User talk:Nanshu/Archive003

aymag->Aymag?

Hi Nanshu, do you see a problem if aymags would be made uppercase? would like to hear your opinion at the page: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Subnational_entities (start a new section for mongolia if there is none) best regards Tobias Conradi 12:46, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

even better - call it XY Province, would be more in line with other subnational entities Tobias Conradi 05:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image source

Thank you for uploading Image:MN Govisumber aymag.png. Its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. Please leave a note on the image page about the source of the image. Thank you.--Aqua 09:16, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Tsushima Islands

I see that you have some questions to ask me, but Ill promise you that I will come back after May 10 to answer your pending questions and disagreements. Can?

Tan 00:49, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please do not seperate Tsushima Islands from Tsushima province. Please let all the content stay united. Also, I have answered your questions. Hope you are happy. The Korean name is not to be removed as it was already there in the history of [[Tsushima province long before i came.

Mr Tan, 11:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please do not delete the facts; other users have agreed on the old facts and the are true. What you did is considered as vandalism. However, you may contribute to the article further.

Mr Tan, 17:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have realised, this article is a sensitive one for some reason. It is best not to make major edits without first discussing them on the Talk page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The new map would be fine if it were larger and of higher quality. Could you provide a decent version (in PNG format)?
Wholesale edits of the kind you keep making need to be discussed and explained on the article's Talk page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Before you make large edits, please discuss them first on the article's talk page and wait until a consensus is reached. What you do could eventually be considered as vandalism (let's hope not). Imposing your ideas on other people is something that nobody likes, as Mr Tan has proven. We must first discuss the matter. Thanks a lot. JM Bell ° 10:59, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please go to the Talk page befor making major edits. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have (again) changed the article to read "Tsushima Island", when the title is till "Islands", and there is a current debate on renaming. This is now vandalistic rather than good-faith editing, and if you continue in this behaviour, you will be treated accordingly. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RfC

I have now opened Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mr Tan; you might be interested in contributing. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Nanshu, you say that you want references to what I type into the factual accounts? Sorry for the delay, but I will attend to you later as I am very busy now.

Tan 22:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A translation task for you, can you please translate the articles of

[1] into the english So Haruyasu
[2] into the english So Yoshishige
[3] into the english So Yoshitoshi

Thanks!Tan 15:18, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also encounter similar difficulties with Mel. He always reverted changes at the expense of the better ones. I will negotiate with him slowly, and I will see if the discussions is not futile. You can see his attitude in Zanskar--I was trying to improve the article and

Ah yes, the answers that you were pending for are all found in the Tsushima Islands talk page (including the archive)

Furthermore, don't restrict your evidence to Nihonshoki, Shoku Nihongi and Samguk Sagi. I understand that these things are the best things to ground my claim, but new historical evidence are found everyday! So, we cannot restrict our information to old sources; we must expand our views.

Are you a Japanese? I saw that what you checked on Tsushima is Japanese; you must also check out on Korean sources as well. That is what I did; I did not see you ever hinting any Korean sources on Tsushima. This may be the problem to your objections.

Tan 15:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Get to the point here: What we want here is to add information! There is no need to constrict our research to the old history books at all. We, however, should expand our mind and accept theories by modern historians. The problem, I suspect, that you do not accept Hangul; therefore you do not accept new information. I can also read little Japanese, however.

Can you tell me which translator you use to view the Korean pages?

Tan 15:39, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I partially agree with you. However, new historical resources can be came out of thorough research from lost history books, or archeological evidence. The facts that you have removed are from there!

Tan 15:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stubborness help

I need help concerning Talk:Tsushima Islands concerning my new addition of data. Thanks.

