for your support and your willingness to look at my complete record. I'm going to try to interpret this resounding defeat as a statement that I should choose my words more carefully in the future, and remember that every statement I make gets recorded forever, just waiting to get carefully transcribed onto my next RFA. I would go insane if I believed that it was repudiation of what I truly meant: that no editor should consciously and willfully ignore guidelines and policies, and editors that repeatedly do so should not be rewarded for or supported in doing so.

I'm sure I'll get back to full speed editing soon, because, after all, , every day, and in every way, I am getting better and better.—Kww(talk) 05:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Preferred

Regarding the Jack Weil infobox:

Automatic formatting is better because I don't see a reason to force onto two lines what might easily fit onto one. If any formatting needs applied there to handle the wrapping, it should be a nowrap-type of tag.
It's arguable that yes, USA could be removed from the infobox, since that's readily obtainable in context of the article. However, that's a matter separate from the edit I looked at.

—C.Fred (talk) 02:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: An unanticipated compliment

Wow, thanks! Glad to be useful. TheMolecularMan (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from NIMSoffice

Dear Tenmei, first of all, thank you indeed for correcting my rushing writing style and for your useful comments, some of which I might have missed simply because they were hard to find on my talk page. Many thanks to TheMolecularMan too.

Regarding the Scientific Jargon, please see my comment in discussion of that page. It was written on a user talk page and was hard to find back now.
Regarding the referencing, please see my talk page. Best regards.NIMSoffice (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my ignorance, I still don't know how is it better to reply - on my talk page, which keeps your comment, or on yours (which might give you the "new message" notice). Regarding the referencing style, I haven't developed my wikipedia style yet. That is why the difference in blue highlighting you mentioned. I don't see any important point in what to highlight because in a journal reference, the article title, journal volume/page numbers and doi are united. Yes, titles might be duplicated, but this is very rare. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I also wrote on my talk page my position regarding adding "free download". Regarding UserA1, I have replied to his edits of my references and he stopped the discussion, instead providing me with useful tips over Wikipedia reference operators :-) I think he understood my citing free-download sources as a blunt attempt to popularize my publications (which in reality are not mine), and that he strongly opposes self-promotion on Wikipedia. Whereas, my purpose, as I mentioned, is to point attention to high-quality free resources on the web. Regards.NIMSoffice (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Niel Stuart

Hi, you changed one of the citations in this article today. I understand why you changed it, but now it looks different from all the other citations. Can you please either convert all the citations to the new system or change the single one back.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Burzagli's document in Japanese

Hi. We found another document in the Burzagli's archive written in Japanese. Could you help us with translation or do you know somebody that can do it? Here the link: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Japaw.jpg. Thank you for your marvellous job anyway--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi man, I think this document will be interesting for you [6]. As you can see is an official police report. It says that after an official investigation the authorities come to the conclusion that the death of the Admiral was caused by the violences he suffered by fascist authorities.--giorgiomonteforti (talk) 12:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquakes Newsletter

Be sure to check out the October version of the WikiProject Earthquakes Newsletter for updates and news. Thanks, — Ceranthor (Sing) 23:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

Very good :D EyeSerene^talk 19:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese Jamaican

You can see the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D2M (2nd nomination). I stand by my assessment of AfD consensus to delete. But if you wish, feel free to bring a deletion review, just let me know if you do. I have temporarily userfied the page and talkpage to your userspace at User:Tenmei/Japanese Jamaican. - let me know when you are done with your research or whatever you plan to do with that material so I can delete that page and talk page again soon. Cirt (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The issues involved in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D2M (2nd nomination) have nothing to do with me ... but I am a little troubled by this:

I stand by my assessment of AfD consensus to delete. But if you wish, feel free to bring a deletion review, just let me know if you do.

