User talk:Kusunose

Broadcast Markup Language has been nominated for deletion by a user who is involved in trying to delete the BeerXML article and is now trawling Wikipedia for other articles to delete because they are losing that debate and feel that if other XML derived standards are deleted it might help them win the argument they are losing. Please challenge its deletion if you feel this is an unnacceptable. Regards Devils In Skirts! (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to move pages to bad titles contrary to naming conventions as you did at Emperor Gwanggaeto, you may be blocked from editing.World historia (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done maintenance of the List of fictional diseases you had made a JA link to. I noticed you have several diseases on the Japanese list. I am particularly interested in the disease that appears in Eden: It's An Endless World and would like to see a translation of it's name. I had wanted to add that for some time, but could not find a name for it.--YoungFreud 05:43, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Kusunose, for adding your comprehensive Japanese link to my English Nissan Skyline article. Stombs 10:36, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for infoming me of Okazaki Ritsuko's place of birth. I took a look at the Japanese article, but my Japanese is (yet) too bad to understand much of it. Any other information that might be taken from the Japanese article would be welcome. --Beoran 11:23, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Please do not revert the changes on Tsushima Islands. The reasons are already stated in Talk:Tsushima Islands. Feel free to ask questions, but please do not revert at your own accord. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. Thank You.

Tan 19:11, 2 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Doesn't look like you've been on this page in a while... I can use your input and local knowledge. Please wade in! [[User:Fabartus| FrankB || TalktoMe]] 00:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• 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]] 00:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see that you have put up the Korean name, but having an infobox would have been much neater. Also, your sentence saying that "There has been caltural influence from Korea, where they are called Daema-do (대마도)." What do you mean? This is certainly atrocious English, in terms of spelling and elaboration, I'm afraid. Mr Tan 06:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, just thought I'd let you know that the above project exists, if you are interested in joining.

Hi, Kusunose.

I am wondering whether you have any English language sources to verify your information? I have researched magatama myself and have not seen mentioned a Jomon-period origin or any other proof as to why there was a transfer of magatama from what is now known as Japan to what is now known as Korea. I added the "citations needed" because I am not sure whether those assertions that I needed were true. You just deleted them without addressing it in the "Talk" section. Any help in this regard would be appreciated. Thanks.

Hello. Please check out User:Endroit/Chinese_Romanization, and make additions/corrections where necessary. I am asking Yuje, Ran, Visviva, Nanshu, Babelfisch, Kusunose, and Saintjust to check and modify this Chinese Romanization proposal within the next 5 days.
After that we should move this Chinese Romanization page to a Project Page, and then request formal Mediation/Arbitration. I would like to nominate Yuje or Ran to be the leader for this project. Or I can be leader also. Please let me know what you think. Thanks.--Endroit 09:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kusunose, I saw your edit of Ulleung-do under "Unlink years per WP:MOSDATE. I can't find this in the manual of style, though; is there an official decision somewhere, or is this just your judgement call? Thanks, --Reuben 05:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information! Your answer makes sense, but I guess there's no official recommendation about it at the moment. --Reuben 15:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you get offened for my edit. I think top heavy article and choice of topics are thought to be a propaganda. So I think its better to avoid such type of article as written in note. About other edit points I have no argument now.Mythologia 14:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am proposing to begin an "East Asian task force" sub-section of the Military History WikiProject, or perhaps task forces dedicated solely to Korean or Japanese military history, if there is enough support. I have noticed (and appreciated) your extensive work on articles relating to Japanese and Korean military history, and to the two nations' relations. I invite you to lend your comments and/or support. The proposal is linked here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Far East Task Force Proposal. Thank you. LordAmeth 15:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kusonose: At the city of Nara ([1]) article there is a part that discusses the etymology/origin of the word Nara. I had never really taken seriously the assertion that Nara came from a Korean word before but I found this really interesting article here [2] discussing the origin of the term Kudara and it discusses the possible origins of Nara as well. Right now the section looks a little point of view/origianl researchy and all I did was add some citations and citations needed. If you could take a look I would appreciate it. Thanks. Tortfeasor 23:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K: Sorry, I didn't mean for what I wrote to sound accusatory on the talk page in East Sea. I just didn't understand your point but I think I do now. Thanks for taking a look at Nara, Nara. Tortfeasor 04:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The blanked articles you redirected, such as

09:04, 12 July 2006 A Small Deadly Space (#REDIRECT A Small Deadly Space)  08:57, 12 July 2006 Texas Enterprise Fund (#REDIRECT Texas Enterprise Fund)  

should have been history merges, for which you need a sysop. I have fixed these two, but in the future, please either ask a familiar admin about it (you can ask me) or post a note on WP:AN. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Talk:East Sea#Where are we at?, you have said "I don't object making it [a primary topic]". We have 2 versions to choose from....

Tortfeasor's version

East Sea is another name for the Sea of Japan. See also Sea of Japan naming dispute.

Endroit's version

East Sea is another name for the Sea of Japan as described by the Sea of Japan naming dispute.

Can you specify which of the 2 versions you prefer? I believe Endroit's version treats Sea of Japan naming dispute equally with Sea of Japan. And Tortfeasor's version does not.

