User talk:Bukubku

Welcome!

Hello, Bukubku, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Caspian blue (talk) 13:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, Caspian blue. You are the first person on my page. And you gave me helpful message. Thank you! --Bukubku (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love your userpage!

Sorry, I was getting tired of all those discussions where Japan is vilified in articles. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Chris. I understand this message is one of cheer. Thank you.--Bukubku (talk) 03:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A plausibly calming thought?

The seasonal colors of autumn leaves -- perennially expected, but always a bit of a surprise ....

Caspian blue explains here: "One thing about myself, I really don't like "orange color"[1] which is the complementary color to blue."

Are you familiar with the Latin phrase, Caveat lector -- perennially expected, but always a bit of a surprise? --Tenmei (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

Hi. I got your message on the article. I will look over it when I have time; it will probably be sometime this weekend. It's a pretty contentious topic but I'll do what I can. Konamaiki (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Don't worry about it, it's not a really painful topic. I'm not the nationalistic type so it won't be a problem. What might be a problem is time -- right now I'm super busy because I'm applying for graduate schools. But if I have some free time somewhere I will take a look at it.Konamaiki (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-11-06 Woo Jang-choon Here's hoping it helps your dispute. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 01:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MedCab

Hi. A MedCab case has been opened here, regarding Woo Jang-choon. You have been named as a participant. Please visit the case page and indicate whether or not you will participate. Thank you. [roux » x] 23:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I invite no action or comment; but I wonder if it might be worthwhile for you to examine what I have posted as a "comment" at User talk:Tznkai#Note on the topic bans (Caspain Blue and Sennen goroshi)? Plausibly useful? --Tenmei (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kenroku-en

This colorful *Berberidaceae* shrub which grows next to this *Onin* War marker in Kyoto is understood to have been scientifically categorized by Carl Peter Thunberg (1743-1828), a Swedish naturalist.

Bukubku -- I believe that the common Nandina in the center foreground of your Kenroku-en winter photo at the left is the same plant as can be seen growing next to the Onin War marker pictured at the right.

It is curious that Kenroku-en was named by Matsudaira Sadanobu, who confronted many unanticipated challenges during his lifetime. I wonder if re-considering the classical dichotomies of Chinese and Japanese landscape architecture will help me in a process of re-examining my impressions of this quintessential bakufu bureaucrat? I wonder if a similar approach might assist you in re-evaluating how to participate more effectively in in Wikipedia?

If Kenroku-en was designed to embody spaciousness, seclusion, artifice, antiquity, waterways, and panoramas, does it necessarily follow that similar aspects can be adduced from Wikipedia?

Too often, I notice that Wikipedia appears to be moved by the kinds of disparate factors which are mentioned as explanations for length of the Onin War.

I plan to give these musings some thought during the remaining weeks of winter.

In this or any other context, I suppose the lucky Maeda would have stumbled into ways to turn a profit. What do you think? My guess is that Ieyasu's precepts might be construed to suggest, "It is better not to reach than to go to far." -- Tenmei (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my writing, I've tried to be "diplomatic" ... but my best efforts have more often turned out to be merely obscure. Retired User:WJBscribe suggested that I was wise to keep my language "measured," but somehow vagueness was not necessary -- here. Al that any of us can hope to do is to grow a little bit better ... and a little more "measured" .... Don't you agree? --Tenmei (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rude and/or vague

This issue is outside the ambit of your ban. Will you give this some thought?

From time to time, more than one editor has construed my words as "rude." Please review of the following and suggest a better way to avoid being perceived as unhelpfully rude.

In an effort to be "diplomatic," I have more often achieved merely "vague" ... and I would appreciate comments about this problem as well. In order to "find my own voice," I obviously need to learn to avoid being perceived as rude and/or vague.

Doesn't this represent an interesting change of focus -- not so much about what you may or may not have done wrong, but more to do with figuring out how to help someone else? --Tenmei (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asama

Congratulations. Good step in a constructive direction. --Tenmei (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Bukubku (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Thank you for the recent comment. I'm doing fine now. Well, I am careless sometimes. That's my flaw. So the block was 仕方がない and that's all. Happy editing! Oda Mari (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All caps

Hi. I notice that in your last few posts at WP:AN, you've been repeating in all-caps, "NOT RACIST". All caps tends to be interpreted online as shouting... could you please stop shouting? If you wish for people to see your position as reasonable, then you do yourself a great disservice to appear so excitable. Settle down, stop repeating, "NOT RACIST", and make your points calmly, please. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I looks bad. You are right. Thank you.--Bukubku (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AGF

I do not appreciate anyone touching others' comment without permission except special cases. I did not switch the order of your comment and mine at all if you check carefully the time stamp of mine. While I was writing the comment with an open tab, you inserted your comment. If I tried to switch it, there would be an edit conflict but I did not have that experience. You still seem not to assume good faith. Moreover, in the diff, you referred the stalking site to mock me in the public. That is my point with the diff. Best regards for your editing.--Caspian blue 02:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't reverse turns. Time stamp is not changed by user, it is saving.--Bukubku (talk) 10:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I did not revere the order. Please don't assume bad faith.--Caspian blue 14:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope someday ○○○ will have good faith. Please stop call others as racist without any ground. I don't like to involve with ○○○r any trouble. Please stay away from here. --Bukubku (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking help in presenting thoughts clearly

I write to ask for prospective help. In a sense, I'm only interested laying the foundation for the future. Perhaps this may be construed as taking steps to avert problems might be mitigated by a timely comment or suggestion ...?

