User talk:Oda Mari

New NToJ

Hi! You informed me a while ago about new National Treasures to be designated in 2010. I've been monitoring the news items at the Agency for Cultural Affairs, but did not see anything. Do you know if they've already been officially designated? bamse (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I don't think they've already been officially designated. Looking at this pdf, they are still in the state of recommendation. And this exhibition in May didn't say they were designated. I have no idea how often bunkacho designates national treasures and other bunkazai. I'll ask bunkacho on Monday. Oda Mari (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I am a bit confused: why were they exhibited in a "new national treasure exhibition", if they are still in a state of recommendation? This page with data as of June 1 2010 still has the old statistics (i.e. before any 2010 designations). Let's see what bunkacho says. Thank you for taking the trouble to call them. As for the frequency of designations, in the 21st century they designated between one and five national treasures per year. According to Mantokun, there are quarterly council meetings where they discuss additions to the list of national treasures (see this discussion). bamse (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

They are not officially designated yet. The date of the official designation is when it appears on the Official Gazette. Bunkacho told me those recommended treasures would be on the gazette at the end of June or early next month and then Bunkacho would update their sites as soon as possible. This is the gazette page on the web and this is the free search for major pronouncements within 30 days. Bunkacho also told me the designation is irregular and recommended treasures have never been refused to designate so far. Oda Mari (talk) 05:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! If I understand correctly, being a recommended treasure means that they are at the stage of "report" or "report of investigation" in this diagram (page 2 bottom)? bamse (talk) 09:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Right. I'm sorry I didn't check English pages and pdfs. I didn't think using just the word "report" could convey the meaning of the stage, a J to E dictionary says 答申書 is "report" in en though. Oda Mari (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Whaling in Japan article

Hey, I noticed you placed a citation after the claim I edited. Thank you for doing that. I have one minor concern though: do you think citing The Institute of Cetacean Research's website is acceptable? It's hard to quote that as proof that they have indeed halted when the ICR is accused by some (namely the government of Australia and numerous scientists) of enabling commercial whaling to continue. Its state sponsorship by the government of Japan in addition to the millions of dollars it receives in government subsidies creates a conflict of interest I think. Is there any other source (preferably a neutral one with no incentive to lie) that can be sourced?

In fact, here is a recent news article (a biased one I admit, but the subject is more important than the way it's written) that shows the exact conflict of interest and accusations of corruption that make the ICR, as a source, suspect at best. I just wanted to run that by you to see what your thoughts are. Thanks Wikipediarules2221 02:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi! IMHO, ICR is an acceptable source at present. Because the corruption is not yet proved at court. As far as I know, the Kyodo Senpaku whaling fleet is the only one fleet which hunts whales in the Antarctic Ocean and IWC accepts it as scientific research. I understand whether it is scientific or commercial is a controversial subject. But if the government of Australia and numerous scientists have objection, they should go to IWC. Regarding the proof that Japan have halted commercial whaling, the ref. who hunts whales in the Antarctic Ocean and the North West Pacific Ocean except Kyodo Senpaku is needed. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Link

If you don't want to clean up, just don't. It will be done eventually. On the other hand, if someone added useful information, then it is not recommended that one delete it. You are free to improve it if you wish but deleting it would not be good thing. 06:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You have a Japanese name but then you may not have grew up in Japan. Shiri nugui is not same as cleaning up mess. It means "wiping someone's asses". Please be civil in wikipedia.

If you believe that shiri is not a vulgar word, then I would accept that your use of language was not intentional. However, Shiri is a vulgar word　（卑・俗語） as can be seen from this[1]. If you meant "bottom", then you should have said お尻。However, there is no such phrase as お尻ぬぐい. 「後始末」would have been a better choice of the words. Japanese are sometimes quite subtle so if you are not a native speaker you will miss out on nuance.

As of footnoting, I'm not that good at wiki code. If wiki code is simple one like or Vapour (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC) or [], I can sort of deal with it but I am not that great with "ref" or various tags. I tend to mess it up so I still stick to the basic one. When people occasionally sent me message asking to use "ref" I usually apologise politely because I do appreciate you or other people correct my English or coding. But then your attitude was not necessary in my view. If your attitude start to prevail in wikipedia, people whose English or coding is not up to your standard would not feel welcomed here. Would it be o.k. to say "don't be anal"? ;) Vapour (talk) 05:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I have cited English/Japanese dictionary which show that shiri, without polite form 0-shiri, is a vulgar word in usage. In Japanese, words used in neutral manner are sometimes seen as too direct and upfront. Anyway, there is no need for you to make a case for a finer point of bottom/ass or to prove your Japanese skills by writing in Japanese. Since neither of us are Japanese linguist, I consider this discussion to be pointless and essentially over. As I said, if you did not mean to cause offence, that is all you had to say. By going on and on about this, you sound irritated. It really does not matter what shiri means. What matter is what you intended.