Also Bridesmill suggested using the {{controversy}} tag. Please comment on that also. Thank you for your cooperation.--Endroit 14:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oppose your edit on the yakiniku article, in fact I just reverted back to your version after another Japanese vandal removing the references to bulgogi (as well as sabotaging the bulgogi article). I would though like to ask if it were a coincidence that you all of a sudden make this change only four hours after User:Gegesongs made a controversial edit stating yakiniku does not come from bulgogi, which I reverted. Despite the fact that nobody ever had a problem with that wording since the article was created over a year ago. Then, a third (most probably Japanese) user removes the edits again? All within 24 hours by different users. Something smells fishy. Mackan 13:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've been logged in recently, I find it weird you have chosen not to reply to my comments. Please do. Mackan 01:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review.

Taeguk Warrior 16:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taeguk Warrior - Please also see [[3]]. Wikipedia's usage of fair use is different than yours.

Under U.S. copyright law, almost all work published after 1922 may have an active copyright (there are exceptions, however — see United States copyright law for details). In general, the use of copyrighted work without the permission of the copyright holder is copyright infringement, and is illegal. As such, on Wikipedia, which is hosted in the United States, we are normally only able to use material that is not under copyright or is available under a sufficiently free license.

An important exception to this rule exists, recognized in a clause in the copyright act that describes a limited right to use copyrighted material without permission of the copyright holder — what is known as fair use (or "fair dealing" in other countries, where standards may differ). This page is meant as a guideline for dealing with fair use materials on the English Wikipedia — it provides general guidance on what is or isn't likely to be fair use and how you can best assist editors when attempting to include material under fair use. However, it is not official policy. You, as the uploader, are legally responsible for determining whether your contributions are legal.

Taeguk Warrior 19:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you weighed in on the discussion of the name of the islands. Perhaps you'd like to offer a comment for what the name of the article currently filed under Imjins War should be. We're open to suggestions; I personally favor "Hideyoshi's campaigns," but there may be something better. Komdori 21:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop incorrectly altering the Osaka (disambiguation) page. There's no reason to list eh AzuDai character at the top as she belongs in the fictional characters section. And since the AzuDai character is not a primary topic (that would be the city and the prefecture), it should not be separated out and placed at the top. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 15:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an administrator of wiki? I couldnt find anything that you are an administrator. I think it should be moved according to the convention.

Thanks.... I see what you point. --Hairwizard91 12:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just understand what you said... but, there is warning to me from you...--Hairwizard91 12:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your removing the warning... --Hairwizard91 13:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was excited and happy to see that you are trying to introduce Tolkien to Japanese audiences in ja:wikipedia. I wish Japanese could have a deeper understanding of Tolkien's works (and Korean prehistory ^^). Eventually, I would like to do as you are doing in ko:wikipedia. Mumun 09:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing that screwy addition to the spam blacklist; I didn't see it. Now we just need them to do something about it. — BrotherFlounder (aka DiegoTehMexican) 05:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I was half wrong, but you're not supposed to pipe the link. The whole point is for "disambiguation" to be visible. Anyway, it's a stupid part of the guideline. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't do that again. Uthanc 15:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know of the correct procedure to move pages, I was unaware of it, and will follow it in the future. Zeus1234 17:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like your input on Talk:KBS. I have heard that you changed the redirect, and my question is directed at that. Thanks in advance. SKS2K6 02:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here in western australia we have a very large number - but many probably havent been adequately identified or even have had articles created yet - so I have taken note of your work - we'll put it up on our project page...SatuSuro 01:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not going to be easy if you get tangled up with him. He has been very aggressive on Taiwan/Republic of China politics since his very first edit. See his contributions and you might get the hint. Vic226_(chat) 06:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help with Template:Territorial disputes in East and South Asia. Hopefully this helps to put an end to the whole edit war over territory dispute infoboxes. -Loren 08:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. cab 10:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your changes and agree this is "more correct." I had gotten confused, but then found this:

... while acknowledging Japan's territorial rights to Okinotorishima itself ...

However, is there a category for

... did not acknowledge Japan's claim to an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) stemming from Okinotorishima.

That is, is there a category for "disputed EEZ"s? Shenme 11:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The standard naming convention for railways is to leave out the "Company". I thought this was at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Manual of style but I can't find it, so I'll start a discussion at WT:TWP. --NE2 06:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for misusing the talk page, but Would you delete it if it was a petition to the Korean government? I presume you wouldn't. just wondering. Odst 23:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would if I noticed. --Kusunose 06:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was temporarily undeleted for discussion at DRV. If you want to save it, please expand it and leave a not mentioning the changes so subsequent commenters can base their comments of your new version rather than the other comments. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving a note at the talk for WikiProject Japan about why I pulled Chiba off the list. Please take a look. Dekimasuよ! 10:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kusunose, I was hoping you could keep an eye on the direction the arguments are turning in the Port Hamilton page. I think many are simply arguing that it should change because it is Korean territory now, and I think this is not correct. I hope you could clarify your vote, or at least change it to oppose for the current naming one and express that if the naming issue was raised with another option you might pick that instead. Komdori 22:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I history-merged to Yi Sunsin from Yi Sun-sin as asked. Anthony Appleyard 21:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the Japanese year templates for Shōtoku. Sorry those templates aren't better documented, but they are a result of a pretty speculative round of iterative refactoring by myself and User:Patrick after being created by User:Akanemoto. I've added the romaji label for the era as "Shōtoku", in addition to your change for the base year and kanji keys. Mike Dillon 04:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my mistake; I hadn't seen that discussion. Komdori 17:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"(diff) (hist) . . Japanese name‎; 11:53 . . (-389) . . Kusunose (Talk | contribs | block) (→Japanese names in English - removed Image:SugorokuMutou.PNG. It does not meet WP:FU)"

