User talk:Endroit/Archive1

Welcome!

Hello Endroit/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

Susvolans ⇔ 18:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Hanja or Hanja

Hi Endroit. Thank you for nominating me. I'll consider it, but for now, I agree that mediation is pointless. We already have a clear majority, so I'm drafting a counterproposal on the talk page. By the way, have you done mediation before? I haven't, so I'm not really sure what to expect or how much work it involves. -- Calcwatch 03:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Revert war with Appleby

I don't know what is going on with you two, but cut it out. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If I knew mine were in the minority opinion, I will yield. But there are others who share my opinion. Please understand the situation as to where the concensus is leaning towards now. (Some discussion already took place in Talk:Sea of Japan).

Alternately, if you wish, you can help conduct a more widespread poll. Sea of Japan/East Sea is a very hot topic, and if you can make it a very public poll, it will be nice.

FYI, the Edit War is taking place in East Sea (disambiguation), East Sea (capital letters), and East sea (small letter).--Endroit 19:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If you have a dispute, great. If you have support, great. If you want to make a poll, great. Just don't revert war. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I need some help conducting a fair poll. The last thing I want is for Appleby to accuse me of conducting a biased poll. Where can I get help?--Endroit 19:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about polls, but it looks like Appleby has just been banned for 72 hours. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

How much consensus do you have for whatever this dispute is? · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Based on discussions at Talk:Sea of Japan#east sea disambiguation....
The following people voiced their opinions in favor of redirecting East Sea to Sea of Japan:

1. Appleby
2. Deiaemeth (added Feb. 4)
3. 71.139.187.166 (San Francisco, CA, USA--added Feb. 4)

And the following people voiced their opinions in favor of redirecting East Sea to East Sea (disambiguation):

1. Nlu
2. Endroit
3. Robdurbar (not party to the edit war)
4. an anonymous user showing up as 219.98.32.175 (from Kyoto, Japan)
5. Masterhatch (added Feb. 4)
6. Nobu Sho (added Feb. 6)
7. Fagstein (aaded Feb. 10)

And then the edit war ensued without any further input from others. I believe there is exactly one anonymous user (same as above, from Kyoto, Japan with varying IP addresses), who happens to be actively participating in this edit war. I would like some advice as to whether we shall pursue mediation, polling, or arbitration. (I understand mediation has no binding force, so I'm not sure that will work).--Endroit 22:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Sorry I changed the Sea of Japan page without reading talk page. I have reverted it back. I support the view of redirecting East Sea to East Sea (disambiguation), because internationaly standardized names and local names are not of equal value. Nobu Sho 21:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I see...

...that Appleby earned himself another 72-hour 3RR block. I've protected the pages in anticipation of his return, and hope that he will be encouraged to come discuss the matter on the talk page instead of reverting. If not, longer blocks may be in order. Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 17:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/East Sea (disambiguation) and related pages, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Request for Mediation

I noticed that you recently filed a request for mediation on WP:RFM. As the new chairman of the committee, I've been busily trying to streamline the process to make it easier for users to request mediation, and easier to provide exactly the information the Committee needs to accept or reject cases. In doing so, I have developed a new format for RfM that mirrors closely the format used at WP:RFAR. Although the new format was implemented shortly after filed your request, I'd like to ask that you reformat it to the new format to make the RfM process easier on the committee members and yourself. You can find instructions for the new process at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide. I, and the rest of the Committee, appreciate your help greatly.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 16:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Endroit, I think that notifications to User:Appleby and User:Deiaemeth of the mediation effort (and perhaps others?) are necessary. Since you filed the RfM, I'm wondering if you want to do it; if you don't, let me know and I'll do it. --Nlu (talk) 07:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/East Sea (disambiguation) has been accepted by the Mediation Committee; mediation will begin on that page as soon as a mediator is assigned. Mediators are generally given several days to review and volunteer on cases which they feel particularly suited to mediate; if no mediator volunteers to take the case, one will be assigned. Please pay careful attention to the mediation subpage, as further communication from the Committee will occur there. (Adding that page to your watchlist would be very helpful.)

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 17:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Japanese macrons, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  00:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/East Sea (disambiguation)

I'm offering to take on this mediation. Please note that I am not yet a member of the mediation committee and am under trial. If you are happy for me to mediate please email me using Subject:"East se mediation", a summary of your view of the issue. MyNameIsNotBob 10:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Japanese Macrons Mediation

Hi, I've been assigned to be the mediator for the Japanese Macrons case. Discussion will be carried out on the Talk page of the case request. I will have some preliminary questions up soon, I am looking forward to working with everyone to get this resolved. Thank you, pschemp | talk 16:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Japanese Macrons

Hi, we have a proposed solution now and need everyone's input as to whether its acceptable so the rfm can be closed. Please add your comment to bottom of the page. Thank you, pschemp | talk 17:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks anyways Endroit, for being neutral and all. Check out User_talk:Neier#Resolution.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

East Sea

I posted a reply on my page,--Optimus2005 16:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Chiljido

Thanks! Tortfeasor 03:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I just happened to see your post on the Portal talk:Korea. I also found an entry for 七支刀 (shichishitō) in a Japanese dictionary here. According to the dictionary, the inscription says it was made by 百済 (Baekje) in the latter 4th Century.--Endroit 03:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hawaiian translations

Some months ago, you requested some help with some Hawaiian translations. I gave some suggestions in response to your request (on the Hawaiian Language discussion page). Agent X 17:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Agent X. I will make the appropriate changes based on your first set of Hawaiian expressions (without the words ‘ōlelo or Hawai‘i).--Endroit 03:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I am noticing two things about you.

Endroit:

1. You seem to engage in edit wars without doing your homework (relying on one or two sources to prove your point, which honestly seems biased to me). 2. You seem to engage in "anti-Korean" editing and deleting (changing "Korea" to "Korean Peninsula" or worse, "mainland Asia").

Anyhow, I will be carefully watching your edits. Please prove me wrong on the above two points, if you can though.

Thank you.--Sir Edgar 01:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sir Edgar: Please do, and watch our edits carefully.... both yours and mine. For the record, I believe I have never replaced the word "Korea" with "Korean Peninsula" or vice versa. I really believe it is childish to do so.--Endroit 19:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont see how that is anti-korean to make those deletions, however, could what Sir Edgar is doing and has done to me by deleting portions of my statements the same as your problem? Are you pro-Korean? Cause I am pro-humanity and anti-nationalism. Write me back please by responding under this please.

