# User talk:Nik42

Archives, 11/04-11/06

## Purple Clothes Incident ?

I've asked for an explanation of the Purple Clothes Incident here: [1].

Since you added that info originally, perhaps you can shed some light on this at the Ref Desk ?

Thanks, StuRat 01:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No clue, sorry. That came over from the Japanese-language version of that page, which I'd translated from. Nik42 05:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Was there a link on the Japanese page ? StuRat 06:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think so, at least, not at the time. Nik42 06:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

## Japanese emperor articles

Hi Nik42. Thanks for your help with the articles about the Japanese emperor and imperial family. I also translate pages from Japanese WP into English, so it's nice to "meet" another friendly face, as it were. See you around! -Sarfa 01:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

## Highest valued currency unit

Hi,

I have some concern over the removal of some of the columns. The reason why I included both 1 USD = x units and 1 unit = x USD was because the pegged rates of various currencies are defined differently. For example, Bahraini dinar is defined as 1 USD = 0.376 dinar, while Omani rial is defined as 1 rial = 2.6008 USD. Now that only the column "Value in USD" is kept, so the rate of BHD has to be inversed as 1 dinar = 2.65957 dollars. However, that is an approximation like ​13 = 0.33333. I don't mean to be annoying, but I feel that accuracy in a encyclopedia is very important. I have an Excel sheet that may aid you the process. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 15:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

## Barnstars

I, Chochopk (球球PK) , award this Barnstar to Nik42 for his/her tireless contribution to least valued currency unit and highest valued currency unit.

## Image:Abashiri subpref Hokkaido.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Abashiri subpref Hokkaido.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BJBot 08:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

## You've stumbled onto a sore point

Whoever says \$50 and \$100 bills are frequently used, another editor will change it back to rarely-used. You've just stepped in front of a buzzsaw (although I happen to agree with you, since I work in retail). --Orange Mike 19:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

## Base of D'ni numerals

Hi, I just responded to your comment at Talk:D'ni numerals. SFT | Talk 05:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

## Former districts

Before changing the former districts of Japanese prefectures to be a subcat of the current districts, I recommend you mention it at the WP:JAPAN project, or maybe WP:MOS-JA. Neier 01:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion that led to the formation of those cats is Talk:List of mergers and dissolutions of municipalities in Japan. I think that since the Cities of , Towns of and Villages of cats were all in parallel with the Dissolved municipalities cats, then the same type of system was used to keep the districts and dissolved districts separate. The line is a bit blurrier, since there is only one district cat instead of three municipality cats (city/town/village); but, we probably ought to get a concensus first. Neier 01:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

## Interregnum?

Please consider editing Interregnum. I offer this suggestion in the context of your recent edit of a specific Japanese era name:

• (diff) (hist) . . Shuchō‎; 08:01 . . (-17) . . Nik42 (Talk | contribs) (Not "interregnum" - there were Emperors)

Your judgement call was not "wrong" -- of course; but was your edit necessarily better? of best? The unabridged Oxford English Dictionary and the unabridged Webster's Dictionary agree that "interregnum" was correct usage; but I have to wonder if I would be helping improve Wikipedia by insisting on this specific word choice. With regret, I note that Wiktionary definition of this term is in accord with your edit. Do you think I need to think about investing a little time in modifying that Wiki definition before reverting your not unreasonable edit to Shuchō?

I'm inclined to pose these difficult questions because I was so impressed with another of your recent edits:

• (diff) (hist) . . Talk:Japanese era name‎; 08:15 . . (+186) . . Nik42 (Talk | contribs)

Before reading your crisp posting, I already had all the specific information at my fingertips in Gukanshō and in Nihon Ōdai Ichiran ... but I just didn't put it together until you connected the dots for me at Talk:Japanese era name. Your sentence belongs in the "Change of Era" sections of Tenpyō, Tenpyō-kanpō and Tenpyō-shōhō -- and frankly, if not for your timely edit, I just wouldn't have put it together that these nengō were all in the same sexigesimal year of tsuchinoto-ushi in addition to being in the same Gregorian calendar year.