It is fair use. And, I have no free alternative in the context of "Sugoroku Mutou." Now, why don't you find me a replacement picture in the context of "Japanese names," and I will accept the removal of the picture? WhisperToMe 04:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at Talk:Japanese name#WP:FU. --Kusunose 07:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. WhisperToMe 07:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could you participate in a new poll for Dokdo? The candidates include Liancourt Rocks, Takeshima, and the new Takeshima/Dokdo variations suggested by user:Macgruder. I'm informing you because you voted on the last poll. Thanks. (Wikimachine 18:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

why it should not be written like this? --ThurnerRupert 18:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re your dab work, nicely done - and you've done heaps. Thanks for improving the encyclopaedia.Merbabu 08:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for working on Science and Technology in Korea. (Wikimachine 03:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I added fair use rationale to the image for both Sugoroku Mutou and the Japanese name article. WhisperToMe 06:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your clean-up of the Eishō disambiguation. Obviously it doesn't really matter in the broader sense, but I wonder in the context of what I might be inclined to do in the future. Your edit is crisp, clean, precise; but why remove the other helpful links? Were you thinking that links are better eliminated because they're superfluous to disambiguation, no matter how relevant to the subject at hand? If I were to have enountered your version without this history, I might have thought it helpful to add a link to Japanese era names? I gather that you would have construed that hypothetical edit as unhelpful. The question becomes: Why? Do you see my point? My view is informed by plausible reasoning, but I'm open to changing my mind ... and there would be repercussions in the way I edit in future.

From a slightly different perspective: I really liked the new layout which places the kanji in such close proximation. The graphic distinction becomes more vividly clear. Why not bracket the kanji to create links to nowhere so that the contrast is highlighted in red? Is the reasoning in this case congruent with what you were thinking when you removed the link to Japanese era names?

These are trivial questions, I know; but the limited subject matter makes this a good venue for addressing broader related issues, I reckon. Ooperhoofd 13:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Parangdo. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --Bason1 12:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kusunose. I inform you that this report was submitted by Bason0.[4] Thanks. --Nightshadow28 20:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. --Kusunose 10:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's Korea-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Korea? It's a group dedicated to improving the overall quality of all Korea-related articles. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! Wikimachine 03:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've nominated you for adminship at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kusunose. Please accept. (Wikimachine 03:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The Rfa can't continue unless you accept, Kusunose. I think you should become one. (Wikimachine 14:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for nomination. I'm considering. Please wait. --Kusunose 22:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kusunose

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#CJKV disambiguation pages. We are planning a DAB project, to handle CJKV / Chinese characters.

I see that you have created the dab 東海, and have edited many CJKV articles. We will need your expertise in making guidelines, etc., for this new project. And it will be a great help if you can join us. Thank you in advance for your help.--Endroit (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing climate details for Osaka. I knew they were wrong. That guy quite rudely told me If I was in Osaka I would have known temperature. Actually I was so that's why I knew it was wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexyeamo (talk • contribs) 06:19, 11 December 2007 (UCT)

Please go to Liancourt rocks article first. An editor moved the whole article to Dokdo and almost all of edit history is erased. I tried to make Dokdo page to be the usual redirect page just like yesterday. My revert and your revert removed all contents. --Appletrees (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not certainly an administrator. The Dokdo page is not undone by administrator yet. Unless an admin restores Liancourt article, there has to hold content in either Liancourt rocks or Dokdo. And you completely removed the contents in wiki (for a while)--Appletrees (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're treating me like the same person as the banned editor. And I haven't copied and edited the page as you claims. And you're not in the position to make a decision. The admin leaves the Dokdo redirect page and you're acting like an admin. It is beyond your right. --Appletrees (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You're responsible for violating bad faith. At the time, I thought I might make a mistake because the whole contents of the Liancourt rocks article disappeared completely. And the edit history was gone as well. Therefore, restoring the contents and then intend to move the page to "Liancourt rocks". I don't endorse the editor's revert at all. If your claims were right, the admin endorses as the editors' intention. You're still acting like an admin which can be found in your recent edits. --Appletrees (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, relax. This was a highly uncommon situation that could easily get people confused. Whatever happened, the article has now been restored, albeit in a shortened version. Even though it is probably going to stay protected for some time still, constructive suggestions for re-expansion will be welcome. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to give our friend jusenkyo the warning, too! I think he needs it more than I do, given he's somewhat new to wikipedia. :-) o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I did. --Kusunose (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to revert your edit, because independence activist is more of an appropriate term, since nationalist has two meanings, and the two definitions are oft-confused between each other. Much appreciated if you do.o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though I do find myself wondering just what should be done given that Odst was not using the discussion page for said article or stating that it did not apply to him/her. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