Collective Conscious: Please see my response to you below. And thanks for your comments!--Endroit 19:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Endroit:

It commented to your opinion. [1]　I examined the source. As a result, I felt that it was necessary to use Main Asia. It is difficult to limit the origin of Japan to the South Korea route. --Kamosuke 23:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Kamosuke: I have browsed your citations (in Japanese) regarding Silla and China. You have some valid points, but I need a little more time to read them. I will respond to you in the Talk:Japan page in due time.

However, as we know, Nihonshoki and Kojiki are very limited before the 6th century. And so, aside from what we know about Baekje and Goguryeo, I believe we need to use extreme caution when we look at the following points:

1. Japan - China relations in the 6th century and before.
2. Japan - Silla (新羅) relations which seem to appear in Kojiki legends, however are shrouded in mystery.
3. Japan - Gaya / Imna (任那) relations which are completely in the dark, since we seem to lack reliable sources.

It is almost certain that we need more Korean sources to clarify these points though, because the early Yayoi culture (since 300BC) seem to be primarily Korean. Some of the material may need to come from Baekjegi （百済紀）and other Korean sources, as well as Chinese sources from their Twenty-Four Histories.

--Endroit 19:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. I am convinced that the root of Japan is not limited to Korea by various sources. I think that Main Asia is better.

I introduce the link of Baekjegi(三国史記). （あなたの調査を助けになれば幸いです。）

japanese　http://toron.pepper.jp/jp/kodai/3shiki/index.html

Hangul　http://www.koreandb.net/Sam/bon/samkuk/samkuk022.html

Kamosuke, let me ask you, what makes you so "convinced" about this? Do you have empirical evidence or this is just a sentiment (shall we say, prejudice)? I'm curious to know.

Regardless, nobody is questioning other sources of inspiration for early Japanese civilization. There was indeed Chinese influence and, later, direct importation from China. However, focusing on the main is important in constructing a sentence, than adding side notes.--Sir Edgar 00:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Endroit

Thank you for directing my attention to thos links listed in the Japan article. I have asked you a question about you're PROUD to be an American comment within your user description. The reasoning behind this is that I have been aware and witnessed along with my peers within the academic community an attitude of chauvinism (blind devotion to country) in which regardless of facts which may reveal the truth, a country's reputation must come #1. (Andrew Jackson - "I will not apologize for any of my actions, for doing so will dishonor my country). In the old days of historical science (historiography) , it was about controlling the viewpoints and perspectives of history students, however this is changing with globalization. Now more diverse perspectives are introduced within the scholarly community (in other words chauvinism, thank god is disappearing and tolerance is allowed for different perspectives regardless of the message). When I read your PROUD comment, I am legitimately worried about bias because of my own experiences in life which I admit I unfairly assumed you would understand but people's lives are different so it is hard to understand other people's perspectives or viewpoints. I dont assume you would tell me the truth if you were prejudiced in ny manner, yet I believed that you were intelectually capable and mature (because you are a participant in writings of Wikipedia) of writing to me to clarify your statement and therefore allowing me to discern whether there is legitimate reasoning behind your comment. I never ask anyone to respond for me because I am not a weakling, unfortunately, and not to attack anyone with this same word, I found another entity or person compelled to answer on your behalf which makes me question , "what is going on?". This is not personal, as I reiterate that my purpose is to understand your comment and I know you are fully capable of doing this yourself. Thank you for writing me back because it show you care.

Dear "Collective Conscious":

By saying that I am a "proud American", I only wished to make it clear that I'm not of another nationality. People often label me as anti-Korean, pro-Chinese, or pro-Japanese, and so the last thing I wanted was for anybody to label me as a Chinese or Japanese person myself. Although I don't wish to reveal my personal profile, I wanted to keep my nationality clear.

However, as you pointed out, this proved to be chauvinistic and showed blind devotion to George W. Bush. Although it may be a little late, I modified my user description to a less chauvinistic version. Please take a look at User:Endroit and let me know if it's any better.

Also.... Although I've often been labeled as anti-Korean, I'd like to believe that I am pro-Korean. Actually I proclaim myself to be pro-Japanese, pro-Korean, and pro-Chinese at the same time. It is perhaps difficult for others to discern this because of my stance in the Sea of Japan naming dispute. I am aware that another editor defended me, perhaps because he saw my pro-Korean aspect for the first time, and wanted to show his support for my last edit in the Japan page. I thank him for his support. Also, I saw that you (Collective Conscious) supported me for my last edit in the Japan page, and I thank you for your support also.

In terms of how Wikipedia operates, it is often difficult to stay accurate when we start being pro-something or anti-something. Make no mistake, we are all guilty of this to some extent. I suggest that you read WP:NPOV which elaborates on Wikipedia's official policy called "Neutral Point of View" (or NPOV for short). Also, we must follow WP:V (Verifiability) and WP:NOR (No Original Research). And when we have disputes, we must follow WP:DR (Dispute Resolution). (Please try to resolve your disputes here before taking it outside.) These are all official policies that are crucial in Wikipedia.

After reading those policies, I urge you to make your contributions directly by editing the articles. I trust that you will make a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. You should start by clicking Sign in / create account and creating your own account. Also, be sure to always sign your name at the end with ~~~~ (4 tildes). I thank you for taking your time to talk with me, and warn me of the wording in my user page. --Endroit 18:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Endroit, you're all right ! Thanks for replying to me and informing me, it seems my intial fears were wrong and I am glad that Wikipedia has mature authors such as yourself. I will look up the following links and praise you for your open-mind and objectivity in apporach. Keep writing for Wikipedia, I think we need more people like you. Take care.

Rude and false accusations.

I would like to ask you to please be careful in your comments and maintain etiquette. You cannot accuse people of "pulling a fast one" when they are clearly following Wikipedia rules. Try to contribute to articles rather than causing problems. For example, adding sideline information that only makes the sentence unreadable is not helping to improve an article. It just makes it worse. --Sir Edgar 04:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sir Edgar, I believe I was already extra-careful when making my edits in Talk:Dokdo. And I stand by what I said there, because it was in response to what you did and said. [2] First you deleted other people's votes, for which I reverted your actions.

Then you said "Consensus has emerged with 100% Support", to which I responded "I think a lot of people .... may feel that Sir Edgar pulled a fast one"....