ArbCom remedy

Voting is underway at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Proposed decision. In part because of "Evidence presented by Caspian blue", the locus of dispute was modified and "evidence in the case has expanded to include other disputes in which Tenmei has been involved." You will be surprised to learn that Bukubku has anything at all to do with this so-called "evidence" at "Tenmei's wikihounding and trolling". I don't think this timeless prose is worth struggling to read, but I mention this to explain a bit more of the reasons why I'm reaching out to you specifically.

ArbCom findings of fact included:

3.2.2 Tenmei and dispute resolution. "... many of Tenmei's talkpage posts and submissions during this arbitration case have been very difficult for other editors to understand, to the point that experienced participants in dispute resolution have had difficulty in following them, despite what we accept as Tenmei's good-faith best efforts to assist us in resolving the case."

ArbCom remedies included:

3.3.2 Tenmei and dispute resolution: "Should Tenmei become involved in any further disputes with other editors, whether concerning the content of articles (beyond ordinary day-to-day editing issues) or more formal dispute resolution procedures, he shall seek the assistance of a volunteer mentor or adviser to work with him in maximizing the value of his presentation by assisting him with formulating it in a clear and civil fashion."

3.3.3 Editors advised: "Editors who encounter difficulties in communicating with others on-wiki are advised to seek help from others in presenting their thoughts clearly, particularly when disputes arise or when dispute resolution is sought."

It is clear that ArbCom anticipates future difficulties; and I guess I need to do the same. Arguably, my previous postings on your talk page are congruent with exactly the sort of thing ArbCom wants me to do in future; and I'm willing to invest in learning about how to disagree without being disagreeable.

If you want to discuss this off-wiki, I'm working on figuring out how to set up an appropriate e-mail address. -- Tenmei (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like person who backbiting behind my back. I don't meet the person. sorry.--Bukubku (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yamanote shitamachi

Hi, Ryulong. Why did you revert ?[2] I think the caption is not correct. Do you think correct? For example, headman of Sumida ward say appreciative statement about donation from Sumida ward citizens. The statement tile is I appreciate of shitamachi mind(下町の心意気に感謝します).Sumida ward gazette Feb 1,2007(Sumida ward official web site) So Sumida ward is shitamachi. The caption is not correct.--Bukubku (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC) File:Tokyo-Wards-Yamanote-Shitamachi.png I think this file is not correct also. --Bukubku (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at Talk:Yamanote and Shitamachi. I have stated I will not be editing those pages again.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bukubku. Come over to the talk page and discuss it there. It was Urashimataro who provided the image.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, VsevolodKrolikov. You seem to read ja-Wiki. About this something is worng in en-Wiki.--Bukubku (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manchuria 1945

Regarding this excellent edit, you may also want to have a look at Soviet-Japanese War (1945). Between the two articles, there is quite a bit of work still to be done. You may also want to look at the talk pages - viz: Talk:Soviet-Japanese War (1945) and Talk:Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945). Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, your advice let me edit the articles.--Bukubku (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yasukuni edits

Hey there, You make an interesting argument, but I don't think I'm completely convinced yet. Doing a quick search of "yasukuni shrine" and "kami" on google and google books brings up quite a bit of hits, and I know I have seen the enshrined referred to as "kami" in the past. Do you know what specific term is used most commonly in Japanese to refer to the enshrined? I can't tell if this is just difference in translation. Also, we might want to take this to Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Japan to get some more opinions? --Torsodog^Talk 13:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's good idea. I ask Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Japan people. Thank you.--Bukubku (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the Chinreisha, I don't think it should have its own "Section" when it is only 2 sentences long. There is no need for that. The exact same things are written in the paragraph above. The only reason the Yusukan has its own section is because it is has a lot of controversy surrounding it. --Torsodog^Talk 18:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misstatement?