Mr Tan 06:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Before I Vote on 'Move Tsushima Islands' Issue

I would appreciate a rational explaination (after you read my Comments in the subject dispute Talk:Tsushima Islands), of the arguement or arguments you consider vital and germane to the discusion and vote. Frankly, MOST all of you are being silly over nothing of particular importance, since both names can be redirected into the one used. I have left a comment concerning my contribution to the article, which contribution — seems to have triggered the current edit and revision wars. For that I apologize, but see the Comments on the vote. I am also taking the liberty of putting the vote section AFTER the Comments about same.
Still, I have just spent over four hours of valuable spare time, and would welcome your thoughts after you read and understand the distinction I put forth between a governments termonology as a governing body and a geographical reference like an archepelego, which it certainly is.
More to the point, I'd like to see your defense regarding your favorite POV of what I had to say viz a viz the mergest attitude of the senior editors and administrators that frequent the Wikipedia:VfD discussions. To my recollection, I don't recollect any of you hotheads in this dispute ever spending anytime thereon, possibly excepting Mel Etitis, but rarely even then.
In any event, I'm neutral here, and have asked that the article be kept EDIT FREE for the next three days by placing The Inuse template into it — I'd copyedited over two and half hours before I suspended that effort the other night because this shameful fued was going on — proper English grammer does depend, unfortunately, on whether one uses the plural or the singular. I saved that on my hard drive, but I don't need to wade through yet another 70 edits to finish the job. As it is, this matter will probably double the time it takes for such a simple job.
If you are local to Japan, some history of the canals or Sea-channel is certainly germane to the ongoing discussion, moreover, any cogent arguement you condsider being particularly telling needs to be clearly repeated in the current on going comments if you want them counted on in the vote.
I will make sure this message goes to each contributor to the article the past month, so you are not being singled out. Now is the time to take a deep breath, for rational concise summaries, not all the arguing that is so wearisome in 66 printed pages - half a novelette, I'd guess! It's certainly a lot to ask your fellow editors to wade through on a minor issue.
I will also personally be making sure that at least a dozen other Administrators I'm acquainted with take a look at the debate after the time below. I will in fact ask for twenty commitments, so be clear and respectful of our time!!!
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]] 23:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Opinion IS NOT MADE

Regarding this message Mr Tan just left for me a short while ago, I felt this explaination was something you should also be absolutely clear on, so I copy this message to him to you too. Tan asks:

I am afraid that I cannot make out very clearly what you stated on the voting poll--do you mean that you voted yes on the move, but with certain conditions?

NO, I Have NOT voted on the MOVE at all, I voted that if the MOVE VOTE DEADLOCKED, I would support the proposed compromise... the single word title 'Tsushima'. You should vote there as well. I mean to put an end to this nonsense one way or the other. Do you realize there are well over 300 small edits to this article since May 13th? That's a ridiculous waste of time and energy.

I've spent most of the day trying to make heads or tails out of this. I'm currently contacting people with postings on Japanese articles with a lot of experience and leaving them a version of the message I just left you above. The other boiler plate on the cut N paste is an introduction of the issue, and an appeal for them to look at your foreign language websites since most of us are not multilingual. (I am Jealous of your skill there!) In any event, I am doing all that I can to settle this once and for all, however it comes out on the evidence. I should have 30+ people by Tuesday to give an opinion both on the translation issues, and on the best way to word it in English.
Next, My comments, and the history I looked at and put in as background showed that my work that you quoted was derived based on the data in your posting of the Japanese Navy blasting through the Isthmus. If we took that as evidence of anything, it would be evidence that I was guilable of believing a fact and then adding it's historical context — again, I cover that at great length in the TALK. Read it very carefully.
It NOW appears to me that I misunderstood what you meant to say. Make sure you Find the question that I asked you to answer in bold. YOU NEED TO PRODUCE THE SOURCE OF THAT INFORMATION, plus (i.e a Logical AND), IT MUST also BACK UP THE WHAT I UNDERSTOOD YOU TO SAY when you wrote about the Navy blasting through the isthmus, or what I wrote and you quoted means nothing. If you prove that, you prove the Island has been permanently divided. Nothing else will save my paragraph as I wrote it; it was based on what you wrote just minutes before, and no one saw you source that information. I didn't realize it myself until this afternoon.
I am afraid that, at this point, I now believe this event was a misreading on my part, as I was up a very long time that night. My historical facts prove only what the numbered explainations say in the heading Circular Arguement. But the chain of reasoning depends on YOUR SOURCE and the PROPER MEANING of whether the channel is 2km wide, or the istmus is 2km wide. There's a world of difference between the two! If so, I probably (Almost certainly, I polarized the arguement so they decided to move it and bring the issue on the table for a final settlement of the issue.) caused this last edit war. If my reading of your information, and the information are both correct, then and only then will my paragraph be correct. I don't think that's going to happen. Cutting a canal makes a whole lot more sense than distroying 2km of land of an isthmus. The logical thing is that I made a mistake, and nobody questioned me about it because I had added my historical references at the same time. Since I wasn't watching the article, I didn't catch my own error until about ten hours ago when I built the arguements I pulled out and put under circular arguement. As best I can see. That's what happened. My mistake. Everyone else trusting my writing. The answer to the proper term lies elsewhere.