Thanks for the "aha!" moment. Good work. --Ooperhoofd 18:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you can come up with a better word than "gap", then do it. But, the most common usage of the term "interregnum" is a period in which there is no monarch (or, sometimes, other leadership), from its literal sense inter- "between" regnum "kingship". My dictionary does list "a lapse or pause in a continuous series" as a third meaning, but that's a rather uncommon usage. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen it used that way before I looked it up in the dictionary. Nik42 18:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please use the edit summary feature. Please explain - [2] Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 23:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I usually do use the edit summary, but in this case I didn't think it was necessary. The East Caribbean Dollar isn't a very notable currency. The euro is a good enough example of a multinational currency by itself. Nik42 (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, but the edit summary entry was necessary for precisely this reason. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 12:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

## December 2007

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to United States dollar. Thank you. -MBK004 01:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

## Japanese yen

hi! I saw your edit on Japanese yen. As far as I know, there's no such coin with 元 in 1695. This is a list of historical Japanese coins and these are the copper and bronze coins in Edo period. Could you show me an image of the coin with 元? Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Another Edo period coin image. Oda Mari (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I also noticed your edit on Japanese yen, and it caused me to recognize that this trivial fact might be perceived as an appropriate enhancement of Japanese era name. The crisp precision of your last, one-word edit to this article struck a chord. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
As for Oda Mari's reasonable question, I'm the one who should have the quick answer ready-to-hand. I'm very certain that I'm the one who posted this so-called "fact" -- but when I checked the citation, there was nothing there at all. I'd feel a bit more embarrassed if I understood this better. Give me some time to check this out further. Although I'm sure I didn't make this up out of whole cloth, I'm quite mystified. Oops?
• (cur) (last) 22:03, 11 July 2007 Ooperhoofd (Talk | contribs) m (35,261 bytes) (1695 -- Tokugawa era coins stamped with (元), meaning "yuan") (undo)
I do know that there were cash coins with that kanji on them. I'm not sure what the meaning of it was, though. I'm pretty sure there was no connection with the use of that character for yuan, as that's simply a modern-day simplification of the same original character that the yen kanji is also simplified from. (I don't have access right now to a computer that can type kanji)
I also don't know what year that kanji was first stamped on cash coins, so 1695 may well be incorrect. Nik42 (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, the character was on the reverse side. Nik42 (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm ... actually, that may well be an error. I've found coins such as these: http://www.imes.boj.or.jp/cm/english_htmls/feature_gra1-7.htm but that's bun, not gen. Nik42 (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah! Found it. http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/roberts/coins/Kaneibasics.html The gen kanji was a mintmark, apparently first used in 1668. Nik42 (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me some of the mintmarks indicate the place where coins made. The mintmark kanji are the first letter of the place name. Chou/長 is the first letter of Nagasaki/長崎, Ashi/足 is Ashio/足尾, and Sa/佐 is Sado/佐渡. Oda Mari (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Aha -- Happily, I have an explanation for my awkward confusion. I do stand by the sentence I posted in July. The data is reliable and the citation is accurate; and the reference source is at page 415 of a readily accessible, digitized on-line book:
Try this link-->>...Click this link for digitized copy of page 415 from rare book in the collection of the University of Michigan
But there was a very small glitch in the digitizing of the Stanford University copy of this book -- page 415 is missing; ergo, my confusion earlier today. The link in the citation above (and in most other citations) brings up the wrong copy of the book -- wrong only in the sense that there is no digitized page 415. My next step will be to fix the link; but there is no good reason to delay bringing both you and Oda Mari up to speed. Expressed differently, I just want to do what I can so that we can all be on the same page .... --Ooperhoofd (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I found something. 1695 is a year in Genroku/元禄 era and the character 元 placed was a name of the era, not the currency name and the coin was Genroku gold coins, not copper coins. You know historical Japanese coins bear their era name, don't you? I found an essay in Japanese says the 元 is placed on the back of Genroku koban to show its issued era name. It's difficult to see the character but here's the images of the koban near the bottom of the page, though it's a forged one. And this is the essay I found in the Bank of Japan official site. Even if Titsingh's book says so, there's a possibility that he might mistranslate Japanese. Do you know where on the web can I see the original text? If I could, I think everything is going to be clear. Oda Mari (talk) 07:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