If this comment has to do with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese Jamaican, please trouble yourself no further. Please delete the temporary page at your earliest convenience. --Tenmei (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will delete the user subpages, but please refer to them if/when you use that material in an actual article in namespace, so the chain of GFDL is preserved. Cirt (talk) 07:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to "Serial vandalism pattern"

No problem. I've come to sort of specialize in those vandalism-on-top-of-vandalism situations. And this was far from the worst. Now, regarding your questions:

1. No, I don't think posting to WP:AIV is the way to go to get help with this. WP:AIV is mostly for asking administrators to block vandals who do it repeatedly. (I'm not an administrator. I just occasionally look at WP:AIV looking for something I can/should do something about.) I'm not sure where you should post. Maybe WP:EAR would be the appropriate place, although it seems to get filled with a lot of "why did my edit get reverted/deleted" questions. Sorry I don't know the answer to this one.
2. Yeah, warning vandals is encouraged. Not sure I can say very convincingly, for myself, why we do it. But the first paragraph to WP:WARN gives a little bit of rationale. When it comes to posting to WP:AIV, to get a vandal blocked, that's one of the things the admins check for -- whether they were warned, and whether they continued vandalising after being warned (usually multiple times). Generally, if the vandal wasn't warned, or wasn't sufficiently warned, the admin won't block them, just (maybe) issue a warning. But mileage may vary -- it's largely at the admin's discretion, whether to block or not. Usually I fix the vandalism, then warn the vandal (or post to WP:AIV if it got that far) unless the vandalism is old or the user's already been warned by somebody else after the vandalism was done.

-- Why Not A Duck 02:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, there seems to be a great deal of variability, too. Some admins seem more tolerant than others, but maybe it's in the nature of the vandalism, the amount of traffic the page gets, whether its a bio, & other factors I don't know about. (It does seem bio pages get better protection/tougher action, but that could be anecdotal.) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 14:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortescue

Both of those are a matter of personal preference more than guideline. Unless somebody's well known by a 3-part name (Sarah Michelle Gellar comes to mind), I default to not using it, in preference to an initial or nothing at all. On dates for lifetimes, if there's a link, I remove it, 'cause that'll be in the linked article. All I can say is, suit yourself, 'cause if somebody dislikes it, it's gonna get reverted. ;D TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 14:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good questions on naming conventions

This is a bit of a muddle -- I admit that I was thinking only of making Needham's opening paragraph a bit simpler, and it didn't seem quite right to say that he was "mainly known as" or "known in China" as, since his Chinese name was used all over the world when referring to him in Chinese.

The article Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people) isn't much of a help, either.

So my interim suggestion would be to follow one convention for all, whether they are Chinese, Japanese, or not. It seems tidier to put the Chinese or Japanese characters at the head, as part of the person's name rather than trying to decide where to tuck it in and make the reader search for it. Another example is Pearl Buck. On the other hand articles for a number of people who had widely used Chinese names do not supply them, e.g. Edgar Snow.

So I think we should follow your suggestion to think about it for a while and find more examples of good uses of one convention or another. ch (talk) 06:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your instincts are exactly on-point; and this is one of those instances in which extraordinary care needs to be invested. I've tentatively modified the first paragraph using Sir Ernest Mason Satow as a model. Like Needham, this British ambassador was accorded British honours which occasioned the addition of post-nominals. I would have thought that Americans like Fairbank, Buck and Snow present an inadequate model in this specific context.

I agree wholeheartedly with the central point you make -- that it's better to put the Chinese or Japanese characters at the head, as part of the person's name rather than trying to decide where to tuck it in and make the reader search for it. Perhaps the best resolution here would be for me to defer to your well informed judgment? --Tenmei (talk) 07:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very useful discussion -- probably we can follow the "one convention for all" guideline in most cases, but be sensitive to individual needs. In any case, thanks for bringing this up and for your thoughtful discussion. ch (talk) 08:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysanthemum Throne

I still believe the "Rhetorical usage" section is overkill for using mainspace to rebut the pretty-blatant fallacy that it can only refer to a chair, but the edits you've made certainly make it worthy of inclusion. Could we compromise on putting it below "History" at least, if not also condensing it? arimareiji (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning for Yonsei (fourth-generation Nikkei)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Yonsei (fourth-generation Nikkei). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Edit warring over the likely deleted or merged article is not worthy, so I let the article with your POV pushing. Your personal attacks to HongQiGong and me along with your dishonest edits are being recorded to the history. Good luck!--Caspian blue 18:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re:Nikkei

Hi, Tenmei. I didn't even look in again at that AfD... um... "discussion", but since this absurdly inappropriate deletion nomination was closed as "No consensus", I assume the anti-Japan noise machine made its mark. Either that, or the closing Admin just counted !votes, and ignored the overwhelming evidence of notability presented at the article and in the discussion...