directed towards jusenkyo unilateralism, I call it... Nah, your comments on the talk page bores me and doesn't convince me much at all. So why should I listen to them? o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like User:Mochi, you have been checking on my contribution history and following my steps. Why? I sense that your behaviors from the dispute over dog meat at Korean cuisine article. Not only that, the first meeting with you was one of my unpleasant experiences in Wikipedia which occurred at the discussion for deletion on Category:Korean fruits. Am I being your inspiration for your wiki edits, or a subject to be cared by your special interest? I didn't even be surprised at your sudden appearance at the Kim Ki-duk article yesterday. I knew one of you or mochi would finally come to me. You never edited the articles "with your ID" or showed any interest in them. I politely say that you must stop this unproductive wikistalking of me.--Appletrees (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think checking edit history of a user who tend to edit war constitute wikistalking. And your recent suspicion of massive sock puppetry, in which you included me in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Amazonfire draws particular attention to you. But your examples are not result of checking your edits. I had interest in the dog meat dispute so Korean cuisine was on my watchlist. For Category:Korean fruits, edit war for inclusion by some editors draw my attention, not your creation of the category. For Kim Ki-duk, I went from WP:RM because I have interest in article naming and disambiguation. Recent my edits from your edit history includes: Dekopon, on which you edit war with anon so I have provided a citation that supports anon's edit, An Jung-geun, similary, I have added a citation that supports anon's edit, Template:Email‎, on which you included a category in a wrong place so I fixed it. I also hope I don't have to make such edits again. --Kusunose (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result is "inconclusive", not "unrelated" like really a few. So there is a possibility that whether you're related to Mochi, jusenkoquide or someone else. Jusenkoguide has been always suspected per other people's files and his scarce contribution doesn't add up his appearance at such the deft timings. As the checkuser's suggestion, I might need to prepare a narrowed RFCU file next time. Then how do you find out my file to RFCU unless you're checking my contribution history? Well, I saw something funny long time ago that some of editors are doing meatpupptry thing per his talk page in Japanese, which says there are some boards to seek a help. There are abundant of possibility out there. However, I didn't put a sockpupptry tag on the suspected people unlike Endroit or anyone because I highly regard "public reputation". My lengthy file is because of disruptive adding or revertings of your friends (your "suspicion of massive sock puppetry" sounds like Japlish). My suspicion is valid as long as you and your friend are doing suspicious and disruptive behaviors. I don't see any single good contribution to Korean related article done by you. The inclusion of you is purely due to your "wikistalking" like Mochi. You're always get in my way, and owing to the Kim Ki-duk elder and email template and your socket pipeline at WikiProject Korea, you just prove that you're following me. The biggest mistake Wikimachine might've committed was the idea of nominating you as an admin. The unwise decision of him to recommend you who is more like a nationalistic editor far from neutrality could have caused misfortunes to my community. --09:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Checking pages that link to my talk page from Wikipedia namespace using Special:Whatlinkshere is a good way to see if my name is listed on WP:SSP, WP:RFCU, or any other such filings. --Kusunose 10:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I know the tool but your rationale sound unbelievable more. Oh, you have been frequently accused of sockpupetry? That is too bad. You should remember that you're the one of the people who tend to making edit warrings. You're far from neutrality. You already prove it from the categories of the Korean fruits and Japanese citrus. --Appletrees (talk) 11:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"prove it from the categories of the Korean fruits and Japanese citrus?" I had nothing to do with the category of Japanese citrus. --Kusunose 11:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your double standard. You knew the category was at RFD discussion.--Appletrees (talk) 11:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The relation between imperial household and Baekjae of Japan is being discussed. I hope for your opinion. [5] --Princesunta (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know of now that your wikistalking is related to 2channel because you left a note that you felt absurd when I said "Don't act like an admin" and several other comments. Thank you for your double play. Wikimachine really would've done something wonderful to Korean project. If you cease wikistalking me, I would appreciate your effort to restrain yourself from abusing Wiki rules.--Appletrees (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you tell me where I left a note that I felt absurd about your comment "Don't act like an admin"? --Kusunose 15:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know much more that I know. You're excellent at Japanese, so figure it out by yourself.--Appletrees (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S Stick to the original source. You really are breaking the new rule[6] in contrary to your edit summary, so please take it to the talk page.--Appletrees (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been written that way since January when El C restored the geography section (and before Spartaz deleted the article as well). If someone wants to change the name order he/she should discuss. --Kusunose 15:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two admins saw the change and have not mentioned about it except you and ip anon insisted on blocking the Korean admin. The Korean source does not provide any Japanese name of the geographic names. And the current status is not perfect as you know. Some references were incorrect per several pointoust by several editors after the major deletion. Right after the Japanese anon talebeared to Fut.Perf. you just followed the ip's claim. Is that a coincidence again? Don't pretend your wikistalking me anymore with other irrational rationale. And "per rule" is not appropriate to the situation because you don't have any source to insist the placement. And according to Alphabet order as you and your friends have said, Dongdo is the first one among them. Please find reliable sources to back up your claim which should be discussed first at Talk as well. --Appletrees (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something? What claim in need of sourcing are you talking about? As far as I see, people were just reverting the sequence of names again? What's that to do with sources? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before talking about this topic, I tell you my english is so short that I can't write the sentence well. 1 weeks ago, I edited Dokdo(Dakeshima), because dokdo is a part of Korea actually now. Now Japan do not govern this territory. I think practical governing is a important point. I think you won't agree with my opinion, because I cannot tell you about all my opinion. Finally, I add I'm not Korean nationalist. BongGon (talk) 05:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kusunose,

Thanks for making the link to Tsushima in the article Nagasaki, Nagasaki more precise with this edit. It's now a good match for the link to Satsuma Province in the same sentence. Now that we have articles on various han, including Satsuma Domain and Tsushima-Fuchū Domain, I wonder if those would be even more appropriate. What's your opinion?