P.S. This is the English page of the essay. Oda Mari (talk) 08:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Oda Mari -- Thank you for your follow-through. I do hope this Nihon Odai Ichiran citation turns out to be accurate; but regardless, I'm encouraged by this exercise. I would have thought that this is precisely the sort of collaborative investigation that one would hope to see happening more frequently in this innovative Wikipedia venue....Click this link for digitized copy of page 415 from rare book in the collection of the University of Michigan
I suppose it might possibly help to read similar text from :
• Genroku 8, le 8-ieme jour de la 2-ieme lune (22 mars 1695): Il y eut un grand incendie à Edo; et dans le même année, on placa sur le revers des monnaies de cuivre le caratère 元 (ghen ou yuan en chinois, signification "rond, arrondi").<.ref>Titsingh, p. 415. [Tsuchihashi: 22.3.1695 (jeudi)/元禄八年二月八日]<./ref>
Translation: French/English: Genroku 8, the 8th day of the 2nd moon (March 22, 1695): There was a great fire at Edo; and in the same year, the character 元 (ghen or yuan in Chinese, signifying "round or rounded") was placed on the obverse of copper coins.<.ref>Titsingh, p. 415. [Tsuchihashi: 22.3.1695 (Thursday)/元禄八年二月八日]<./ref>
Note also -- en:Copper = = ::Another factor which may be interesting here is that, as you can see for yourself on the digitized image of that printed page from 1834, the Titsingh translation of Nihon Ōdai Ichiran conventionally presents each pre-Hepburn transliterations of Japanese followed immediately by a cognate transliteration in Chinese.
I'm no numimatics expert, but I didn't construe Gen/元 to have anything to do with Genroku/元禄. In order to help clarify this point, perhaps it will help to examine another relevant sentence....Click this link for digitized copy of page 417 from rare book in the collection of the University of Michigan
Compare the image of the 1834 printed page to what is presented in :
• Kyōhō 7 (1720): On mit hors de circulation les monnaies de cuivre qui portaient l'inscription de 元宝 (genhō), signification « monnaie arrondi ».<.ref>C'est a dire: 元 + [(缶 + 宀 + 玉 + 貝 = 寶) = 宝 ] = 元宝 . Le deuxième caractère est un variant ancien de 宝. -- Titsingh, p. 417.<./ref>
Translation: French/English: Kyōhō 7 (1720): Copper coins were put into circulation, each coin bearing the inscription 元宝 (genhō), signifying "round money."<.ref>That is to say: 元 + [(缶 + 宀 + 玉 + 貝 = 寶) = 宝 ] = 元宝 . The second character is an ancient variant of 宝. -- Titsingh, p. 417.<./ref>
This may yet be found wrong in some way (of course), but the underlying reasoning was at least plausible? No? In any event, I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge your help in improving the French Wikipedia. If I've posted an erroneous "fact" here in the English Wikipedia, it will have metastasized across Wikipedias in languages other than French as well.--Ooperhoofd (talk) 15:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I saw the page 415. Sorry, it was stupid of me, what I wanted to see is the original Japanese text on the web. Could I? There were gold coins in 1695 as I showed above, but I couldn't find 1695 and 1720 copper coins. Do you know the names of these coins? You don't construe 元 to have anything to do with 元禄? But that is what the Bank of Japan says the character 元 does. Not my opinion or thought. I want to try to find more about the coins, but I'm going to be busy for a few days and not sure when I can reply. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear esteemed colleagues, I'm the original user who deleted this particular line that was first written by Ooperhoofd and reinstated by Nik42. It is interesting to see how quickly the debate has progressed. :) I deleted it as I am not familiar with any copper coins with gen (元) character on the obverse that were issued by the shogunate in 1695, and none of my catalogs lists one. But as indicated above, there is indeed a bronze Kanei-Tsuuhou　(寛永通宝) coin that features a "gen" as a mintmark on the reverse, indicating an Osaka mint. 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 Ooperhoofd indicated, I was looking at the Stanford version with missing pages. I have just looked at the other edition and have found the passage in question. As the Kanei-Tsuuhou coin with the gen mintmark was minted in 1741, it is probably not what this book is referring to. 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 issued 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 question about the Japanese Yen, overall, I do not believe these coins with a "gen" character have a bearing on the etymological origins of the term "yen." Buu (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
In response to the convincing tone of argument in User:Buu's comments and in acknowledgment of User:Oda Mari's credible criticism, I did move the questionable text to Talk:Japanese yen/Archives/2012#Etymology. But I'm of two minds here. Almost immediately afterwards, I re-posted two of the three sentences:
En literally means "round object" in Japanese, as yuan does in Chinese, referring to the ancient Chinese coins that were circular in shape and widely used in Japan up to the Tokugawa Period. In 1695, the character 元 (ghen), signifying "round or rounded") was placed on the obverse of copper coins.[1]
Does this present a problem for you? If so, what would propose as a better strategy for the near term?
What do you think? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