When these Chinese and Korean editors whose parents are too young to remember WWII are even more anti-Japan than their grandparents (I lived in Korea and spoke to many of that generation, my wife is Korean), we can do them the favor of assuming they are motivated by blind, stupid, ignorant nationalism. But this current attack on Japanese-American articles-- the people, and their descendants who helped free their countries from Imperial Japan-- can only be motivated by blatant racism. Needless to say, this should not be tolerated at a project that purports to be an encyclopedia.

About your conflict with Caspian, and the AfD which resulted. It is very disappointing to me. I considered him a friend and ally in the Korea-related articles. He has been good in fighting Japan-POV trolls/vandals, etc. I have noticed his increasingly irrational and extreme behavior in the context of Japan-related articles, but I thought he was just a little excitable, and would come to his senses eventually. But this AfD and his behavior at it indicate to me that he has become a loose canon and a potential detriment to all articles with any relation at all to Japan unless they show that country, its culture, its people, or even descendants of its people in an obviously negative light. At the AfD, when the yonsei generation was shown to be, without a doubt, completely notable-- the subject of many books, studies, articles, as well as, despite his original claim, in wide use in English-- I actually thought he would admit his mistake and change his position. Instead, he let his personal and national animosity stand in the way of good judgment. He stood by his position (implying that my own "Keep" !vote was biased because I "liked" Japan), and he called in HongQiGong, long-time, notorious, virulently anti-Japan edit-warrior. This showed me, conclusively, that Caspian's intent in this AfD was not for the good of the encyclopedia, only to delete this article by any means possible. And I know perfectly well that the Korean whose Japan-hatred is extreme enough to bash sushi restaurants out of national "pride" on Hangul nal (bashing nikkeijin articles at Wikipedia might be a near-vitual equivalent) is the same one who will shout yang-gongju at my wife and me on the streets of Seoul. So he can consider our editing-friendship to be finished.

I don't know what your specific conflicts are with him, and I'm not really interested. What little I see looks irrational and absurd-- A disambiguation question which leads to edit-war and the AfD of a highly notable subject... squabbling over "Hawai'ian" Japanese and "U.S." Japanese... I have no idea what that is all about... but it seems to be noise to distract from constructive, positive work, at best, and possibly the products of a mind warped by hatred.

About HongQiGong's "interest" in the nikkeijin articles, consider this: He was able to put in the effort to gather enough sourcing for one, single book on Japanese atrocities to get it up to GA status. (Won't he be proud when it's on the mainpage? at one point he tried to detail each war crime against China in the main article on Japan...). In contrast, from the Nisei article, he wiped out up such things as-- 'Maj. Gen. Charles Willoughby, intelligence chief of staff for Gen. Douglas MacArthur, said, "The nisei saved countless allied lives and shortened the war by two years."' ...After all, something like this is OH! so difficult to source! (Unless one takes the pains to paste it into the Google search screen.) The amount of effort expended on the two articles seems quite telling.

So what do we do? I was raised very close with a very nice nisei family, Japanese culture, etc., and married into a very nice Korean family. Like most people who have connections on both sides of the body of water which separates Korea and Japan (I doubt the edit-warriors have settled on what to call it yet) I just want to avoid the irrational hatred that comes from both sides. I will not be fighting the POV-pushers either pro- or anti-Japan. Dealing with these people warps one's view of life and people. (St. George become the dragon?) I'd like to think that this is what happened to Caspian-- I'd like to think his original intent was good, but the POV-nutcases eventually lured him over to their side (their "side" not being the same nation, but the same mindset)...

