User talk:Unnecessary stuff
Hello. I have taken the liberty of reverting several of your edits to various articles relating to Japanese words, into which you had inserted "anglicized pronunciations". While there is nothing wrong with that per se, I find the notability or accuracy of your anglicizations somewhat questionable. While the correct Japanese pronunciation of a Japanese word can be easily determined from the phonological rules of the language, especially given its shallow orthography (かな, anyway), a corresponding "standard" anglicization is never something that can be deduced simply by looking at the spelling. For one thing, most English speakers cannot read かな, and so any such anglicized pronunciations would be dependent on what ローマ字表示法 was used in the transcription of the word into the form in which the English speaker had first read it. For another, as English orthography is deep, most English speakers do not consciously hold a ruleset for the decipherment of English spelling, which leads to significant divergence, especially (obviously) when they attempt to decipher words which are recent borrowings or generally from a linguistic source not common in the English lexicon (such as Japanese). Indeed, an anglicized pronunciation of a non-English word needs to be shown to have a wide acceptance among the English-speaking population, or at least that subset of the English-speaking population who use the word in question, before it can be considered in any way "standard" (and thus encyclopedic). Since you provided no sources for your anglicizations, I thought it best to remove them. I hope you understand. — flamingspinach | (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I am almost positive this is in no way part of Hepburn romanization, even though it probably should be. I am reverting all of your edits that changed "ejji" to "edji" (or whatever word it was on the pages).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
A Hanamaru Grammar
- Where can I see the official English translation? --Unnecessary stuff (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Talk page editing
It is the general practice to leave the section title in the edit summary when you add to a conversation on a talk page. This way, the conversation you contributed to is linked to in the article history.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles), you may be blocked from editing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The English example at voiceless palatal fricative is uncited either way. If you can find a source that talks about it, you can more convincingly prove your point. — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 19:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Wi & We
Is there a reason you completely blank the edit summary when you comment in a section on talk pages? You know that it is really disorienting to have you respond but not have a link to the section in which you are responding. Just leave the "/* [foobar] */" in your edit summaries in the future. I am pretty sure it is part of common talk page etiquette to do so.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. 20:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
This document uses "ウゥ" as wu. And in practice, I have seen "ウー" as "wu" such as the approximation of the Chinese name Wu (all over Google and at the Japanese Wikipedia article for the Wu-Tang Clan), the works of Eiji Tsuburaya (see Bio Planet WoO's Japanese language page), and where the word "woman" has been written in katakana (ウーマン). So how should this be dealt with?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Chinese wu is not [wu] but [u]. And ウー merely indicates long u (ū), not wu. Anyway, since wu doesn't appear on American and British standards, it should not be given a beige shading. --Unnecessary stuff (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Extended Hepburn System
Hello Unnecessary stuff san. This is KMNS Tsw, a Japanese old boy. The latest explanation of EHS is dated December the 10th, 2010. You can read it at halcat.com
Please select the English version of the latter and go to the chapter 4. It is a separate PDF file. And look at page 37 (numero 165), and you should be surprised how so called long vowels are treated.
The article of Romanization says "Methods of romanization include transliteration, for representing written text, and transcription, for representing the spoken word." But there were no known method of transliteration system, and I have believed EHS is the first one. But I was wrong. 朝河貫一博士 tried one in his 入來文書 the Documents of Iriki (Yale University, 1929).
（ & ）
- There's no reason to use those fullwidth parentheses.
- Fullwidth (ASCII) characters only exist for vertical writing. When writing vertically, halfwidth "abc123?!" gets rotated 90 degrees but fullwidth "ａｂｃ１２３？！" does not. But parentheses are rotated 90 degrees regardless of their width, and we can even say those fullwidth parentheses are duplicates. It is better to use ASCII-compatible characters when possible. (Also, since we are writing horizontally, this vertical writing issue doesn't really matter.)
- A single fullwidth character takes 3 bytes in UTF-8, but an ASCII character takes only 1 byte.
- You said "full width parentheses to 'encode' properly in the nihongo template," but this has nothing to do with encoding. Rather, fullwidth characters can result in mojibake, but ASCII characters do not.
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) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
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) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)