If you retract your "Consensus has emerged with 100%" statement, I will retract mine too.

In reality, if you count the legitimate votes there, I believe it's more like 70% - 75% (in support of "Dokdo") rather than 100%. It didn't help when you deleted other people's votes there either.

Let me add that my "Neutral" vote was to make it clear that I refuse to take a stance on the "Dokdo/Liancourt" issue. It was necessary to vote "Neutral" there because you instructed everyone to link the "Dokdo/Liancourt" issue with the "Senkaku/Pinnacle" issue when voting. Unlike you, I have never took a stance on "Dokdo/Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks" and I refuse to do so. However, because I was opposed to moving "Senkaku Islands" to "Pinnacle Islands", I voted so in Talk:Senkaku Islands. Therefore, I wished to make it clear that my votes were NOT LINKED to Dokdo/Liancourt (contrary to your "instructions").

Anyways, the Talk:Dokdo discussion is turning ugly and I want no part of it. Please don't bother me about that issue again.

Also, if you have any other specific arguments or complaints against me, please elaborate. Otherwise, I may report you for engaging in personal attacks.--Endroit 17:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I am merely responding to your personal attacks on me. I would like to ask you to maintain civility. Furthermore, you are making false or improper statements about my actions. I edited out invalid votes. These were exclusively votes that were either expressed in an improper format ("Neutral" when asking for only "Support" or "Oppose") and votes that were late. You make it seem otherwise. Please refrain from such insinuations. I find your comments are not very careful or helpful and neither are your edits.--Sir Edgar 23:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You say that "you want no part" of the discussion in Talk: Dokdo and yet you continue to edit and post comments there. Frankly, all of your edits seem pro-Japanese. I wish you would really adhere to your proclaimed "neutral" stance. Otherwise, people will not believe your words and words are everything at Wikipedia.--Sir Edgar 23:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sir Edgar, tell me which edit in Talk:Dokdo is pro-Japanese.--Endroit 23:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edits made pro-Japanese votes appear more prominently. For example, the highlighted box you created should only include valid votes. I have fixed this. Besides the new edits, you have made statements in the past like, "I am neutral, but I think 'Senkaku Islands' is the correct name and not 'Pinnacle Islands'." That is POV. If you were truly neutral, you'd favor Pinnacle Islands.--Sir Edgar 01:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been extra-careful in Talk:Dokdo. However, I wanted to make sure people didn't vote there anymore, or even think about voting there, hence the box. I appologize if there were any misunderstandings about the box coverage area. To me, it only signified a no-vote zone. Anyways, I'm sure you'll deal with the rest there, as I've seen your long rebuttal to people's questions and the revised box area there.

Regarding Senkaku Islands you are correct that I am not neutral, as I support the U.S./Japan coordination in the vicinity of Okinawa. You have no right to sway my thinking one way or the other on that. I hope you're not going around coercing people that way, Sir Edgar. It comes accross very badly.--Endroit 01:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Endroit, I was just happened to re-read your comments about Baekje in Talk:Japan and I think that you can positively contribute to various articles. But I still think you need to do more research before editing. As for "coercing" people, I do no such thing nor am I capable of that. I try to use convincing arguments to support valid theories and the facts. There is a lot of misinformation in this world and I am trying to correct that. Hopefully, I can help those that cannot speak effectively for themselves, such as the Koreans (who are generally terrible at PR). That does not mean that I am pro-Korean. If you look at my edit history, I had focused primarily (if not almost exclusively) on Japan-related articles in the past. I believe that I am one of the many people who helped bring Japan to Good Article status recently. And now I am turning my attention to Korea-related articles which are in dire need of editing. I hope you can help.--Sir Edgar 01:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

He is not neutral. I have seen him post messages on pro-Japanese Wikipedians' talk pages instructing how to move Dokdo back to Liancourt Rocks. He is not neutral at all. He is like a little Japanese helper, while saying he is 'neutral'. Endroit is kind of sneaky like that.--222.233.205.166 13:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, this section is titled "rude and false accusations". If any of you think I am rude to the point where I am violating Wikipedia policy, please go ahead and report me to an admin or do an WP:RfC.

I agreed with Sir Edgar that the consensus was in support of moving "Liancourt Rocks" to "Dokdo". However, I strongly objected to the manner in which he conducted that poll. I also strongly object to the manner in which Michael Friedrich is trying to start another poll. I am merely trying to point out to these people to follow procedures... but these guys don't seem to listen.--Endroit 16:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You've just stated below that you agree that your comment about my alleged pulling "a fast one" was rude. If you continue to refer to me in ad nauseum (you mentioned my name at least 12 times in your latest statement) in a negative way, I will indeed report you for bad behavior. Keep your manners. This is your nth polite warning.

Endroit, please study before preaching, read before editing, and observe the rules before prescribing them. The poll asked for a Support or Oppose vote (both stated in bold). You cast a Neutral vote. Of course, that is annoying and that's why I deleted it. I also deleted late votes. I have explained this to you before. Do not make me repeat this to you again.--Sir Edgar 07:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

East Sea

Ok, I accept that I quit reverting the articles related to East Sea. However, both Sea of Japan and East Sea are argued names. I think Wikipedia must find a way to name this sea, which can avoid all these controversies.

Btw, can you seriously speak all those languages, no matter how good? -- chcokr

Chcokr, thanks for your message. I assume you are a new user, so may I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers?

For controversial issues, Wikipedia follows the policy of Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, so you need to follow that carefully. And you are asked to obtain Wikipedia:Consensus and work with other editors as you go.

I understand it is always called "East Sea" in Korea, but there are other criteria as well, such as the guidelines in Wikipedia:Naming conflict. With respect to "Sea of Japan/East Sea", the editors have already agreed on the following convention: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Sea of Japan (East Sea). Whenever you edit the articles, please be aware of and try not to go against such consensus unless you wish to try and follow something in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.--Endroit 14:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Endroit, if you wouldn't mind answering a couple of questions I would appreciate it. I am confused by your position on the Dokdo poll because you have said you endorsed the vote but have also said that Sir Edgar had pulled a fast one and mentioned in the Tsushima Basin talk page that the situation there was similar to what Sir Edgar had done in the Dokdo poll. Is your objection with Sir Edgar with the fact that the poll was closed in five days or something else? I get the feeling that you feel that the poll didn't count certain votes, based on your disagreement with the 14-0 number versus 15-5 as you mentioned in the Tsushima Basin article too. I'm writing this because many of these issues can be resolved simply by looking at the history page, I believe. I was just curious about your position. Thanks! Tortfeasor 07:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Tortfeasor, first let me make it clear that I endorse the move from "Liancourt Rocks" to "Dokdo", based on Sir Edgar's poll. However, I do NOT endorse his count of 14-0. I endorsed the move to "Dokdo" based on my own count of 15-9. [3] [4] (However, let me say that I do not condone any of the sockpuppets and cheaters, and I have specifically omitted their votes from my count, as well as any newbies' votes.)