In real life it is easy enough to spot these people and avoid them. In real life I've got friends and family on both sides of the water-- name it and be labled a "~ -nationalist"-- who get along perfectly fine... But at Wikipedia, do we just ignore them? Just sit by and let the POV-warriors, both Japanese and non-Japanese (most of whose English skills are questionable at best)-- slug it out over these articles, and in the process invalidate any article on such subjects-- even the non-controversial ones-- that English Wikipedia can make?

The Japan project seems to want to avoid this 500-pound gorilla-- apparently for fear of the inevitable "Japanese nationalist" accusation that will be lobbed at anyone who disagrees with the Japan-bashers... Ah, but they've got some fine anime, manga, and railroad station articles... And I guess I'll retreat back into my own refuge from the nationalists. Porn and cartoons-- Sure, they're subjects of ridicule here, but apparently this is the only type of article Wikipedia can do right... (Feel free to copy any of this to any forum where it may do some good-- I won't be pursuing the matter, as I have no stomach for this sort of thing.) Dekkappai (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmu

Thankyou for your thoughtful remarks regarding my edit to Jimmu.

Before I edited, the passage read 'Jimmu is regarded by historians as a "legendary emperor" because of the paucity of information about him, which does not necessarily imply that no such person ever existed. Rather, scholars can only lament that, at this time, there is insufficient material available for further verification and study.'

I was uncomfortable with this version for one or two reasons. Firstly, while 'no information' does not mean 'didn't exist', it certainly can't be taken as evidence that he did exist. It does not imply that he didn't exist, but it is even less an of an implication that he did exist.

The tone of this passage struck me as hopeful that, if we just wait a while, it is likely that we will be able to verify that he existed. Or even that historians do, or should, want Jimmu to have existed.

I had never heard of Jimmu before reading the article, was just doing my normal browsing, and noted a sentence which struck me as mildly OR. I am happy to defer to your obviously greater knowledge of the subject. However, I would submit that the status of the first Japanese emporers is similar to the Kings of Rome: there is an even chance that they existed or didn't exist. BillMasen (talk) 11:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC message

I removed your RfC from Severance Hospital both because it was malformed and because it belongs on the talk page, not the main page where every user will see it. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by pasting the same message that's already on that talk page and at WP:ANI on my talk page, so I've removed that. If you want to leave me an actual message, feel free. Oren0 (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the problem with the RfC you put up was that you put in on the article itself instead of the talk page. You seem to have that rectified now though at Talk:Severance_Hospital#RfC:_Are_three_templates_legitimate_or_simple_trolling.3F. Oren0 (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tags on Severance Hospital

Hi. I removed the tags you placed on Severance Hospital.

From what I understand the facts that you object to is the name "Yonsei Severance Hospital" but that name is not used on the current version of the page.

Since tags in article space is intended for readers rather than editors they should reflect the current state of the article.

If the name is readded might I suggest use of an inline tag such as *one* of {{Verify source}}, {{Failed verification}} or {{Request quotation}}. Which helps readers and editors to immediately identify what the problem is. Taemyr (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another unnecessary problem helped by a simple suggestion and with practical consequences. Thanks. It would have been better if I could have reached towards this possibility on my own initiative, but that will come in due course, I suppose. --Tenmei (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SS Kaiserin Auguste Victoria

I just added a citation to this article. An anon changed the numbers in the table. Could you tell me where you got your numbers from when you first entered them? (MacGyverMagic too lazy to log in) - 131.211.211.229 (talk) 08:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

=

Excerpts

Hi Tenmei, as far as your questions... I agree with you that in many cases excerpts from poems do enhance the article. I liked the way the poems were used in the articles you pointed out to me. I thought they made powerful statements and I thoroughly enjoyed reading them. Thank you - Epousesquecido (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the excerpts that you provided Epousesquecido, and I agree that they can be very helpful in encyclopedic articles. However excepts make me eager for more; I want the entire source, and then commentary about the source! ;-)

Thank you very much for putting together User_talk:Jayvdb#The essence of judgment. I will reflect on it through the year to come, as I have reflected on A long ago "Resignation" over the last six months.