Fg2 (talk) 05:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After the edit to Nagasaki, Nagasaki, I made an edit to Arai Hakuseki, in which I linked to Tsushima-Fuchū Domain (through Tsushima Domain redirect) to match the link to Satsuma Domain in the same sentence and thought the same thing. I agree linking to han articles is more appropriate. --Kusunose 05:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Since Nagasaki mentions the Edo Period, which the han articles cover, the han articles seem to be the most pertinent ones. Fg2 (talk) 05:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am a graduate student in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Minnesota. We are conducting research on ways to engage content experts on Wikipedia. Previously, Wikipedia started the Adopt-a-User program to allow new users to get to know seasoned Wikipedia editors. We are interested in learning more about how this type of relationship works. Based on your editing record on Wikipedia, we thought you might be interested in participating. If chosen to participate, you will be compensated for your time. We estimate that most participants will spend an hour (over two weeks on your own time and from your own computer) on the study. To learn more or to sign up contact KATPA at CS dot UMN dot EDU or User:KatherinePanciera/WPMentoring. Thanks. KatherinePanciera (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CJKV taskforce has been created to assist in disambiguation of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese when using Kyūjitai, Hanja, Hán tự, Simplified Chinese, and Shinjitai (Kanji). If you wish to participate, please come and help out. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Now that I understand about needless disambiguation pages. I'll stop creating them. Please go ahead with the deletion for Tokachi and move the Tokachi disambiguation page. I am afraid that I created a few others though:

• Mount Toyoni
• Mount Tomuraushi and Mount Tomuraushi (disambiguation)

How can I best fix these? imars (talk) 10:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MDP#Instructions how to fix malplaced disambiguation pages. Alternatively, you may list malplaced disambiguation pages you created on WP:MDP#Manual list; then they will be fixed by those who know how to do it. --Kusunose 08:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kusunose, and thanks for renaming the article Chūō Liner/Ōme Liner. The renaming process automatically created a redirect of that name, and I've put in a request for speedy deletion of it. I think it's safe to say nobody will type "Chūō Liner/Ōme Liner" into the search box both because of the macrons and due to the slash (they'll type "Chuo Liner" or "Ome Liner" and both redirects work). The article has been split into separate articles on the two services. If that's a problem, you can remove the speedy deletion request or create the redirect again. Best regards, Fg2 (talk) 06:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice. As there are no longer a page that deals with both Chūō Liner and Ōme Liner, it meets CSD R3 misnomer clause. I have no objection to it. --Kusunose 06:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Chūō Liner and Ōme Liner is going to be deleted as well, Interwiki link in ja:中央ライナー・青梅ライナー need to be removed. --Kusunose 06:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mentioning that, Kusunose. I've changed the Japanese. It now links separately to both English pages. Fg2 (talk) 10:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've told you several times the same things and thought it would be over after your sudden appearance at the discussion over the Korean name template. In this time, you may say that you care about DAB pages, or you once edited Yi Wang-yong 2 years ago as adding inter wiki or your expertise is computer. But I don't see any coincidence from you "following". Even though you may be a good editor for soring out dab pages for Japanese Wikiproject, I sincerely say again, please stop caring me or checking my contribution history. Why don't you care about other things related to Japanese related articles? --Appletrees (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You previously participated in a move request of ume. I have revived the request so please visit Talk:Ume#Requested move if you care to contribute. — AjaxSmack 16:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi friend!, I need help. Can you translate "I love you.. and you (love me)??.." to Japanese. Thank you!. (love me is not part of the text, only an explanation. Maru-Spanish (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A simple answer would be "愛しています……あなたは（私を愛していますか）？" How to end the sentence and what pronoun to use depends on the two's relationship, if saying it jokingly or seriously, etc. --Kusunose 15:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you said, "use the English name primary and sort local names in alphabetic order of their respective languages, not by local names themselves per WP:NC(GN)"

show me evidence please, there is no rules that country name order first before local (or alpha) name order.

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), foreign language names permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order Manacpowers (talk) 04:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) says, the contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article. That is, Liancourt Rocks should be used. As for an additional listing of the local names, only mention in the guideline is [they] should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages. In any case, using the Korean local name alone, as you did to Usan-guk[7], is not acceptable as per the guideline. --Kusunose 06:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i revert Korean local name alone.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) says, foreign language names permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order. so your naming order (known as Takeshima in Japan and Dokdo in South Korea) is not acceptable.

there is no rules that country name order first before local (or alpha) name order.

Manacpowers (talk) 06:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find such wording in the guideline. There is no guideline to sort by country names as you say but there is no guideline to sort by local names themselves either. As my major objection was the omission of the English name "Liancourt Rocks" and it is now fixed, I leave the local names part as is for now. --Kusunose 07:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) says, foreign language names permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order. do you think this is NOT mean local name sort by alphabetical order? read again please. "(geographic -not country-) foreign language names(dokdo or takeshima) should be listed in alphabetic order."

this name order is sorted by geographic foreign language name(eg. dokdo, takeshima). it is not sorted by country name.Manacpowers (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're not listening to my repeated suggestion regarding your wikii-staling. If you're truly a neutral person and far from Japanese POV, you should've written Liancourt Rocks (known as Dokdo and Takeshima in Japanese) on Usan-guk. (you always claims to use alphabet order, but you intentionally placed to Takeshima comes first) Besides, Liancourt Rocks is NOT an English term, but used to avoid political and international conflict only documents not real life. Besides, the division of Jeollanam-do did not exist until the late of the 20th century. So your putting the Greater Japan which was disappeared and ruined is nothing but your Japanese POV. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always "claim" that it should be "in alphabetic order of their respective languages" so putting Japanese name first is consistent with my statement. As for Jeollanam-do, it's due to my ignorance. If the region was under a different administrative division during the Japanese rule, then it should be corrected accordingly. Sorry for misinformation. --Kusunose 00:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do not realize that the article is about a Korean historical term or geographical info, so your comment is against your policy "their respective languages". Then, you prove that you're editing articles far from NPOV.--Caspian blue (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sort by "their respective languages" means sorting names like this: "(Armenian name1, Belarusian name2, Czech name3)", sorted by names of their languages; not "(Language1 alpha, Language2 beta, Language3 gamma)", sorted by names themselves.