Also, I'm particularly bothered that Visviva and Masterhatch apparently haven't heard about this poll before it closed. [5] [6] They should have been notified, perhaps through the "Korea naming conventions" page. We're lucky that these missed voters did not affect the final outcome.

Also, Sir Edgar interpreted Wikipedia:Requested moves to say that the vote had to close in exactly 5 days, whereas the rule only says after 5 days. Since Appleby entered the request in Wikipedia:Requested moves at 05:37, 23 May 2006 [7], that means Sir Edgar wanted the poll closed at 05:37, 28 May 2006. However nobody ever announced this beforehand.

See edit history between 05:27, 28 May 2006 and 09:09, 29 May 2006 [8]. This history shows all edits from the time Sir Edgar wanted the poll closed, until my edit which contain the words "pulled a fast one". During this span, you will see that Visviva, Hermeneus, and Kusunose entered their "oppose" votes, Jh.daniell entered his "support" vote, and I entered my "neutral" vote. At 08:06, 29 May 2006 Sir Edgar was visibly upset by my "neutral" vote and deleted it. At 08:08, 29 May 2006 Sir Edgar deleted 4 more votes he didn't like. At 08:13, 29 May 2006 I reverted Sir Edgar's deletions. At 08:17, 29 May 2006 Sir Edgar closed the poll, not counting the 5 votes he didn't like. (At the time of his closing, the votes were 15-3-1). At 09:09, 29 May 2006 I told Sir Edgar what I thought, including my words "a lot of people ... may feel that Sir Edgar pulled a fast one".

As you see my dialog with Sir Edgar above under "Rude and false accusations.", we have already discussed this between ourselves. I also believe that my words "pulled a fast one" is rude, but I stand by it until Sir Edgar changes his mind about the 14-0 count. (I will accept a 15-3 count from him).

Let me say finally that, if any poll doesn't accurately measure the consensus, it can defeat its purpose. Although it may be some small detail, the poll should have accurately recorded the minority "oppose" votes.

--Endroit 16:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I only deleted invalid votes. These were any votes that were either not listed as Support or Oppose or those that were late. There was 100% consensus after 5 days and the poll was closed. According to Wikipedia rules, polls are only extended if consensus (60% or more) hasn't emerged. I'm sorry you feel that I have done something wrong, but that may be just your misunderstanding.--Sir Edgar 00:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

One more thing. You make it seem like I only deleted votes that I didn't like (i.e. Oppose). That is not true. There were three Oppose, one Support, and one Neutral the I edited out. They were all cast after the five-day period when 100% consensus emerged, and thus, invalid. I did not pick and choose the votes. So, please don't ever make such an insinuation again. I have clearly proven that I am more "neutral" than you claim to be and I don't even claim to be "neutral".--Sir Edgar 07:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if you're neutral or not, Sir Edgar, and I have never made any insinuations relating to your neutrality in this discussion. Your purported closing date & time of the poll was at 05:37, 28 May 2006, which was previously unannounced. With all due respect, Sir Edgar, you have never announced the closing date & time of the poll, until you actually closed the poll at 08:17, 29 May 2006. [9] Therefore the actual closing date & time of the poll was at 08:17, 29 May 2006, and not 05:37, 28 May 2006. [10] The vote counts should have been tallyed accordingly. Until you acknowledge that, I'll stick to my statement: "a lot of people ... may feel that Sir Edgar pulled a fast one". There were other problems with the poll.... But I have reduced my request to you to this one point, so that we can reconcile with each other and get on with our lives. Otherwise, I suggest you go to WP:RfC immediately rather than lecture to me, because your lecture is not very convincing until you reconcile with me on this one point.--Endroit 14:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Please advise

Hello. In the article on Japan, There is a topic that cannot agree. Could you mediate the confrontation of our opinion?　--Kamosuke 01:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)　

Netherlands Version
Historically, Japan had cultural exchanges with Korea and China.
Historically, since the 5th and 6th centuries, Japan adopted many institutions from China by learning them both directly and through Korea. Japan sent the Imperial embassies to China to China until the 9th century. And a Chinese system and Chinese Buddhism were obtained. The Christianity and the culture of Europe were introduced by Society of Jesus in 16th century. Since Edo period, The Christianity was suppressed by sakoku. However, the culture of Europe (called Rangaku) kept being introduced by the Netherlands.　From the 12th century to the mid-1800s, Japan was a feudal country led by clans of warriors known as the samurai. After the Meiji Restoration of 1868, Japan adopted many European and American customs and institutions. Its culture today is a mixture of these influences along with traditional Japanese culture.

Korea Version　
Historically, Japan adopted many Chinese and Korean customs and institutions, beginning in the 5th and 6th centuries. From the 12th century to the mid-1800s, Japan was a feudal country led by clans of warriors known as the samurai. After the Meiji Restoration of 1868, Japan adopted many European and American customs and institutions. Its culture today is a mixture of these influences along with traditional Japanese culture.

---

The second is better. The first uses vague phrases that blur the reality. Japan did not really have "cultural exchanges" with Korea and China. It imported culture and institutions from these countries. Buddhism was not "obtained", it was exported. Japan is not a Christian nation and Christianity has not played a significant part in its history. Not many people have heard of rangaku.--Sir Edgar 23:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I support the first. The statement "Japan adopted many Chinese and Korean customs and institutions" is also vague; it blurs the fact that the institution Japan's court "adropted" was the Chinese version, which is a crucial fact in understanding many aspects of the institutions established in Japan, e.g., why the term Tenno (translated as "Emperor", as in China) was introduced in place of a word meaning a king (as in Korea). Moreover, the Buddhism that Korea sent Japan is the one that Chinese's Kumarajiva translated.　

