Yasukuni Shrine - please help
Hi, I noticed that you're listed as a "native" speaker of Japanese so I was wondering if you could help us over at Yasukuni Shrine. We're trying to figure out the proper way to write the name of the shrine in Japanese. We've asked for a consensus on the Japanese article but nobody speaks sufficient Japanese to discern their responses. Of course, any opinions you have are also welcome. Thanks for your time. --feitclub 05:29, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help! I will use this information to improve the article. --feitclub 20:10, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
Before I Vote on 'Move Tsushima Islands' Issue
... Thankyou for your time, attention, and good professional behaviour. I'll check the Talk state again no sooner than Monday around Noon (UTC), And ask the uninvolved others to do the same. PLEASE BE CONCISE. [[User:Fabartus| FrankB || TalktoMe]] 23:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Understood. Hermeneus 03:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Pardon me for intruding again, but I caught this last night at -- Oh 02:20 local -- and didn't get back to it. You state that Tsushima is the third largest island in Japan. I think you meant the third largest Island in the Nagasaki polity; the correct statement. Clearly any of the four main islands of Japan are larger. I'll add a note there in the discussion for you. Thanks!
- [[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 02:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- In Japan the four main islands (plus Okinawa) are not generally counted among "islands" but only parts of the mainland Japan, just like continents are not counted in the list of islands of the world. Hermeneus (talk) 02:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- See the discussion section of Talk:Tsushima Islands for a longer reply. And please stop making corrections on someone else's statement directly. If you don't agree with what I said, add an independent comment below it and don't change the words of mine. Hermeneus (talk) 03:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- [[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 02:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Just dribs and drabs:
- On Tsushima: Would have been really nice if you were to have made your Japanese background plain in the TS comments, esp. after I tried to impose some order and bluntly asked in large bold letters for such as you to stand up and be heard clearly.
- Frankly, it's not plain on your user page either (i.e. your background or residence), I almost missed it here on your talk page as well, save for the party above that mentioned you were on a list of Qualified Japanese speakers, or whatever. That got my attention. I'm afraid when I was making the message rounds the other night I wasn't stopping to look at user pages, or even glance at talk pages. Pretty machine like, I was!
- My point: "Hermeneus" is very GREEK or ROMAN flavored to one inculcated in western culture and history. Certainly 'eus' has no commonality with Japanese words I've been exposed to, nor does 'Her' and 'men' syllables follow normal Japanese practice as I would normally group such — Don't most Japanese syllables end with a vowel? Anyway, that's just in passing and shock, as I'd asked in Large bold for Japanese knowledgable indivuals to step out and make themselves known when I organized the damn thing. I know you've visted since (btw - IT IS NOT COMMON KNOWLEDGE outside of Japan about the islands Vs the mainland of Japan — perhaps within Japan, or within some community of people involved in 'Far East Studies', as it is termed here in the Eastern USA. But that's splitting hairs. I can
- The actual reason I happened into your parlor is that I'm curious as to your rant on Mr Tan which I had unfortunely to displace downward with my disection of his use of my paragraph as derivative. What did you see there that could be termed Original Research?
Thanks! How's your War knowledge? Do you have time and interest in collaborating, or at least looking over battle history. (WHY: As a 50 year old lifelong history buff I was shocked that I had to read a Biography of Pres. Teddy Roosevelt to find out how important the R-JW, and Battle of Tsushima was to our eventual involvement and conflict in WW-II) So I'm going to be improving the R-JW artys and make sure I get the importance of the matter before the casual reader, while staying NPOV. Hopefully I can end up with some stuff written to a high stanard with Maps like: Battle of Jutland
- In any event, nice to meet you NOT over a matter I don't really care about, but was clearly out of control. If that paragraph is no longer germane, after my explainations — that is, I suspect I'd strike through it. I just don't know what it meant, as Mr Tan has obviously flitted around spreading emotion and discord like a kitten with a ball of yarn. I hope you've caught up with the news on the W:RfC\Mr Tan — He's only a kid, ca. (13-15)! It does mean that tactics have to match, and this article certainly hasn't settle him down any at all. ttfn, Frank
FLASH! This just in -- pics of the canal. (I was holding 'finalizing' trying to find that reference I thought I'd seen saying what I'd thought you meant to say viz Nagasaki and third Island. But the hell with it. Thanks for cleaning up my mistake.) Pretty much demolishes the two islands arguements. How do you feel on the Tsushima and Tsushima (disambigulation) matter? The history Books (See long list at tans Talk User Talk:Mr Tan seem to me to use 'Tsushima' as much as Island or Islands, actually more frequently, as those that do use Island or Island frequently drop it while writing after their introduction paragraphs. So, I find I'm leaning more toward that than anything else. See My talk for the new material provided by one of your countrymen (?) Sub-Head: Re: Tsushima Islands
In response....Mr Tan 1 July 2005 05:33 (UTC)
- I have already responded to you on the Tsushima article's disc page. You don't need to repost the same message here. Hermeneus (talk) 1 July 2005 18:47 (UTC)
Hermeneus: You wrote "Zainichi Koreans were still Japanese at the time of the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal of 1946. 148 Korean-Japanese in the Imperial Japanese military were convicted of Class B and C war crimes, 23 of whom were sentenced to death. " What is the source of this? I checked Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal and found the following "There were 28 defendants tried, mostly military and political leaders." Are the 28 defendants A class? If so, how many Japanese B and C class were convicted? I would update Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal accordingly --Hunfe 8 July 2005 19:29 (UTC)