No, the article is related to Korean history, and related to Korean historical document, so there is actually no need to mention about Takeshima at all. Besides, people have no need to follow your definition of the respective languages.--Caspian blue (talk) 04:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In your point of view, before the mid-19th century of Ryuku can't be Japanese history , but Chinese history. Their culture/politics/economics everything has been strongly influenced by China not Japan, so their cuisine can be a part of Chinese cuisine and Karate originating in Okinawa can't be only Japanese culture as well. Therefore when putting info about the Okinawan masters who were born before Okinawa integrated into Japan should be not include "Japan" flag, according to your point of view--Caspian blue (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before the annexation of Ryukyu to Japan, it was an independent kingdom, as explained in Ryūkyū Kingdom. Therefore, those who was born in the Ryukyu islands during that period, one should put Ryūkyū Kingdom in the infobox instead of Japan or China --Kusunose 00:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked several articles of karate masters who were born and died before the annexation (during their life, the annexation had nothing to do with them at all) have the "Japan" flag on their infobox. Somebody joked about the case, every Japanese who were born during the Occupied Japan period, are referred to as "born in the U.S or citizens of the countries in Allied Powers? I guess you would not. Moreover, a couple of your 2channel friends strongly previously objected to use the style of the "Occupied Japan" on one of Olympic games during the time. That is contradictory. Aside from all these, do not stalk me any more.--Caspian blue (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you had checked articles and saw them incorrect, please fix them. I checked several articles in Category:Okinawan karateka and found them correct; those articles for those who was born before 1879 have information about their birth place correctly mentions they were born in Ryūkyū Kingdom. As for the occupied Japan, I disagree with such statement as you guessed. Japan was militarily occupied but not annexed to any of the Allied Powers so those people were not born in the US, nor citizens of the countries in Allied Powers. I have nothing to say about 2channellers and their opinions about articles related to Olympic games. Finally, I made the edit to Kim Dae-jung because it's on my watchlist, not because I followed you. In fact, I didn't notice it's you. --Kusunose 03:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might've missed several articles regarding Ryuku people, because I saw more than three articles styled as such. Well, it is somewhat funny that people from Okinawa still are being treated differently in Japan but their ancestors are styled as Japanese people. The someone who joked about the occupied Japan are very keen to both Japanese and Korean culture and history. That example is what you tried to do on Kim Dae-jung. Well, you're related to 2channel, and everything has been discussed by people there. The last sentence sounds very good, because you seems to decide "finally not following me".--Caspian blue (talk) 04:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone was not born in Japan but stated as such, it should be corrected. If someone was not born in South Korea but stated as such, it should be corrected as well. This is what I did to Kim Dae-jung. Currently, the article is not incorrect so I'll leave it as is. --Kusunose 10:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article at Japanese Wikipedia is re-deleted today right after the creation. Therefore, you have to revert yourself, since bot systems are not working well to remove non-existing article on other language wikipedias. Besides, if any article has an English interwiki, a bot is automatically attaching English interwiki.--Caspian blue (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the ja article was undeleted since then so my edit does not need to be reverted, at least for now. --Kusunose 21:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Sea of Japan naming dispute. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Hi, I noticed that you live in Japan. If you can help, I've been searching for a free use ship image of the ferry Toya Maru. There is a photo of the capsized ship in the article but I would like to add a image of the ship under way or at a dock. Thanks Shinerunner (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank-you, much better! do you know a way to move that one map up slightly as well? it should really be one section higher, but formatting is not my specialty, i'm a writer; i was happy to get it to stop overlapping the text... Lx 121 (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks IE8 renders the page fine but Firefox places the map of the three kingdoms of Korea into the middle of the Later Silla section. I tweaked the location of the second monarch template and now the page rendered by Firefox looks similar to IE8. --Kusunose 14:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the graffiti... I was digging through page sources trying to find where it actually was, and when I finally got there, you'd beat me to it. John Darrow (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your re-worked description of Tsushima was elegant, instructive, diplomatic .... Thanks for helping avert unnecessary problems. I didn't know how to side-step these issues, and I didn't know who to ask for the very help you've now provided. --Tenmei (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, would you be able to clarify this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kijimuna and perhaps expand on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kijimuna_Festival as Japanese wiki must have more on these? I visited the festival in 2009 and had a great time. (129.96.115.44 (talk) 04:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

It does not match with MOS. Korean Empire was nation's name and it does not make sense that putting same word twice. What about Emperor Taizong of Tang? or should these articles are changed to be Emperor Gojong of Korea? -- Shyoon1 21:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If you think MOS does not make sense, please raise the issue at the relevant talk page. Please do not move pages unilaterally. --Kusunose 16:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you, a Japanese programmer, changing the edits made by me (a Korean) on the Article: "Geography of South Korea"? In particular the changes I made were to edit the disputed name of the Sea of Japan to "East Sea". As it is the official position of the KOREAN government that the name of that body of water should be the "East Sea", and since I did indeed quote a credible reference pertaining to the dispute over the name (another Wikipedia article), it should be left intact. Furthermore, since the article is about the geography of South Korea, it stands to reason that the naming conventions should respect what the Korean people, and the Korean government officially recognize it as, especially as there is a large amount of evidence supporting either naming convention (depending on which international maps, Chinese, Korean, European, or Japanese you refer to). In any case, it seems to me that since the article is not concerning Japan, but rather the "Geography of South Korea", you should respect the wishes of the vast majority (if not near unanimous) population of Korea and the Korean government. Please do not undo my changes again.