That should answer the below question of yours very well. The key is YOU 'first' USED THE TERM blasted... see the reference and dates I cited, and copied into the talk from the difference program. I just happened to sit down to edit next (almost immediately, as it turns out) without having any idea of how unstable the article was, and in fact, should have been in bed hours sooner.

- If you agree to the move, Mr Bartus, I would be happy if you can explain why did you add the paragraph on Tsushima Islands on how the Island is blasted into two in the first place? Again, your comment is greatly appreciated. Mr Tan 03:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, look at my two changes in history. Immediately before, there are reverts and edit wars. For a while after, they slow way down... (I guess that's a compliment of sorts) then pick up frequency again. SO I want some sources before I decide either way. This is as close to looking like a fool as I care to get! SCTRATCH THAT TOO. I do look like a fool here. No Question. But I'm an honest fool and learned long ago to admit my mistakes. This is a whopper.
In any event, I'm yelling for extra troops, and will produce some disinterested outside parties with no emotional attachments in this matter to add their neutral views as well.

What you need to do for them and yourself is this: You need to prepare and present a very neat simple well worded case of why you believe the matter should be plural, and what evidence you have definitely supports that POV... You should copy down some of the important web links that have convinced you so strongly (In whatever language, but use the 'pipe trick' to tag the ones that are not english), but calmly tell only JUST THE FACTS AS YOU'VE RESEARCHED THEM. Then state your opinions, and any supporting evidence like the web sites, even if they need translated. In sum, it will all depend on the case you present for your side. Mel will probably help some, but he's buried in finals week with little free time. I told you some days ago that I have no dog in this fight. Well, I do — Honor — The RIGHT THING to do. That is what I am doing now, so I must go back to contacting Japanese savvy contributors and alerting them to the fact that this issue needs settled. You and Nanshu have made a mess of this and should both be embarrased. So since he put it to the vote, lets settle it one way or the other — as you know, there are lots of other things to be working on!

- The other 67 pages of the talk are way too much to expect anyone but God to be able to sort out. Your case will rise and fall with the tight sentences you place under discussion. Compose that well, and state your points professionally, without emotion, and certainly, without refering to any of the other people that have been in the revert war!