In the World War II article it says "The People's Republic of China occupied Taiwan." Should not that be the ROC? Thanks StevenWT

Thanks. I missed. You are right. ROC is correct.--Bukubku (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French

French is an adjective, so you can't just have killed by French. It has to be killed by French soldiers or killed by French people. This occurs twice in these edits. Does the Japanese source say which type of French people did the killing? Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you advise me. I replyed. See Talk:Japanese holdout.--Bukubku (talk) 10:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Shanghai, Air Operations

Sorry to be a pain, but I would like clarification on the Air Operations paragraph on the Battle of Shanghai page. The Republic of China Air Force is mentioned three times by name as leading bombing missions against targets around Shanghai. The third mission is said to be in retaliation for the second, but why would the ROCAF retaliate against their own operation? Also, did not the Japanese bomb Shanghai during this battle? I did not find mention of that in the article. That is why I believe the second mission was run by the Japanese Navy. I apologize if my information is incorrect, and I hope this clears up any misunderstanding about me vandalizing your page. I really enjoy World War II history, and I must say that your work on the Battle of Shanghai is superb. Hydrobrain (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks your apology. Second Sino-Japan war is very difficult. The National Revolutionary Army was not National Army but Nationalist Party's Army like People's Liberation Army. And Shanghai International Settlement was legitimately under the foreign rules like Hong Kong. When the Battle of Shanghai occured there were tens thousands National Revolutionary Army troops, however Japanese marine had only thousands soldiers. So National Revolutionary Army attacked to get Shanghai International Settlement. I am not the pilot, so I dont know why they attacked civilians. I think the National Revolutionary Army of the time was no better than the Warlord. They destroyed Yellow River bank, fired Changsha and killed Taiwanese civilians. It is difficult for us who live 21 century to understand the National Revolutionary Army at the time.--Bukubku (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tokkō

Hi, now that you've made Tokkō into a disambiguation page, could you help fix links to the dab per WP:FIXDABLINKS? Navigation popups with the popupFixDabs flag set to true is very helpful. Thanks, --JaGa^talk 21:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested semi-protection for the Subhas Chandra Bose article

See talk page: Talk:Subhas_Chandra_Bose#Haphazard editing and Protection —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.203.17 (talk) 07:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust

You can easily see that you are making changes to the "Related links" section, and that section deals with warcrimes/genocides of other peoples/countries. Those links have nothing to do with the Jewish holocaust. Furthermore, please address this issue on the Holocaust talk page, not on a user talk page (including mine). I'm not the only person that undid your changes.Jimhoward72 (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replyed. There are no your reply.--Bukubku (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Yasukuni (book)

The article Yasukuni (book) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No reference sources or any indication of why this book title is at all notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --DAJF (talk) 10:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Holocaust. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Acroterion _(talk) 17:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are edit-warring and accusing editors of racism: this is not acceptable. Further activity of this kind will result in a block. Acroterion _(talk) 17:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks your advice.--Bukubku (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for understanding my concerns about interactions with other editors. It appears that consensus ran against the inclusion of an undue weight of material on Imperial Japanese policies at The Holocaust - I am concerned that the same pattern of undue emphasis is repeating itself at Racism. Your changes removed references to The Holocaust in favor of Racial Equality Proposal, 1919, which is entirely inappropriate. Claiming that other editors must "seek consensus" to undo such a dramatic and ill-considered change is not credible. Acroterion _(talk) 12:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks coment. See the Revision history of Racism of Racism, Racial Equality Proposal had been writen on the page for a long time, however user IronMaidenRocks deleted without consensus. You should warn IronMaidenRocks.--Bukubku (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus is needed to remove such an obvious problem. You are implying equivalency of scale between a minor act of benevolence and wholesale genocide. You have been cautioned about this before, and you are transfering your behavior at The Holocaust to a new area, where it is even less relevant. Acroterion _(talk) 13:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you talking about the Holocaust? Now Racism. And such an obvious problem is your POV. Have you read the user Halaqah comment? Why do you restrict only the Holocaust and censor Civil rights movement and Racial Equality Proposal? The article Racism is not Genocide or Racism in Europe but Racism. --Bukubku (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because you've transferred a problematic pattern of editing from one article to another, and you are repeating the behavior that was rejected at the first place. Please deal with the issue at hand: you're placing undue weight on Japanese benevolence toward Jews across multiple articles. You've removed references to the Holocaust in favor of a Japanese proposal that, while laudable at the time, ultimately had no impactg, and are implying some form of equivalency between the murder of six million and the rescue of a couple thousand. It might be worth a mention, but not a digression. You must convince other editors that your changes are appropriate: I don't see that you've done so. Halaqah's comments don't appear to be related to your concerns. Acroterion _(talk) 14:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We got consensus Holocaust. This is Racism. What is the relation between Holocaust and Racial equality or Civil Rights Movement?--Bukubku (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have not gained consensus at new venues, and you are consistently concerned about submerging discussion of the Holocaust behind mitigating acts by the Japanese across a series of articles. I ask that you review whether you are placing too much weight on these events, and whether making repeated reference across a series of articles is appropriate, overshadowing more important issues within those articles. Please review WP:UNDUE, and, with repsect to the Racism article, please do not claim that a consensus exists yet. The Holocaust issue appears to be settled, but the way you went about that was not a good example of how to get something included. I suggest that you try a gentler, more persuasive approach. Acroterion _(talk) 14:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]