Dr. J Choi, PhD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.95.73.252 (talk) 05:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Talk:Geography of South Korea#To Kusunose. --Kusunose 06:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish "Dr. J Choi PhD" would stop pretending to be a professor & a Korean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.142.119 (talk) 08:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the naming convention page does not have anything to say that "(East Sea)" should be mention just once per one page at all, so I said such. I thought the passage first introduces the geographic information in the section even though it may mention above or elsewhere section per the unlinking. Even if the mention of "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" is duplicated by placing one per one section (could be several mentions within one article), you can not quote the naming convention at all because there is no such phase in that. You can open a discussion for clarification since the naming convention was set up about five years ago. Moreover, your edit summary Geography: removed the section about Liancourt Rocks per WP:UNDUE, the islets are not geographically significant, and WP:POV; changed some names) is very misleading, so I wanted to rebut to the false claim by editing almost null-edit of mine. If the islets are geographically insignificant, why are you acting like owning the article, and being sensitive to any related articles for a long time without contributing anything to Korean articles that you've touched? Please be honest about your POV.--Caspian blue 02:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Junko Sakurada, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junko Sakurada. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Northwestgnome (talk) 09:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree he's notable if you can actually source all of the claims you made. Anyone can make claims, Wikipedia says you need to be able to verify them through reliable sources. If you can provide sources for the article, that would be great. Papaursa (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncertain about what lessons to draw from your hatnote edit at IJN.

Please compare hatnotes at JMSDF? Do these headnotes need to be edited in light of the rationale which informs your decision-making at IJN? I believed hatnotes at JMSDF were helpful, appropriate and welcome because of a likelihood that someone might scan the first paragraph and then think, "Aha -- close, but no cigar."

I believed that the same reasoning applied at IJN. I also have a corollary question: In IJN, why is Ministry of the Military (Ritsuryō) appropriate in the "See also" section rather than headnote?

In sum, I have added hatnotes when I guessed that someone might appreciate the suggested alternative? Do you have any thoughts to share? --Tenmei (talk) 04:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First. I thought I had also removed the hatnote form JMSDF as well, but apparently I forgot to push the Save page button. Now, I did. See WP:HATNOTE. Hatnotes are navigational aid. It is intended to help who arrived at a wrong article because the article title is similar to another topic. It is not the place to list related topics. If something is closely related, it should be discussed and linked in the article. If something is somewhat related but the article does not mention it, then "see also" is the appropriate section.

I don't think typing "Imperial" in searching JMSDF or typing "self-defense force" in searching IJN are "close". If someone typed "Imperial Japanese Navy", then the intended page certainly is not JMSDF. "Imperial Japanese Navy" cannot be a possible alternative title to JMSDF. Equally, if someone typed a name that contains "self-defense force", then "Imperial Japanese Navy" is not the intended tartget. As for "Imperial Japanese Navy" and "Ministry of the Military (Ritsuryō)", if there was a navy under the Rituryō system and it is referenced as "Imperial Japanese Navy", and the ministry article is the article that provides the most in-depth coverage of the navy, then the hatnote is appropriate. However, the ministry article currently does not discuss pre-"Imperial Japanese Navy" navy at all so I think the placement at the "see also" section is appropriate.

Answer to the last question: Please add a hatnote if you think someone might be confused with other topics because of their similarity in their names. If you think someone might be interested in other topics because they are similar or related topic, incorporate the term into the article or put it into the "see also" section.

--Kusunose 13:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This became a teachable moment for me. Your explanation helps clarify in a way that Wikipedia:Hatnote did not. In this context, please review my edits here and here. --Tenmei (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be late to answer. I think they are OK, though I'm not sure putting it into a foot note is best. An alternative would be to mention the JMSDF at the end of IJN's lead section. As "Self-Defense Forces" is the last section of the article, mentioning it at the end in the lead seems not out of place. I'm not saying the alternative is better. One should exercise editorial judgment --Kusunose 14:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#MOS:JP – Romanization for words of English origin and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Prime Blue (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm proposing a move to a contentious title of diaoyu/senkaku islands. As you're involved in the previous discussion, you're invited to join the recent discussion on the move. (Discuss) — Senkaku Islands → Pinnacle Islands — A recent discussion about the controversial use of Japanese name over a controversial land seems to suggest that neither Senkaku and Diaoyu is predominate common name. Search results show that both names are common, in which the Japanese one yields more results in Google Book search, while the Chinese name yields more in Google News and General Google search. The title was hence moved to Pinnacle Islands following the example of Liancourt Rocks and Sea of Japan, which neglects who administrate and controls the place, but pick up a neutral generally known name. In this case, although the name Pinnacle Islands does not seem to be predominately popular than the rest of two, it achieves the highest degree of neutrality required by wp:name. An admin (nihonjoe) and I have moved the page to Pinnacle Islands for neutrality, but the move is disputed by a user. --Winstonlighter (talk) 05:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Video games developed in Japan was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page.

Thank you, AGK 22:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The request for mediation concerning Video games developed in Japan, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 21:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

I noticed in a recent edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_city_name_changes&action=historysubmit&diff=389844604&oldid=388037440) you added ref tags to some urls. If the ref is after the reflist this breaks stuff. Rich Farmbrough, 09:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for fixing and notifying my error. I will be careful not to make the same mistake. Thank you again. --Kusunose 08:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am contacting you because you participated in a discussion thread about changing the name of Eulsa Treaty to another name.