- They were tried at local war crime tribunals in Asia, not the Tokyo Tribunal. See  or look up "朝鮮人BC級戦犯" in Japanese google. Hermeneus (talk) July 9, 2005 00:06 (UTC)
Since I can't read japanese, I can't assess how relevant is the link you provided. Since Class B and C were not mentioned in Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, it looks like these criminals were not the main focus of the trials. Since Zainichi Korean is not about war crimes, I suggest eliminating this information. I would like to get your agreement before I make any changes. --Hunfe 01:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- The description on the Zainichi Korean article has already been modified to avoid the confusion. Hermeneus (talk) 02:45, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Hermeneus, I am still waiting for a reply on eliminating information on war crimes due to irrelevancy. Please see my prior post --Hunfe 20:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- See Talk:Zainichi Korean for further discussion on this. Hermeneus (talk) 09:23, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
RE: Your votes on photo of Nanking Massacre
Thanks for your vote(s) on the above-mentioned vote. We're trying to gauge each voter's rationale for supporting/opposing each proposed plan of action, and since you've voted but did not provide a reason and/or elaboration to your vote, I would appreciate it if you could return to that page and tell us. If you do not wish to comment on your choice, please make that known either on that page or to me. Thanks again.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 06:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Are you the same chap on the Japantoday forums? You might be able to guess who I am if that is the case. John Smith's 01:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Pages up for deletion
Your question about watchlist transclusion
A watered-down version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you kindly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much. Loom91 12:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- I have noticed you gave your support in this poll. Unfortunately the policy has been rejected for the second time. I myself have set up a new Public Domain wiki and made this policy from Day one. You're welcome to have a look if you wish. Gerard Foley 17:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Addressing an etymological issue -- Tsushima
The Japanese name of Tsushima 対馬, 対馬島, 対馬本島 must be addressed in the article Tsushima Island, as I find it rather obscure to the references of its Kanji (対馬) and English (Tsushima Island) common references in the introduction. To the best I knew, 対馬 is the most commonly used name although 対馬島 is also widely used as well.
Shima, jima and tō are the Romaji equivalents of 島, am I right? But when and how do I use it, and if Shima is the romaji is the equivalent of 島, then 対馬 is Tsu, not Tsushima. User:Dwy had tried to address the problem in its talk page, but I find it rather obscure.
One thing I am sure is that the meaning of 対馬 does not describes it as an island as it lacks the word 島, which means island. However, I believe that 対馬 is more commonly used as they don't look at it as an island, but rather as a place, the way like they refer to a town or a shopping complex.
As you can see, the Japanese version of Tsushima through its common references and history (cut and paste from the Japanese wikipedia):
Likewise, I feel that the problem must not be unaddressed in the english wikipedia, and we should clarify readers between "Tsushima Island" and "Tsushima" and its Japanese (address mode) variants. I look foward to your clarification. Thanks. Mr Tan 07:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Correction. In response to User:Dwy stating on Talk:Tsushima Island that 対馬 is Tsushima Island, check  on the Korean wikipedia disambiguation page--Tsushima, which states that Tsushima alone is 対馬. So my conclusion is that Tsushima Island is 対馬島. Correct me if I'm wrong. Mr Tan 07:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Dokdo --> Liancourt Rocks
I don't care to take sides on this. However, since you're going ahead with this poll, you must list this at Wikipedia:Requested moves. And please follow the rules there. Thanks.--Endroit 10:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- You are like a little Japanese helper, Endroit. Hehe. Nice to master.--22.214.171.124 13:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
New vote over Sea of Japan edit
Hi, I've started a new vote with the proposal I outlined beforehand. I would appreciate it if you could head on over to the talk page and vote. Thanks, John Smith's 14:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Request for Comment:Universal WikiConstitution and a Trans-Wiki Tribunal
I'm a Hebrew Wikipedia editor. I'm trying to organize an international group of Wikipedians, to create a universal constitution for Wikipedia, which is meant to apply in all language editions, and additionally a trans-Wiki tribunal, who would preside in matters of breach of these constitutional principles, and will also possibly act as an appeal court for people who exhausted all their local alternatives for appeal.
This constitution is not supposed to be made a formal policy of the Wikimedia organization, and the tribunal's verdicts are not meant to be supported by some sort of law-enforcement organ. The verdicts will be nothing more than recommendation of action. Their influence, if any, will be the direct result of the respect it will command from the universal community of Wikipedians.
Having read your comments on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikipedia_policies , i've received the impression, you might find such a suggestion intriguing. -Itayb 09:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:RM poll at Talk:Dokdo#Requested Move May 2007
There is a new poll for Dokdo at Talk:Dokdo#Requested Move May 2007. The candidates for a new name include Liancourt Rocks, Takeshima, and the new Takeshima/Dokdo variations suggested by user:Macgruder. You are being informed because you voted on the last poll. Thank you.--Endroit 21:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Deletion review for Category:Japanese citrus
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ienagasaburo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Ienagasaburo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Market share of government-approved Japanese history textbooks is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Market share of government-approved Japanese history textbooks until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:19, 26 February 2012 (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) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)