## Hōreki

There is no reason you should remember anything about a 2004 edit to Hōreki:

• Revision as of 07:16, 12 November 2004 User:Nik42 (→Extended based on Japanese text)

Nevertheless, I wonder if you can reconstruct the source (or any citation whatsoever) which verifies that Hōreki (宝暦) is said to mean "valuable calendar or almanac"? Someone is now disputing all interpretations of what these nengō mean in Japanese era name. In an attempt to deflect a persistent critic, I don't know how else to preserve what you've added.

At present, verifying citations are posted for the following:

I would have thought that those interpretations which are backed up with in-line citations as verification are safe. And yet, User:Bueller 007 strongly insists that the posted interpretation of Tenpyō-shōhō is wrong despite the imprimatur of the Columbia University Press, etc. ... which would leave anyone at a loss about what to do next. -- Tenmei (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I think I was going by the literal translation of the kanji. 宝 means "treasure; wealth; valuables", 暦 means "calendar; almanac". You can look that up in any kanji dictionary. There's one online at http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-bin/wwwjdic.cgi?1B Nik42 (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish to express my gratitude for the comment of you of [[Talk:Imperial House of Japan]]. And, please help me again. I use poor English. Therefore, I do not understand the reason why Appletrees gets excited. Could you concisely explain his insistence? Because his rebuttal is complex, I do not understand. --Princesunta (talk) 11:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't help. I don't know enough about the issue to contribute Nik42 (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

## Fair use rationale for File:Dobra.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Dobra.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 18:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

## Upcoming Wikimedia events in Missouri and Kansas!

You're invited to 3 exciting events Wikipedians are planning in your region this June—a tour and meetup at the National Archives in Kansas City, and Wiknics in Wichita and St. Louis:

Kansas City
Saturday, June 16, starting at 9 a.m.National Archives in Kansas City
• This full-day event will include a tour of the facility; presentations from National Archives Wikipedian-in-Residence, Dominic McDevitt-Parks, and Exhibit Specialist, Dee Harris; and time in the research room to work on projects. The focus of the projects will be scanning, writing articles, transcribing, or categorizing images on Commons.

Wikipedians from St. Louis and elsewhere in the region are encouraged to make a day-trip of it and come to Kansas City for this special opportunity!

And two local editions of the Great American Wiknic, the "picnic anyone can edit." Come meet (and geek out with, if you want) your local Wikipedians in a laid-back atmosphere:

Wichita
Saturday, June 23, starting at 1 p.m. — Central Riverside Park
• Join the 1st annual Wichita Wiknic: The Sunflower State blooms Free Knowledge!
St. Louis
Saturday, June 23, starting at 11 a.m. — Forest Park Visitors' Center
• Join the 2nd annual St Louis Wiknic: The Gateway to the West is now The Gateway to the Wiki!

Message delivered by Dominic·t 20:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

## Come to the First Topeka Meetup, January 15!

Come celebrate Wikipedia Day with other Kansas Wikipedians sponsored by Wikimedians Active in Local Regions in the United States (WALRUS) and hosted by the Topeka and Shawnee Public Library. Come chat, hang out and enjoy good company while find out more about Wikipedia in our regional community! RSVP at Wikipedia:Meetup/Topeka/Wikipedia_Day.

If you can't come, but still want to find out about events in the greater Topeka region (which may include KC, Manhattan, Lawrence, Salina, or other places where volunteers are interested) sign up for future notifications at Wikipedia:Meetup/Topeka/Invite list.

Hope to see you there Sadads (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

## ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

1. ^ Titsingh, p. 415.