Also, I replied on my talk page suggesting how this can be put onto the Japanese and English Wikisource. Let me know if I can be of assistance with this.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very thoughtful

Tenmei, your kind gesture in leaving such a thoughtful work with our electees has been noticed... thank you. ++Lar: t/c 21:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the wikicode, we can discuss later the merits

I added the wikicode, we can discuss later the merits, I have to go for all you can eat sushi now. Back in an hour or two. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The quote function is excellent. It allows you to see if the text actually matches up with what as used in the article. I sometimes read an entire New York Times article, and am still not sure what part verifies the text in Wikipedia. It also allows you to refind the article if the url stops working. You just plug the quote back into Google and it refinds the article. Perfect for Associated Press and Reuters articles that tend to get deleted from websites after two weeks so they don't have to keep paying the press agency to use them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining. I need to think about this a bit more. For the articles I'm likely to create, the central issue remains unresolved -- whether the quote function will be perceived as excellent (as you and I construe its utility) or whether it will inspire WP:TL;DR, etc.? Now that you've opened my eyes to this option, I'm intrigued by the potential consequences. Maybe it won't gain acceptance amongst the editors who follow my work most closely, but I'm inclined to experiment with this. --Tenmei (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If your quotations is long enough that a TL;DR response is possible then copyvio is a much more serious concern. Taemyr (talk) 08:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other great thing about using the quote function is when the article use as the source is broken into very short pages like Rolling Stone and Crime Library. They do that so a new ad show with each click to a new page. I was just searching for the word "Haifa" in a Rolling Stone article and had to click through every page and do a control-F at each page. If I had the full text string, I could have just started the search in Google and it would have taken me to the correct page right away. Some source articles are broken into 20 or 30 pages so they can serve 20-30 new ads. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

winter

File:Kenrokuen 006.jpg

Kenroku-en in winter.

Thanks your autumn picture. I give you in return winter picture. -- Bukubku (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tenmei/Yōzei

Hi. I have deleted your subpage User:Tenmei/Yōzei under speedy deletion criterion G12 because it is composed completely of four New York Times articles. Please note that Wikipedia's copyright policy applies even in userspace and you should not host copyright violations in your user space. Thank you. --B (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B -- You have deleted a user page without warning. What reason had I to know that this was even a remote possibility?

Please restore the removed text so that I can profit from the error you have now brought to my attention. If I don't understand, then your action was both pointless as well as intrusive.

I do not perceive this as either appropriate or laudatory; but since I don't understand well enough to be more specific, it is difficult to know how to express my dismay. --Tenmei (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear, based on the following text copied from your userpage, you have identified a niche in which you hope to improve Wikipedia:

One of the worst policy decisions Wikipedia has made is to allow user and user talk edits to be indexed by search engines. (Note that even though they can be blocked from Google with , mirrors can still pick them up.) This creates space that is largely unmonitored for libel and nonsense, but is nonetheless a top g-hit for any relevant search term. [emphasis added]

The whatever-it-was which led to you to do whatever it is you're doing is opaque. The policy which informs your edit is similarly opaque. In my view, you now have an obligation to explain and to mitigate the awkward consequences which now ensue.

One thing should be clear: I have been heedlessly unsettled by your actions. Two questions are now implied:

1. How many others have been caught up in your novel tactic?
2. Am I the first, or only one in a strategy of edits which could have been handled differently?

These questions are not merely rhetorical, but substantial. --Tenmei (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm ... yeah. Your subpage contained word-for-word copies of four New York Times articles. That is copyrighted material and not appropriate to use here. Deleting copyright violations is not awkward, novel, or anything else. --B (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's kinda rude to do it without first warning him though. Theresa Knott | token threats 17:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

This response is unhelpful, uncooperative, unwelcome -- heedless. Not good.

You have argued that that your edit was informed by speedy deletion criterion G12; but I would have thought you might have considered an arguable conflict in terms of speedy deletion criterion G2.