If the Japanese Manga is sent to the United States by way of the Pusan airport, Do you insist, "Korea and Japan exported the cartoon to the United States. "?　I insist, "Japan exported the cartoon to the United States by way of South Korea".

About 50 years after the introduction of Christianity, many people in Japan became Christian even among daimyos, and its influece, both cultural and political, was quite strong especially in the western Japan. It is certainly true that Christianity was suppressed during the Edo period, and it is probably true that Christianity, as religion, has not played a major role in Japan's history thereafter (although it did before the suppression); but The impact of the Christianity made Japan select the system of Sakoku. (Sakoku is one of the most important events in the history of Japan. )and the culture introduced in the late 16th century by Western people was not limited to religion. The knowledge of the Western was called Rangaku, and played a significant part in the culture of the Edo period

Kamosuke, I have made my comment in Talk:Japan#Which article is good?. Actually I like Sir Edgar's version better. I simply cannot ignore the Korean influence towards Japan during the 5th & 6th centuries. But I agree with you that Western influence started much earlier than the Meiji Restoration.--Endroit 18:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. I wrote the supplementation. Please give advice to me again. --Kamosuke 21:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yokohama Line

Kōnandai Station - Yokohama Line

Officially the Yokohama Line ends at at Higashi-Kanagawa Station, however JR East does run limited through service trains to the Keihin-Tohoku Line / Negishi Line as far as Ofuna Station.

Thats why a lot of times you're seeing the platform being shared by the Negishi line and Yokohama line or stating through service, essentially they are Keihin-Tohoku/Negishi line trains that at a later point change to the Yokohama Line trains, I've seen the destination signs on Keihin-Tohoku trains change to "Yokohama Line" at Sakuragicho a few times before, however I don't ride the line much to know the entire service pattern.

Trying to figure out how to list through service trains is a pain @_@, because between Ofuna, and Yokohama station, a train is esentially a Negishi Line train, that becomes a Yokohama Line train at some point (while most other trains become Keihin-Tohoku Trains), or thats how I think it works.

My reading skill isn't too great, but I think they do a better explaination at the Yokohama Line page on Japan wiki.

I think its ok not to list it, i've just been doing some translations over from japan wiki so I've been including them in the platform signs. But I don't think it has to be listed all the time, maybe between Sakuragichi and Isogo, then aftewards keep the regular Negishi line notes. Hope that helps. - LimitedExpressTrain 20:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't know they sometimes go up to Ofuna nowadays. In the old days, they only went up to Isogo, but I guess they changed it. I think you're more knowledgeable of their operation today, so I think you can decide. In any case, my area of interest is Naka-ku, Yokohama and vicinity, so I should defer any judgement about trains to you. Thanks.--Endroit 20:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Its no problem, from what I understand its only very limited through service all the way out to Ofuna, I always thought they ended at Sakuragicho, however I usually never take the Negishi line (because of faster services on the Yokosuka and Tokaido Line). Down the road I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will do some corrections. If creating pages, I just go with what I know, and in the wikipedia way someone more knowledgeable will fill in the gaps. =) Thanks for creating the pages, I think the Keihin-Tokoku line is almost complete with pages south of Tokyo. Limitedexpresstrain 20:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

And thanks for looking out for me. I'll double-check the Negishi Line portion in the next few days, as I'd say it's about 90% complete. I also have some limited interests in Keikyu Main Line and Keikyu Kurihama Line and may make some further changes/additions there too. I already created Kanazawa-Bunko Station and Kanazawa-Hakkei Station.--Endroit 20:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Diamond Head, Hawaii

One of the pictures on the Diamond Head, Hawaii article is up for nomination to become a featured picture! You can see the picture here. Please add a supporting vote on its nomination page here or, more specifically, here, if you feel it's worthy. Thanks for your help! Cathryn 16:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

East Sea

Hi Endroit. I just wanted to personally appeal to you to perhaps reconsider your position. I think the strongest argument for a disambiguation link instead of a disambiguation page is my fourth argument per Wikipedia policy on when a word or phrase should be considered a primary usage. If you could respond at the East Sea talk page, I would appreciate it. I hope you don't get the impression that I'm being overbearing because that isn't my intent. Thanks a lot and have a great 4th of July weekend! Tortfeasor 00:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

French popular music

Hello Endroit. I looked up the history of the article, and it has never been created, except as an accidental blank page. Perhaps the creator of the template was hoping to write the article later. So, you'll have to start the article from scratch. Ashibaka tock 20:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

French pop music

I think theaticle needs a bit of refactoring, because it is directly related to Music of France (music from France), not Francophone music (Music in French). Taking that into account, maybe the proper article to link from {{frenchmusic}} is "Popular music of France"? Circeus 17:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I will show in the French pop music article that the influence of French government and French radio stations are central to French pop music. The French government obviously embraces Francophone music from Quebec and Belgium, and it is very hard to separate these into separate components. However, I will try to make this article France-centric as much as I can. Would that satisfy your requirements?

Sure. It's just that the intro seemd a bit equivocal for an article that is clearly aimed at national description. Also, following Wikipedia:Summary style, it would be a good idea to make sure the article and corresponding section in Music of France are synchronized in their coverage. Circeus 18:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'd have to follow the example of the 2 general articles popular music and pop music. That means, I'd have to either create a new article titled French popular music, or delink and kill French popular music for now. I'll try to fix that.

Regarding French pop music, we've got Lara Fabian (Belgian), Jane Birkin (British), Natasha St-Pier (Acadia), Garou (Quebec), Tina Arena (Australia), all foreigners contributing to French pop music. Please understand that these people are central to French pop music, and I wouldn't want to separate them. And thanks for your suggestions. When I'm done, I'll post a notice on the French notice board to report it as a new article.--Endroit 19:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with having this article (though maybe a move would be in order to cear up the potential confusion) separate from a Popular music of France. As I said, it just doesn't seem to properly cover the topic that could reasonably be expected from it. That doesn't mean the article is worthless. My take is that we could turn French popular music into a disambig with the current content at Francophone music or Francophone pop music (which would itself link to various national articles, and could be expanded to include Antillian and African coverage), and Popular music of France (based on "Music of France" for the name) covering the specifically French portion of the topic. How does that sound? Circeus 00:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Colloquially, when people say French pop (in English), it means francophone pop; it's synonymous. So the French pop music article should stay the way it is, with all francophone singers included.

