User talk:Nihonjoe: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:36, 3 June 2006

Please place new topics at the bottom of the page

Generally, I'll reply here if you post here, so please watch this page if you want to see my reply. Thanks! ···日本穣

Archives: 1·2·3·4·5·6·7·········Special: E

Signature edit

Why did you feel a need to alter my signature on Rick's talk page? Had I wanted it linked I certainly know to do so and the way you edited my signature is not characteristic of my linked signature which is: hydnjo talk 22:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All comments on Talk pages need to be linked to the editor who made them in order to easily determine who made them without scouring the history of the page. I certainly wasn't implying that you don't know how to do it yourself, so please don't take offense. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must have missed that part of WP's policy which states that "All comments on Talk pages need to be linked to the editor who made...". Could you please point out where I can find it so that I may acquaint myself with that policy? --hydnjo talk 00:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can find them here. In short, it says:

Sign your posts: To sign a post, type three tildes (~~~), and they will be replaced with your username after saving, like this: Eloquence. Type four tildes (~~~~), and they will be replaced with your username and time stamp, like this: Eloquence 03:44 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC); comments can be further customized in Special:Preferences, like so: --Maru (talk) Contribs 00:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC). (The latter is usually preferred, to make it easy to piece together the chronology of a page.) No comments are really anonymous, because anyone can check the history of the page to find out what user or IP address posted any given text. Signing your post is a common courtesy which allows people an easy way to see who is speaking; unsigned posts are confusing.[reply]

You can fund further elaboration on signing posts here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the guidelines that you are citing are referring to talk pages in the article namespace. I intend to revert your edit linking our names to our User page on Rick's talk page as it was not our intention to link our real names to our username. Further, I would consider it a courtesy on your part to consult with me before editing my comments as your edits could be misconstrued as our own. --hydnjo talk 01:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free. As for editing your comments, I didn't. I edited your signature to link to you, per the guidelines above. If you think that somehow misconstrues something, that's a personal problem. You were not misrepresented in any way. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that owe you an apology for my surly attitude above. I realize that you were trying to be helpful towards other users happening upon my message to Rick. My being in a sour mood should not be expressed as sharp dialogue with you or any other users with whom I happen to cross paths and I'm sorry for doing that. :-) --hydnjo talk 23:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I hope the rest of your day goes better. (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maison Ikkoku

I've had to take out all the macrons from the article. VIZ' translation does not use macrons, and therefore macrons should not be used here. WhisperToMe 22:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "commuting"

Nah, some guy edited my user page and stuck an El Paso thing in it. WhisperToMe 22:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it was something like that, but it was an interesting thought. (^_-) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google survey q

(Nihonjoe, I had asked this earlier in the day but hadn't put it in a new section on your talk page so I want to rewrite once more to make sure you saw my question.) Nihonjoe: I had a question and if you could answer I would really appreciate it. On Talk:Liancourt Rocks you supported the move to Dokdo citing the Google survey. Is there any way you could send me information on that survey or what it is? Thanks for your time. Tortfeasor 01:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The survey was conducted by someone else a few posts above mine on that page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other romaji check

Can you 'process' these too? Btw I believe the 「」 is often a part of the official episode title in japanese.

--Cat out 23:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 「」 is no more part of the title than the "" are in English. They are only there to make it stand out. I'll check those others out (probably tomorrow or the next day). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I figured as much, but I want to keep things "authrntic" ;) --Cat out 00:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erasing Rusk documents from the Dokdo article

Hello Nihonjoe. Does the US government has no bearing about the Liancourt Rocks? I don't think so. Please check the article Rusk documents. South Korean government asked about the US government's opnion first. -- Himawarichan 01:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a dispute between Korea and Japan. It doesn't matter what the U.S. thinks about it as it will eventually be up to Japan and Korea to decide who the rocks belong to. You can link to the Rusk documents from the "See also" section on Dokdo, but nothing else belongs there. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. is very much a concerned party to this issue. Japan was deprived of oversea territories precisely because the U.S.-led Allied Powers defeated Japan in the Pacific War, and it was the SCAP (Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers) that redrew the national boundaries of post-war Japan and determined the attribution of islands such as the Liancourt rocks and Kuril Islands. Removing the info on the U.S. involvement is ridiculous. Hermeneus (user/talk) 02:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before the San Francisco treaty Korea was not independed form Japan yet. And Korea asserts that she indpended with the Rocks. So the interpretation of SF treaty is the Key of its possession and Korea was not the the countries concerned because she didn't exist yet formally. Rusk documents was the important papers to interpret the SF treaty.Bright888 02:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request of translation

Hello, Mr. Nihonjoe. I still make sentences from the website called 田代まさし波瀾万丈伝 on Masashi Tashiro's article but I have trouble because I'm unable to edit it in clean English. I would like you to correct and add it from the website. Would you help me if you are OK, please? And, there are sections called "Success", "Criminal charges" etc. You may change it to more appropriate name in his article. For example, I made section called "Early life" on his article but please change its name appropriately if you think you had better change it. In addition, would you write translation from "Haran-Banjoden" website as detailed as possible. Please answer to me. --Hatto 04:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see my message? Please answer to me if you did it. --Hatto 03:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 66: / Line 66: @@
 ::The U.S. is very much a concerned party to this issue. Japan was deprived of oversea territories precisely because the U.S.-led Allied Powers defeated Japan in the Pacific War, and it was the SCAP ([[Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers]]) that redrew the national boundaries of post-war Japan and determined the attribution of islands such as the Liancourt rocks and [[Kuril Islands]]. Removing the info on the U.S. involvement is ridiculous. <span style="font-family:palatino,times;">Hermeneus ([[User:Hermeneus|user]]/[[User talk:Hermeneus|talk]])</span> 02:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
-::Before the San Francisco treaty Korea was not independed form Japan yet. And Korea assert that she indpended with the Rocks. So the interpretation of SF treaty is the Key of its possession and Korea was not the the countries concerned because she didn't exist yet formally. [[Rusk documents]] was the important papers to interpret the SF treaty.[[User:Bright888|Bright888]] 02:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
+::Before the San Francisco treaty Korea was not independed form Japan yet. And Korea asserts that she indpended with the Rocks. So the interpretation of SF treaty is the Key of its possession and Korea was not the the countries concerned because she didn't exist yet formally. [[Rusk documents]] was the important papers to interpret the SF treaty.[[User:Bright888|Bright888]] 02:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 ==Request of translation==