Good luck — Both of you! (I'm going to copy this to Nanshu right now, he deserves the clarification of my POV). [[User:Fabartus| FrankB || TalktoMe]] 05:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A bit of advice[[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 05:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your posting of an attack on Mel Etitis on the Tshshima Talk page is probably the wrong venue, and a bad idea, especially now. I suspect Wikipedia:Request for Comment (W:RfC) is the more correct procedure. It is evident to me that Mel has probably been less than effective at quelling this edit war, and probably has contributed to it with his abrubt reversions etc. Your feelings, like any feelings are 'never' wrong — only what actions you take on or because of such feelings — personal attacks on a talk page (or anywhere) only invite counter attacks, and rarely help anything. The proper venue is the W:RfC. Please bear in mind that while Mels actions reflect on his professionalism, your actions reflect on your professionalism. A professional does not let emotion cloud judgement, nor dictate arbitrary decisions, actions, or behavior. Again I ask. Please help me settle this article down. Personal differences are things that must be set aside. If it is unpleasant working with him, or any other, you are a volunteer — move on to something that doesn't create friction and remember no matter how 'perfect' you might some day make any article, some idiot can come in tomarrow and edit it no matter what you like. That's currently official Wikipedia policy, and frankly, one which kept me from making bigger and more frequent contributions for over six months. I also foresee a day when many articles will be established as 'done', and locked. It is not close, but once the reputation becomes great enough, to keep funding for the foundation supporting it, they will have to take such steps.
In the meantime, if working on it, or working with some editor keeps generating strong feelings, why not leave that project for more peaceful making co-editors and another topic. Wiki is a large place. Make some notes on notepad.exe, and take a Tsushima break from Mel and Tan. Visit the article again in 3 or 4 weeks, and see if your data is there. Add it if it's not, be surprised if it is. But no matter what, keep your dignity and professionalism. Remember — YOU can always be "the some idiot" coming back and making changes to the article. Keep smiling!

[[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 05:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Nanshu, if you want to criticize Mel Etitis, please do it in an RfC, not in Talk:Tsushima Islands. I'm sure many other people will be willing to help you out in making it. But please, not in the talk page. JM Bell ° 12:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All this eagerness to bring an RfC against me is exciting, though the reasons seem obscure. Still, I came here to say this. There is a discussion and poll concerning the change of the article title from plural to singular; while this has been going on, Nanshu has insisted on changing the article text to the singular, which shows a poor grasp of Wikipedia collaboration, and which creates a conflict between content and text that looks bad to readers. My belief is that this now counts as vandalism rather than good-faith editing, as he's been warned by me and others, and continues to make his changes. I shall check with other admins, and if there's agreement, then the next time he makes this change he will be blocked from editing for a period.

If the consensus is to change the article's name, then I will defend the new version in just the same way. Until that consensus has been determined, I shall defend the current version. If editors have the courtesy to provide edit summaries, and to defend their actions on the Talk page, then I'll do the same. If not, then I'll take advantage of the admnistrators' rollback function (which is what it's there for). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the reasons are quite obscure - even I cannot understand them. In any case, these are the users who might eventually bring a case against Mel: Jack, William, Hans, and you. JM Bell ° 23:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:40, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

When you get a minute or three, see Talk:Tsushima_Province. You'll also want to check Talk:Tsushima Islands and register a (probable) vehement vote to a straw poll on mergers that I'm posting among other info. Give me at least half an hour to clear out, as I have to go up and see/address Barus comments. (I suspect it's near your bedtime anyway — hopefully you're having a sexy good time! <G>). ttfn, Best Regards,

(For your convienience: Press --> Beam Me Up Scotty)

[[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 15:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I Need a Little Help

btw, on the above, I've concluded for a variety of reasons, ususally multiple, that none of them should be merged! (Don't know if you've seen that yet.)
I took most of the weekend off, though I do know Mel thought there was insufficient consensus to move the TI article. I'm trying to get him and James Bell to change their votes, and if that happens, perhaps a couple more of the five can be persuaded as well.

Do I correctly infer that you are another acedemic, Like Mel, or do you just have an uncommonly good 'Logical Mind'? Some of your discussion was tip-top notch! Kudos.

I need a trifling little bit of help on the Tsushima Strait article... I'd pick on Baru, but I already did so Friday, and he's so new, I don't want to again just yet. This concerns Japan Vs. Korea history, a strength of yours, I believe (infer). (Or don't argue so well from now on! <G>) You see I wrote around some stuff therein that has Mr Tans fingerprints all over it. Can you look the whole thing over quickly, but first see my specific concern at this link: Talk:Tsushima_Strait#Need_Fact_checked . If there is a problem, just tag it with a 'disputed' template, and refer it to me, with some ammunition. I'll battle MT. Thanks. This is where I BUMPED into MT initially, so it makes sense I don't know what was there is reliable before my adds. Sigh! THANKS! FrankB

User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 03:38, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was going to email this, but yours is not connected:

On the move article debate: Have you given a thought to mailing other Japanese on the Japanese Interests BB? You know, just go down the list with a message in the cut buffer and post to each one in turn.