A more considerate response would have been to restore what has been rendered unknown; and then to tag it immediately with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion as was specifically suggested at the link you did provide.

Bluntly, your crisp reply was wrong. The failure to reply constructively was wrong. At best, it turns this into an illustrative example of an administrator using tools inelegantly. Your words lack nuance ... which is particularly frustrating when, as I've already explained, I need to refresh my memory about what you've now placed beyond my ability to review.

Again, but with greater urgency, two questions are now implied:

1. How many others have been caught up in your novel tactic?
2. Am I the first, or only one of many confronting a strategy of edits which could have been handled differently?

These questions are not merely rhetorical, but substantial. I now feel compelled to add a third corollary question:

3. How many others have responded as I have done -- with an invitation to hang-on, wait-a-minute, let's-talk-about-this, etc. ... AND am I the first, or only one of many confronting a strategy of stonewalling which should have been handled differently?

PROPOSAL: I would suggest that you restore the sub-page and tag it for deletion. This will serve two purposes: (1) it will begin a process which can vindicate part of a potentially useful strategy/tactic which does need to be tweaked a little bit; and (2) it will enable me to discover whatever it is that's going on here ....

You fail to exercise good judgment when you appear not to understand that, without more, others are simply unable to mitigate future conduct. You demonstrate bad judgment when you appear unwilling to explain what is not understood.

It appears that you've focused on being the best sandbox monitor you can be? No -- that can't be correct? If memory serves, I think I've previously encountered an administrator who, in real life, actually does have experience monitoring sandboxes as a teacher of young children. Perhaps we might invite her to help us move forward more effectively?

In my view, you should consider re-thinking your reluctance to explain. --Tenmei (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone is seriously out of order. If you want my help you need to think about how you are talking to B. Although I agree that it wouldn't have hurt to warn you first the fact remains that B is correct in that you cannot copy paste whole articles from a newspaper into a user subpage.Theresa Knott | token threats 18:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ASIDE: See inquiries posted at

It seems to be that the issue could be pretty easily dealt with by putting links to the NYT articles in that sandbox rather than the text itself. Would that be reasonable? Theresa Knott | token threats 17:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tenmei, I'm confused on what you are asking for. If you want the text of the deleted page emailed to you for your own reference, I or any other admin can do that - you need to enable email on your user preferences first, though. Restoring the page and allowing it to go through MFD is a pointless process - the whole idea of speedy deletions is that any page meeting one of the criteria found here is to be deleted immediately by any administrator that sees it. I was not "monitoring" your sandbox page. Rather, I routinely search Wikipedia for "Virginia Tech University" and your page was one of the results. "Virginia Tech University" is an improper name for Virginia Tech that is sometimes used in error. No place by that name exists. The school is named Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and is informally known as Virginia Tech. Unfortunately, because there are other schools that are actually named "Statename Tech University", eg, Texas Tech University, people incorrectly assume that we have that name too. Your page showed up in the search results. I saw that it was a copyright violation. I deleted it. This isn't unusual. This isn't a "novel tactic". If you want to know how many other copyright violations I have deleted, you are welcome to look at my deletion log. I have been an administrator for 2 years, though, and I couldn't begin to guess how many copyright violations I have deleted in that time. As for #2, no, you are not the first user to ever have a user page deleted. As for #3, there is nothing to discuss - blatant copyright violations get deleted instantly. There is nothing to "warn" you about as there is nothing you can do to make the page acceptable to keep. --B (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death in the family

Perhaps this thread can lie fallow for a while. --Tenmei (talk)

Right I'm ready

Sorry not to reply earlier, I wasn't feeling up to it. With regard to your asking my help could you please email me (theresaknott@gmail.com) and tell me plainly what your were trying to say. Then I can advise you on how to say it clearly but politely. Theresa Knott | token threats 15:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inner Asia during the Tang dynasty

Extended content

Please stop your revert wars with your tag team composed of genuineMongol, G Purvoj and you. You know nothing about the subject matter and have contributed nothing and have reverted sourced, verifiable material without explanation. That is usually called vandalism and violative of WP:CONSENSUS.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tag team -- no. Who's kidding who?