Keep in mind that in the real world, the music industry treats French pop the same as francophone pop anyways. Although there may be some private music labels in Quebec and perhaps Africa, many francophone singers sign with music labels in France (even if they are not French), and so the pop music product is "exported" from France to other areas of the world in such cases. Moreover, much of the francophone music product end up being consumed by the listeners in France. So in a sense, it is correct to say much of the Belgian and Canadian singers' contributions end up being part of the French culture, because French music labels and French consumers are often involved.

However, let me point out that I DID eventually create 2 separate articles: French pop music and French popular music. The latter one is a "quickie", with not much thought put into it. You are welcome to change French popular music and link it to Music of France in the manner you like, delete stuff in it, or redirect it somewhere else. I suggest maybe we should kill this 2nd article for now if there's any problem, and kill all problematic links.

Or we can create a new Popular music of France article from the contents of the current French popular music article. And we just have to be careful not to include any Belgians, French Canadians, or Africans in that article, right?

Also, let me point out that we have the same problem with the French rock article, which equates French rock with francophone rock.

Don't you think it's simple to just leave it the way it is now? In other words Popular music of Wallonie belongs to BOTH Belgian popular music and French popular music? Popular music of Quebec belongs to BOTH Canadian popular music and French popular music? I think it's OK to overlap, don't you.--Endroit 02:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Vote

Yes, that's fine. I just edited it slightly. Thanks for putting the note up. John Smith's 17:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Still looking good. :) John Smith's 21:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Give your comments

(In case you've given up) I have posted my comments on Talk:Tsushima Island. Hopefully we can end the discussion and settle things swiftly, the sooner the better. Thanks anyway, for your part as an analyser and your efforts to persuade him to join the discussion. Mr Tan 13:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll continue to post my comments there as well.--Endroit 14:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have made my comment, and have promised to notify when I have made my decision. You might want to post your view at Talk:Tsushima Island. Thanks. Mr Tan 07:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

In case you are unaware, please feel free to read the last two comments I have posted on Talk:tsushima Island and give your comments and opinions. I hope that your direction of motivation is still directed to resolve the problem once and for all, which I am directed to. However thorough the discussion must go, we must clarify everything once and for all, to understand the exact situation in precision to why the substance of Korean naming conventions should be reomved or retained. Otherwise we would not end with a good note with many unclarified points. For now, we have clarified one point, and I hope that you would put in your effort for the second part (see the talk page for more info). Cheers! Mr Tan 08:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have made my comments already.--Endroit 09:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

47 in Hawaiian Pidgin

Hi, I am collecting translations for the number 47 (forty-seven). So far I have 509 translations, which you can see here. Can you help and tell me how to say and write 47 in Hawaiian Pidgin? I'd be most thankful; please reply on my talk page. Thank you! — N-true 14:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, but forty-seven is forty-seven. There's nothing formal or official about this, so don't quote me on this, but it could be pronounced more like "foh-lee seven" if you like. But click 12 days of Christmas. See how there are "forty steenkin' peeg" (forty stinking pigs) on the 12th day and "seven shrimp a-swimmin'" on the 7th day.--Endroit 16:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

That "responses" page was re-directed as a result of the deletion discussion. Thanks for helping out. It's not quite a deletion, but is as good as one. :) John Smith's 21:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad I could be of some help. Please let me know if you have similar cases again in the future.--Endroit 22:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Bogus map listed for deletion

I noticed your comment about this map Image:Goguryeo h.jpg on the Japan talk page. I have listed it for deletion here. If you would like to support a deletion, please feel free to do so. John Smith's 15:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know.--Endroit 17:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

ANI

I answered you here and reverted all the moves. pschemp | talk 04:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. It looks perfect now.--Endroit 17:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea

Hi, I just wanted to drop a note to let you know the people on Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea have started discussion of why it should go to "Imjin Waeren" of all names. They are using very dubious google searches (such as stating it's not necessary to limit it to English pages). You had spent quite a bit of time, it seems, coming up with good ones, and I thought you might want to weigh in on how their searches are tilted to one side. I guess they waited for the RFC to stop so they could come back full force when no one was looking. Komdori 14:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I'll definitely keep an eye on it again.--Endroit 17:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You got a reply

See it over here. (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hang on a second...

Thanks for helping with the Hiroshige question. The issue, though, seems more subtle. The anonymous editor said that '"Andro" is a glaring occidental error' -- that is, he or she has that fact straight -- so my question is, does the error have "an established presence in print for about a century"? Fg2 07:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't have any evidence of the "Andro" spelling. And I think the burden is on the person trying to include "Andro", not the other way around.--Endroit 07:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Concerning Paekdusan and Chonji

First, I'm not insulting you or anything, so hear me out.

Please look into all the Google searches you do. If you go throught most of them (I myself went throught 1000 hits for each different version), you will find that the hits has almost no connection to the main article.

Example: I checked over 1,000 sites by typing "Tianchi," and most of them was either about the Tianchi in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, or the Monster. Now, considering that the Monster is pretty much a Chinese idea/belief/sighting, we can call the monster the "Tianchi Monster," but the lake itself should be Cheonji/Chonji.

Also, some google search results:

tianchi: 110,000 hits (most of them not related to the lake we're taking about)

tianchi korea: 10,600 hits (out of which about 1,030 is connected to the Monster)

Cheonji: 10,600

Chonji: 9,850

As you can see, the Korean version of the lake is more widely spread than Tianchi.

As I said, please look into your google searches, you may find that it isn't all that you see. --General Tiger 04:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Macrons

Yes, I did read it. And I have re-read again. Here is my response to another member. User_talk:WhisperToMe#Names The example given there -- Jun'ichirō Koizumi -- fails the test. Option #5 is the result.

I have also left several comments on the MoS talk page regarding macrons.