Also, in regard to "wiki coding", please assume good faith of the other wikipedians. Yes, I have been editing wikipedia for few years, but when I started it, things were simple and good. There was no "ref". I'm not really an IT type of a guy. And I, for example, still haven't learned how to use tag properly. I honestly cannot use anything other than which is not at all different from []. Once in a while, some people offered to help and I manage to do it with some difficulty. I basically have to copy someone else's reference and then replace it with mine but sometimes that doesn't work well. Also it is just too time consuming because I have to find a reference which is exactly the same with my ref. Also, I found that when I use bear minimum "ref" the citation stay bear minimu but if I use [], sometimes, someone actually do a proper citation with author, quote, link, etc, which is pretty much beyond me. So it is my experience that the end result is better with []. And I'm usually apologetic about my lack of wiki skills but I do not appreciate if someone have a go at it. And lastly, you seemed to be annoyed that you have to write a line of code in "ref". For that, you ended up writing quite a lot. That does not quite make sense. Vapour (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

RefDesk on JP Wikipedia

Hello Mari,

I have recently been looking for the RefDesk on the JP Wikipedia, and just can't find it. Would you be able to show me a link to it? Cheers. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi 影虎! The ja RefDesk is here, but the page is different from here. Questions must be only relating to ja Wikipedia articles and general questions are not allowed. I have no idea what you want to do at ja Wikipedia, but this page might be helpful. Sometimes en editors use the page. Happy editing! Oda Mari (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Raid at Cabanatuan

Thank you for providing that link, I have added it to the ELs in the article. I have also sent an e-mail to the site's administrators to see if they can possibly assist in any research. I would appreciate any further information you can find if you are able. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks again. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Four-character idiom

Hello. I see that you have reverted my edit on Four-character idiom, and I wish briefly to talk about the edit. Korea has a dictionary chock full of four-character idioms that are often used in Korea that can be seen on this page [2]. I do not see any reason for removing the Korean name if Korea also uses four-character idioms (故事成語) , seeing as Japan enforces four-character (四字熟語) and China enforces a more lenient structure on idioms (成语). Therefore, I'd like to revert your edit on Four-character idiom. If not replied within three days, then I will revert the last edit. Thank you, and happy editing! 67.166.219.90 (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I understand that there are a lot of four-character idioms in Korean language. But that page is a disambiguation page and we don't have the "gosaseongeo" article. I checked the linked hanja article, but there was no mention about the idioms. There should be needed a directly linked article page if you want to add an entry to a disambiguation page. That is the reason I reverted your edit. Why don't you create the "gosaseongeo" article, then restore the edit? Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: your message

Thanks for clearing things up. TEK (talk • e-mail) 21:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'v notice you focus on Korean and Japanese historical linkage; These books may help

Hong Wontack (1994). Paekchae of Korea and the origin of Yamato Japan. Seoul Kadura International

Covell, Jon Etta Hastings Carter; Covell, Alan Carter (1986-12-01). Korean Impact on Japanese Culture: Japan's Hidden History (2001 ed.). Elizabeth, New Jersey, U.S.A.: Hollym International Corporation

There are also many research articles regarding Japanese sculptures/archetiture/pottery links to Korea and the Japanese language being associated with ancient Korean language.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080428-ancient-tomb.html http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A05E0D91139E733A25754C0A9619C946097D6CF

It would be very difficult to study Japanese culture and ancient history without mentioning Korea, I know that seems to be the goal of some editors and it makes the articles seem odd. Currently there is a book in the works by professors at Stanford and Seoul Univ focusing on tracing Japanese culture and it's timeline to Korea. We will see how that goes. But I hope these books help, since you are very focused on Korean links to Japan. --165.214.4.21 (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, your restore was inappropriate. Clicking the ref.11 brings you to the Kofun period. As for Jon Covell, her book was not a RS. It was already pointed out here by another editor. Be sure to see this too. Yes, she is a joke. If you think she was correct, please show me other references which support her claim. I have read the linked pages you provided above, but both of them do not support her. So please do not restore the dubious information again. It would be thought as vandalism. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 04:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete my references

It is a published book still used in universities, if you do not agree with what is stated please put in published books that universities use which state such things. Until then I will revert to the reference material. Why are you trying so hard to disconnect the flow of China to Korea to Japan. You seem to skip Korea and go from China to Japan. I do not know if this is intentional, if it is that would be vandalism on your part. please provide references that are published and used in universities before you delete, because you found sites that have opinions against it. --70.173.188.181 (talk) 06:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)