NO. Anything further belongs on the article talk page. Accordingly, I am removing this from my talk page; and instead, I am copying in to the relevant talk page where all may see. --Tenmei (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude. Tenmei. What are you doing? What exactly is the content dispute over? I see a mile-long rant on the talk page for Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty, but little from your end on which specific sentences are "poison". Granted, I am not familiar with every battle in the Tang Dynasty, but if you are going to mention WP:V over and over, then why don't you do just that: verify! Do you have access to scholarly sources? If you doubt anything in that book which Teeninvestor is citing from, then what is stopping you from finding a flurry of sources which could contradict him? If there is a consensus from other scholars that what Li Bo and Zheng Yin are saying is false, then there is either a serious bias problem with that source, or Teeninvestor is twisting their words or misrepresenting material. I doubt either is the case, but you can't prove anything until you bring something to the table, which you have not. All's you've made so far are accusations. It's a little unbecoming, I have to say, considering Wikipedia:Assume good faith.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tenmei, please edit something you have knowledge of and do not disrupt wikipedia by deleting SOURCED, ACCURATE Material and replacing it with nothing. You have done nothing but disrupt the article, and even engaging in vandalism, just like your attempt to "merge" this article with salting the earth.Teeninvestor (talk) 11:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tenmei, you are out of control. This article is a dispute about the sources and all other editors(besides heavily biased ones like G Puverdoj and GenuineMongol) have all decided against you. That settles it. Plus the fact you have yet to provide or verify your sources whatsoever, and you have no knowledge fot his subject.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please provide a link to your "mediation".Teeninvestor (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Arilang1234 put it, be an editor, not an old guy suffering from dementia nagging endlessly.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi, I think the problem is just that there is one vandal/troll IP and one guy who thinks he knows it all but still needs to grow up a bit. Of course he needs to understand other wikis are not a source and that "some magazine article" does not have much weight, on the other hand I don't really think you can reject his sources just because they are in another language or not easily available (I have used a lot of such sources before, though usually not in any disputes) as long as you don't point out your specific objections. In an ideal world, such articles would be looked upon by experts rather than a bunch of dilettantes, but unfortunately wp is not so far yet (if it ever will), so I think your four-step plan is a bit unrealistic. Esp. no. 1 and 2.

So I think the more fruitful approach, even if it fails to address underlying flaws, might be to just point out the specific problems with the article. And to not feed the trolls. Regards, Yaan (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

" Of course he needs to understand other wikis are not a source and that "some magazine article" does not have much weight"??? When have I used magazine articles and wikis as sources? check my articles on my userpage; the completed ones are extremely well sourced."In an ideal world, such articles would be looked upon by experts rather than a bunch of dilettantes, but unfortunately wp is not so far yet (if it ever will), so I think your four-step plan is a bit unrealistic. Esp. no. 1 and 2." Considering you guys haven't provided a single source, I'm tempted to file for wikiquette.

"dilettantes"

How many featured articles have you written? How many good articles have you written?? How many articles have you written?? and doesn't that violate WP:CIVIL.

Teeninvestor (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess someone else's talk page is not a good place to argue with you, and I have better stuff to do anyway, but:

in the "Tang and Inner Asia" discussion, my impression is that you have insisted that wikimedia commons is a reliable source for maps, and used "it's been mentioned many times in history articles" as an argument.
if you think you need data for a pissing contest, details about my contributions can be found here.
if you feel unfairly targeted by my labelling of the wp community as "a bunch of dilletantes", I am very sorry. Really.

Regards, Yaan (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a hold of yourself

Nobody agrees with you and you have yet to provide a single source and admitted you have no knowledge on the subject. Both me, Pericles, and Arilang1234 have expressed this opinion, and on this subject matter, I think you should a) get a hold of yourself b)Stop editing that article until you have a source. Mediation is time consuming, and right now I need my time for economic history of China.