If you insist on removing the macrons, please be consistent for all of the cases. Now there are cases of Shinzō and Shinzo on the same page. Not to mention the many other people with macrons in their names. Bendono 08:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Option #3 says it's "Junichiro Koizumi" in English, so you don't get to step #5. There's nothing ambiguous about that.--Endroit 08:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. My response is here: User_talk:WhisperToMe#Names Bendono 09:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: Sea of Japan

Hello -- thank you. Pot, meet kettle. I explained myself on the talk page with specific points. Instead of using the shield of consensus (which I do not see, particularly given edits in recent days that seem to contradict your claim of consensus) and minimal edit summaries, please reciprocate. Otherwise, I'll be back later. Quizimodo 14:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what a charming person.... John Smith's 09:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sooner or later, these trolls will find themselves in trouble. Quizimodo is verging on violating WP:POINT, editing against consensus while pretending there is no consensus. Too bad, because I like the username.--Endroit 15:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Flattery will get you nowhere. :) Again, please demonstrate that there is a consensus for your version; also demonstrate why you continue to revert non-related edits, which (coupled with your reversions from the get-go) is arguably more a demonstration of disrupting Wikipedia than anything I've done. As well: you should both learn to conduct yourselves civilly -- at least all of my editions have been accompanied by talk/commentary. Quizimodo 16:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Quizimodo: Consensus is clearly shown in Talk:Sea of Japan. If you disagree, your next option would be to pursue WP:DR. Don't waste your time in my talk page.--Endroit 16:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Then obviosuly this editor has a different understanding of what the consensus is; please demonstrate, if you can. And other points above remain unaddressed. Anyhow ...Quizimodo 16:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Quizimodo: And how many people reverted your bolding of East Sea? Four... count them. I suggest you learn how to count and read other people's comments on the talk page, before imposing your views.--Endroit 17:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

He won't be responding anytime soon - he's enjoy his 3RR ban. John Smith's 21:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Goguryeo and Nangnang nation

I've spent an entire day going back-and-forth with Hairwizard91 on these two articles, and we've degraded to a point of you-said-I-said. I was wondering if you could come by and offer your opinion? Thanks. -- ran (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Goguryeo

Even they believe like that, they cannot prove it based on the historical records and acheological evidence. It was just dream of China north east project.

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.--Hairwizard91 16:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Goguryeo (Koguryo) was physically located in today's Manchuria and North Korea, so part of it physically falls outside of Korea. In the English language, the word "Korea" is associated strongly with the Korean peninsula. So if you write that Goguryeo is "a Korean kingdom" it contradicts that definition, despite whatever historical or archaeological evidences you may have. You are basically redefining the word "Korea" in the English language, if you say "Goguryeo was a Korean kingdom."--Endroit 17:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Haha, I am strongly encouraging you to learn chinese character for reading the old chinese and korean history literature. So frequently, Koguryeo has been called as Koryeo for simplicity. As far as I know, the name of Koryeo was more widely used than Koguryeo. --Hairwizard91 17:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not the Chinese Wikipedia. You should learn the English definition of the word "Korea". It does NOT include Manchuria.--Endroit 17:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

What are you saying? I am saying that... Koguryeo was also called as Koryeo at ancient times.--Hairwizard91 17:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying...that your edit saying "Goguryeo was a Korean kingdom" contradicts the English definition of the word "Korea."--Endroit 18:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not say Korea. I just say Koguryeo and Koryeo, which are identical name of an ancient Korean kingdom.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairwizard91 (talk • contribs)

You should learn the history of korea if you talk about Korean history stuff in Wiki. The first state is Gojoseon. After gojoseon's destruction, Buyeo was established. The son of king in Buyeo established the Goguryeo. The son of the king of Goguryeo establish the Baekje. And the general of Goguryeo established Balhae. And Balhae people entered to Goryeo, of which name is identical with Goguryeo's abbreviation. They are all connected. So, one of them mentioned above cannot be the history of other nation.

By the way, why are you in opposite side again korea even though you did not read carefully the history books? You even dont know Koguryeo was called as Koryeo in history books. If you research about the ancestor of Koguryeo, you can see what I am saying. --Hairwizard91 18:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

My argument is based on the English definition of the word "Korea." The English word "Korea" is different from the Korean/Chinese words Goguryeo/Koguryo (高句麗) and Goryeo/Koryo (高麗). You shouldn't mix them up, and redefine the word "Korea" in English. That's what you're doing when you say "Goguryeo was a Korean kingdom."--Endroit 18:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand the history of the Koreans from the history of Korean penisula. --Hairwizard91 18:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The misunderstanding is in your wording "Goguryeo was a Korean kingdom."--Endroit 18:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Goguryeo is the kingdom of the Korean people.--Hairwizard91 18:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That's too posessive and ambiguous. Instead, you should say something like: "Goguryeo is a prominent part of Korean history" or "Korean people and culture derive greatly from Goguryeo".--Endroit 18:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Nangnang state

I think nobody can reply to my last two comment in the discussion page of Nangnang state. When no objection against my comment is replied after enough time, I will remove the tags.--Hairwizard91 17:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that you cannot unilaterally remove the tags while the discussion is still ongoing.--Endroit 17:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I must have been so hurrying the discussion. I should wait.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairwizard91 (talk • contribs)

Yes, the tags should remain until the discussion's over. I think you should wait at least a week to see if anybody has something to say first.--Endroit 18:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The "u" in "Raumen"

Hi Endroit,

I'm curious about the "u" in "Raumen." Do you know the reason why the Shin-Yokohama Raumen Museum spells it that way? I've seen "larmen" and some other variations that I can understand but the "u" makes me wonder.

Fg2 00:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fg2,

Actually, I'm as baffled as you are. But I've seen other Chinese restaurants in Yokohama avoid the Japanese macron in similar fashion. For example, Kiyorken (ja:崎陽軒, Kiyōken) spelled with the "r" comes to mind. So their shumai would be called "Shaomai of Kiyorken". Do a search on the Web for "Kiyorken", and you'll see that until recently, they used to spell "Kiyoken" with the "r". I would say that some Chinese/Japanese names and Japanese/Chinese names occasionally don't follow any particular rule that we know of. "Raumen Museum" must be one of them.

--Endroit 03:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I do remember Kiyorken and hadn't realized they'd changed.

I actually understand the "r" in "larmen" and "Kiyorken" -- it seems to result from a process like back-formation from the British (and Bostonian) dropping of the "r" in "ar," "er," and "or" ("car" --> カー "driver" --> ドライバー　"motor" --> モーター). The back-formation consists of putting in a letter that's not in the original to make it match the "car-driver-motor" pattern.

That doesn't explain the "u"... so I remain curious. Oh well. Thanks, though. Fg2 03:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen restaurants more than once spelling it as らうめん, though always in hiragana, and I wondered what that was about too. I guess since the origin of "ramen" may have been 老麺 (lao mien) or 撈麵 (lao mian, cantonese), the "laumen" transliteration sounds closer to the original name.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  01:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

According to this website, there are 17 variations for the word ramen in Japanese, based on Yahoo & Google, as of January, 2005....