Friday I finally waded through the whole Talk:TI page, as I'm trying to figure out what to do with and about MT in the RfC and ArbCom Mel is preparing. However! I was much impressed by your acedemics versus 'CU' arguements... I have exactly the same read. If there is a debate, want you on my team. You might want to add and extend your post to his RfC, which ArbCom will certainly be looking at soon... as if some haven't already. Mel is well respected, despite the issues of misunderstanding between you, which in the main seem to involve posting procedures. I actually think he likes you, except that he got burned because you back posted 'interleaved style', without leaving a note on the bottom as well with an uplink, and he's policing so many things, you ended up blind siding him (=Attack without warning, Attack=Change) a few times. We've been exchanging emails on MT, so I've asked some questions about the whole edit war. Handy thing email. Especially for discrete privacy!

User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 03:42, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hope you didn't mind the email -- I was undergoing major Wikiwithdrawal -- and thought I'd share! Would appreciate Feedback on POV on Treaty of Shimonoseki — my attempt to be balanced may need expanded into greater length. Please post to the talk there! Thanx. FrankB

User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 28 June 2005 11:57 (UTC)

Akihito

hi there Nanshu, i am trying to get a discussion going on renaming Akihito, maybe you care to comment? thanks, looking forward... Bhinneka 29 June 2005 12:57 (UTC)

The rough but maturing article Military needs a list of military forces particular to your country and any others you may be able to expand upon. At the moment, these lists at the bottom are extremely 'Anglo-centric' (USA + UK). Please pass this on to others you know in other countries after checking theirs hasn't been updated since I looked. (This is a Wiki-Chain letter!)
Also I am looking for a Japanese Wikiphile to back me up on the large upgrade I am doing on the Russo-Japanese War Articles, would you be interested, or can you suggest an individual with military history as an interest?

Best wishes! Thanks! User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 1 July 2005 18:31 (UTC)

Heads Up on Tsushimas

Just a friendly heads up— through some magic I don't understand the Talk:Tsushima Islands is up for a Final Vote. Get there soon, and pop into Talk:Tsushima Strait as well. The Koreans seem to be counterattacking. Fra nkB 7 July 2005 00:16 (UTC)

Image:Unidentified photo03.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Unidentified photo03.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion.

Thanks for the message. re:Long time no see. Sorry for not meeting your requests regarding Tsushima. I had difficulty in real life, but now I'm back to Wikipedia. I will restart fixing Tsushima-related articles next week, as currently I cannot have access to the books I referred to because libraries are closed for Bon Festival. --Nanshu 01:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- Welcome Back — I've been overly busy off Wiki myself, and today I'm taking a real bonifide break for a Trip to see the family. Hopefully, will have regular time I can give Wiki once school starts up (Sepetember!) Do try to keep any controvery down in Tsushima — Mel Thinks Tan is still lurking around with a couple of socket puppet names, and edit wars are best when they never happen! Cheers! Fra nkB 12:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Emperor's divinity

I was reading the article on the Emperor's divinity (actually his declaration that he was not a deity). You mentioned in the talk page that that is not the japanese view. Could you explain to me or point me to a website, where the Japanese view is explained? If the japanese didn't believe that the emperor was a god, what did they think of him, what is his relationship with the shinto religion? Thanks for your help. Just trying to understand. Cjrs 79 22:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

あなたにもっとウィキの中立的観点とは何かということを勉強して頂きたいという小さな希望がありますよ。ヤマトのウヨさん。捏造、妄想は２ちゃんで行ってください。そこならお構いありませんので。くれぐれもみんなが集まるこの貴重な空間を詭弁で荒らさないでね。

Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 03:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]