Summarizing the so-called discussion which began at Talk:Eulsa Treaty in early August here:

A. In an attempt to help us start discussion, options were proposed here and refined here.

1. Leave it at its current name?
2. To Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty?
3. To Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905?
4. To 1905 Protectorate Treaty?
5. Or what?; see the second paragraph of page Eulsa Treaty.

B. Valentim presented the results of a Lexis/Nexis search here. This supplements several Google searches.

In the many weeks of so-called discussion thread development, those opposing the move have either been unwilling or unable to present refutation or counterargument; and therefore, I propose we delay no longer.

In other words, I suggest that there is a consensus to act now on the basis of the Lexis-Nexis search outcome. The time has come for this article to be renamed Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905. --Tenmei (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In part, this is a follow-up to the problems your recent edit tried to resolve at Senkaku Islands.

I wonder if you have previously stumbled across this quote?

The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him. -- Leo Tolstoy, 1994

For me, this concept has resonance in a variety of Wikipedia settings. These sentences were introduced to me by someone interested in Metonymy and WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion ≠ WP:Straw poll. Although I still haven't resolved what I think about the context, I do come back again and again to Tolstoy's words.

Perhaps these words might be usefully stored in the back of your mind? --Tenmei (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do to fix this article up to standard; I'm aiming for DYK, but I'll need help in finding sources, mainly Japanese ones. Cheers, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a policy discussion that may concern a Wikiproject that you are a member of Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Non-Roman_characters_in_redirects_to_articles. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 02:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although some of your edits to this article were helpful in avoiding disambiguation pages, you changed many direct links to links to redirects. I don't understand why you would do that. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing from direct section links to redirects to sections is part of Dab solver's recommended fix. In my opinion, it is preferable to link sections directly because:

• Redirects can indicate possible future articles.
• Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form.
• Non-piped links make better use of the "what links here" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links.

as explained in WP:NOTBROKEN. I believe this is the reason Dab solver implements this feature. --Kusunose 05:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute about romanizations for katakana words of non-Japanese origin has now entered mediation and is currently being talked about in this discussion page section. If you still wish to participate, please join the discussion. Thank you. Prime Blue (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note of my apology to Historiographer for delay in responding to his edits of January 24 -- please read Talk:List of tributaries of Imperial China#Good step in process of collaborative editing. --Tenmei (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kusunose. I'm editing the page Hatayama Hatch no Pro Yakyuu News! Jitsumei Han, can you help a little bit with the Japanese translation?

I'm reading the Japanese wiki-article about it "はた山ハッチのパロ野球ニュース!実名版", but I don't understand everything clearly. Has it something to do with manga?

Cheers. --Hydao (talk) 12:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I already googled "はた山ハッチ" and I saw many draws related to Japanese Baseball. Anyway, I recorded the gameplay video, maybe it will help a little bit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tA_6aL39SM

Thanks. --Hydao (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the game nor the named author Hatayama. But I will see what I can do. --Kusunose 09:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks. :) --Hydao (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

on your userpage, you say you only speak intermediate english, but i think your proficiency is much higher. no need for modesty to mask this. . . --68.173.110.247 (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your compliment. The next level of the user language template (BABEL), {{User en-3}} is "for advanced level - though you can write in this language with no problem, some small errors might occur." I'm hesitant to call myself advanced as I still have troubles with gramatical constructs which the Japanese language lacks, such as clear distinction of singular/plural, use of articles, subject-verb agreement, past/past perfect, etc. If there's en-2+ or en-2.5, similar to Writing 2+ in BABEL, I would label myself with it. Anyway, it's really nice of you to compliment my English proficiency. Thank you again. Happly editting! --Kusunose 11:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

for fixing the link. Stupid of me. Happy editing! Oda Mari (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping me to parse and evaluate a trivial problem. --Tenmei (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you had a problem with that, you should have used requested move. When I moved it, I had a good faith belief it was uncontested. You knew, becuase I had just moved it, that you were making a contested move. What you did is move warring. Yworo (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will be moving it back, then you can use requested move like you should have when a page has just been moved. You not only did it incorrectly, you didn't even bother to clean things up properly. Yworo (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Be Here Now. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains under way. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is fine you moved a page with the assumption that the book is the primary topic will not be contested. I contested it by undoing the page move, provided the rationale in the summary. I think my action is also fine per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Discussion should follow, in the form of requested move, instead of moving it back.

As for I did not clean things up properly, I did not notice that the style of the disambiguation page was changed from a plain disambiguation page to a disambiguation page with primary topic. Thank you for the fix. I will be careful to check edits to related pages. If there are other things I also messed up, please let me know, thank you. --Kusunose 02:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also did not remove hatnote from Be Here Now (book). Thank you for the fix as well. --Kusunose 02:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A notification that a second RM has been started, as requested. :) Salvidrim! 18:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Konbanwa, Kusunose-san!

I appreciate very much your help in adding Kanji titles and their transliterations into the article. I was wondering if you can also provide accurate English translations of the episode titles? I've looked up the Google-translated version and added some that make real sense, but the machine translations overall seem awkward - you can overwrite the machine translated English titles. Your help as a native Japanese speaker and writer would be of value to improving the article as well as the main series article. Thanks. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You requested deletion of Hugh Thomas to make way for a page move. I've deleted it, so feel free to go ahead with what you wanted to do. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find a source in Japanese to the murder committed by Hiroyuki Tsuchida in 2003 against his mother? I wrote the article and need a source in our native language but I can't find any. Help appreciated. Kotjap (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]