RANK NAME YAHOO! Japan GOOGLE

1. ラーメン 1 4,016,807件 1 6,260,000件
2. らーめん 2 268,283件 2 368,000件
3. 中華そば 3 83,335件 3 115,000件
4. 拉　　麺 4 43,189件 4 69,500件
5. 支那そば 5 31,461件 5 45,000件
6. らあめん 6 15,361件 7 19,800件
7. らぁめん 7 11,304件 8 16,500件
8. らうめん 8 8,946件 9 9,800件
9. 老　　麺 9 4,859件 12 6,840件
10. らー麺 10 4,507件 13 6,080件
11. 柳　麺 11 4,045件 16 4,100件
12. 中華ソバ 12 3,661件 14 5,920件
13. ラー麺 13 1,448件 11 8,930件
14. らぁ麺 14 1,267件 10 9,080件
15. 支那ソバ 15 1,262件 15 4,350件
16. 羅　麺 16 204件 6 31,100件
17. らあ麺 17 153件 17 664件

The Shin-Yokohama Raumen Museum uses ラーメン in Japanese and Raumen in English. So we still don't know where the Raumen came from.--Endroit 14:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That's an amazing variety! And quite a bit of Google research. Thanks! Anyhow, at this point, I'll stop watching this page. Thanks again. Fg2 21:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I still think I'm right. I asked a couple of my friends; one said らうめん sounds "old", the other said らうめん sounds "Chinese-ey", which seems to hint at my assumption that it's either an old spelling closer to the original Chinese, or it's just a little advertising thing to make it look more Chinese. I doubt you're going to get any second-hand sources for this (that you could write into an article), so short of asking the old Chinese guy in Yokohama why his sign is so fook yien'd up, I think you're just going to have to accept things as they are : ).  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  18:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Historical revisionists

Crazy people are always going to exist, and when they point to a history book and say that this book written 1,000 years ago must be right about something that supposedly happened 5,000 years ago, what do you say back at them? What we really need is some way to gauge *academic consensus* on this issue. Serious historians are not going to take a 1,000-year-old book as a primary source of what happened 5,000 years ago. But we need to prove this somehow... using trustworthy Western academic sources, for example. -- ran (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears that Image:Hwanin hwanguk.jpg is a forged image, and I'm sure of it. He's claiming that the character 国 (in simplified Chinese!) appeared in the original Samguk Yusa written in the 13th century. See Talk:Reorganization Agent of Korean History. At least he's in violation of WP:POINT again.--Endroit 19:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Let him post as many forged images in talk pages as he wants... the point is that we need to establish that the following are the current academic consensus, in article space:

1. Pretty much all of Gojoseon history is legend, with no grounding in primary sources;
2. Chinese commanderies existed in Korea.

For this we would need trustworthy Western academic sources. We need some solid library research by a history buff... maybe we could try asking User:Yuje? -- ran (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've already posted 4 English sources in Talk:Lelang Commandery. Please check Lelang Commandery and Daifang Commandery from time to time. I'll keep you updated if I notice anything else. Thank you.--Endroit 20:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice! =) Unfortunately I'm not really a history buff, and I don't have access to a good library right now. But I'll help out as much as I can and keep an eye on those. -- ran (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The character 国

Sorry folks, but the character 国 has been around for a LONG time. It's not just a modern, simplified character: It's been around for dozens of centuries.-- General Tiger

Nobody's going to believe you, particularly because you don't appear to have knowledge of Chinese characters. If you're saying that a particular Simplified Chinese character existed in the 13th century, you would need some evidence.--Endroit 09:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Endroit. There have been some simplified characters or variant characters before China started to simplified all original Chinese character at 20th century. You need deep knowledge about chinese character. --Hairwizard91 19:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If what you say is true, the existence of the specific character 国 in the 13th century (or before) should be verifiable. Apparently, you have no proof, so there's no reason to believe you.--Endroit 20:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

First, Endroit, do not say that I don't appear to have knowledge of Chinese characters. That's saying something about a person you don't even know. I expect an apology from you. In the meantime, I'll search for when 国 was used.—Preceding unsigned comment added by General Tiger (talk • contribs)

Re: Ryukyu Islands

The article name was Ryukyu Islands WITHOUT macrons until people started moving it without consensus on October 13 and beyond. The article name ought to be Ryukyu Islands, the name it was originally before all the "moves without consensus" began back in October.--Endroit 02:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my decision, and, like I said to Tokek, if you adamantly disagree, you can take it to the administrators' noticeboard. -- tariqabjotu 03:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It says there to take it to WP:DR. I'll follow suit unless somebody else doesn't initiate that move.--Endroit 03:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That works too. -- tariqabjotu 03:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Japan

Earlier on in the edit history you insisted the "continental East Asia" bit in the early history section stay in. Now you've changed it to China and Korea. Can you explain the sudden change please, not that I necessarily mind. John Smith's 20:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You have just been reverted again. I have also opened a poll to resolve the matter once and for all. By the way voting has started on the FA nomination - could do with your help to stop Hong and his Korean buddy from holding the vote to ransom. John Smith's 18:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the poll, I can't close it. You need to get everyone to change their votes by striking out their "support" bit and writing underneath what they want to do. John Smith's 11:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I would support the edit you mentioned. Get LordAmeth to sign up as well - you will need him, Hong, Jef as well as us to strike-through our votes and then under a new section, with the edit put out clearly, have us sign our support underneath. I am too busy to do this, so I'm afraid you'll have to round the others up. John Smith's 17:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Closing Poll: "Ryūkyū" instead of "Ryukyu"

Endroit, it is very unorthodox for a poll nominator to close his own poll, especially after actively participating in it. Please reopen the poll an wait for an administrator that did not participate to close it. Furthermore, the result was clearly not "oppose" but rather "no consensus". Regards --Húsönd 15:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Husond, you have actively participated in the poll yourself as well, actively opposing me. Please have an impartial admin (or an admin who didn't oppose me) contact me, instead of yourself. Thank you.--Endroit 15:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I am being impartial, I would not if I had closed the poll myself. Of course that my opinion on the matter remains "support", but my final analysis of the poll is "no consensus" regardless of my position. Please assume good faith. Regards.--Húsönd 15:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I left a note at WP:AN. Please continue discussions there. Thank you very much.--Endroit 15:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)