In addition, you can't get mediation until you had something else, like a third opinion. In this case, I contacted Arilang and PericlesOfAthens and they have assessed it to your disadvantage. Take a hold of yourself, as well as a source before you talk. Teeninvestor (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of wikipedia's dispute resolution process

Your obstinacy and so far your refusal to provide a single source or error, and your obstinacy, have wasted both mine and other editors' precious time. I hope you are happy that because of your work, many articles have not been worked on/or finished, and thousands of bytes of memory have been wasted. You going to extremes to impose your POV amazes me; nevertheless I believe truth will triumph in the end. If you didn't read, ArbCom does not decide content disputes, so I doubt your case will succeed.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not POV

NO -- rhetorical gambits are rendered ineffective in the context these diffs explain. --Tenmei (talk) 01:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're simply abusing wikipedia's dispute resolution process

No other editor agrees with you. You have yet to provide a single source. And worse of all, THIS IS A CONTENT DISPUTE, and ARBCOM doesn't hear this. I trust ArbCom won't listen to this, so you can calm down and have a cup of tea, and rethink your disruption of other editors' activity. Let's see how many tricks you can pull out of the hat once this is decided.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

ありがとうございました。また話しましょう。普通は日本語を自分で映画を見たり、小説を読んだり学びますが、今年は大学に日本語を勉強します。　でも、まだ上手じゃありません。Anatoli (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryukyu "subordination"

Hello,

Regarding your kind words on my talk page, I still don't know if I really picked the right word, but an online thesaurus did help somewhat. ;) Cheers! --Ph0kin (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"who" tag

Regarding the "who" tag on Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, the article says, "some considered the appointment was not an enormous success". Well, who considered that it was not an enormous success? We will need names and a reference. For more information on the tag, see Template:Who. StAnselm (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 14:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it strange that in your response, you did not respond to any of my diffs and resorted to complex, vextatious arguments that no one can understand. Also, keep in mind the limit is 1000 words...Teeninvestor (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your evidence is too long

Limit: 1000 words Your statement: 3000 words. You're way off the limit! what do you not understand about that?Teeninvestor (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opperhoofden in Japan

Hallo, thx for your support. I was forced to leave these two out, because of the colomnwidth. It just did not work well with the pictures and extra text inside the colomn. I dont believe the spelling of some names of opperhoofden is right. Where does this list come from? Taksen (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G8 Summits

In my view it is OR and un-attributed to any individuals or group of individuals. I also think it is incredibly unsightly to have + on a separate line all of its own. I think that The individual members countries should be in the list of members and the EU should be grouped with the other international organisations, that is because it does not take part in all areas of the discussions, namely the political discussions. In my view only member countries which take part in all areas of the talks should be listed in the permanent G8 members section. the rest are just invitees, no matter how long standing or accepted that they will turn up is.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ Titsingh, Isaac. (1834). Annales des empereurs du japon, pp. 420-421.

[1] Titsingh, Isaac. (1834). Annales des empereurs du japon, pp. 420-421.

[1]

@@ Line 929: / Line 929: @@
 ==Opperhoofden in Japan==
 Hallo, thx for your support. I was forced to leave these two out, because of the colomnwidth. It just did not work well with the pictures and extra text inside the colomn. I dont believe the spelling of some names of opperhoofden is right. Where does this list come from? [[User:Taksen|Taksen]] ([[User talk:Taksen|talk]]) 20:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
+== G8 Summits ==
+In my view it is [[WP:OR|OR]] and un-attributed to any individuals or group of individuals. I also think it is incredibly unsightly to have + on a separate line all of its own. I think that The individual members countries should be in the list of members and the EU should be grouped with the other international organisations, that is because it does not take part in all areas of the discussions, namely the political discussions. In my view only member countries which take part in all areas of the talks should be listed in the permanent G8 members section. the rest are just invitees, no matter how long standing or accepted that they will turn up is.--[[User:Lucy-marie|Lucy-marie]] ([[User talk:Lucy-marie|talk]]) 23:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)