This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Talking past each other is like a chicken talking to a duck (鸡同鸭讲 or 雞同鴨講). --Ansei (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Just (happily) noticed that you expanded Fujiwara no Nakamaro. Incidentally I am working on an article on the Fujiwara no Nakamaro Rebellion aiming for something like Fujiwara no Hirotsugu Rebellion. Just wanted to let you know, not to double the work. Of course if you are interested we can work together on the rebellion. For instance I don't have access to "A History of Japan to 1334" (but already asked User:Nihonjoe who promised to check it) or to Nussbaum. If you want to cooperate on the article, I could send you some references if you need/want. BTW, do you know if there exist any pictures of the main figures (Dokyo, Empress Koken, Fujiwara no Nakamaro) at all (even outside wikipedia)? Also, apart from the Nakamaro Rebellion, I am planning to concentrate on writing new articles on Nara period (and before) topics in the near future. If that interests you perhaps we could join forces. bamse (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please consider Talk:Fujiwara no Nakamaro#Overview. These are only very small tidbits, but in the context of the work you have already done, it may be helpful. --Ansei (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Do you mean, that's all that Sansom has to say on Nakamaro? bamse (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Nakamaro's name in the Sansom index shows only pp. 90-91. --Ansei (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, regarding this revert, as far as I can see the information was basically correct. However there was a small typo "Tachibana no Nakamaro" should be Tachibana no Naramaro (with "r" instead of "k"). This Tachibana no Naramaro was the son of Tachibana no Moroe and indeed there was a conspiracy (planned coup d'etat) in 757 led by Tachibana Naramaro and Fujiwara no Nakamaro was involved (need to read more to figure out in exactly which way) to put down this conspiracy. bamse (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About images: My guess is that the availability of usable online images grows at an irregular rate -- more slowly for Japanese historical figures than for contemporary people. I suppose we can only keep searching in the ordinary way, for example using the Google Image search engine

• search hits for Dokyo? → image without information?

• search hits for 道鏡?
• search hits for 弓削道鏡?

• search hits for Koken tenno? → Yoso film poster, 1963?

• search hits for 孝謙天皇?

• search hits for Shotoku tenno?

• search hits for 称徳天皇?

• search hits for Fujiwara no Nakamaro?

• search hits for 藤原 仲麻呂?

• search hits for Emi no Oshikatsu?
• search hits for 恵美 押勝?

Was this the kind of process-related response you hoped to elicit? Is this helpful? on target? confirming what you already know? --Ansei (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Very helpful and on target. Given their historical relevance I had expected many more pictures. In fact after looking through all those search results I only found the following:

• Koken (unknown source)
• Koken and Dokyo (unknown source)
• Koken? and Dokyo (unknown source, but rather too modern to be uploadable)
• not sure who this is

I did not find any monuments/sculptures that one could photograph. As for the images you found, this appears to be from a scroll on Wake no Kiyomaro and if I understand this page correctly, it is from Heisei 10, i.e. unfortunately under copyright. As for the film poster do you know whether it is from 1963 (or before)? In any case I believe there would be a problem with copyright, but will check that. bamse (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As we search for specific images to illustrate specific articles, we may also want to be on the lookout for something like the collection of Imperial portraits at Yahiko-jinja here; but, of course, it would be best if we can find pre-Shōwa artwork. --Ansei (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed pre-Showa seems to be the minimum requirement for copyright. BTW, per this, the film poster is unfortunately not usable either. BTW, do you know anything about the image you linked? The artwork is certainly not 8th century as the image description says. To me it looks like 19th century or younger. bamse (talk) 15:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your guess is as good as mine.

Confirming what we already know from the Commons page here, we can infer that the drawing seems to have been uploaded by Australian named Tatewaki? My guess is solely based on the fact that the PD-tag mentions Australia first? The drawing was uploaded for use in the Russian Wikipedia -- see Tatewaki in the ru:Императрица Кокэн edit history here. The identified internet source was a Hong Kong site which may not meet our "reliable source" standards; but there we have it.

I posted the image in this discussion thread for two reasons: (a) because the drawing is in Commons and (b) because link at "File usage on other wikis" may catch the attention of someone browsing ...? If so, it may draw an unknown collaborator who can add constructively to our discussion ...? I know that it's a bit of a stretch, but this is how the inter-wiki links seem to be set up.

The headpiece in the Kōken drawing is curious, isn't it? --Ansei (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will do it today, Ansei. Good to see you back in action. - Frank (Urashima Tarō) (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your Meta talk page WhisperToMe (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It still reads like a tourist board puff piece.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand the phrase "puff piece".

No, I don't understand your point; and I don't understand the strategy in serial reverts.

• A here, which you explain with one word only

You wrote → Spam

• B here, which you explain in terms which suggest the need for discussion

You wrote → This is a list of the parks; it is not necessary to give any detail about them or add that external link that's never been on Wikipedia before.

• C here, which you mis-label as "massive descriptions"

You wrote → This is not what Wikipedia is for. Stop adding massive descriptions to a simple table.

Talpinator2010 suggested here that a 3rd opinion might be helpful. Is this not helpful?

The new sub-article is a reasonable response to criticism. --Ansei (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ansei. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Fuwa clan, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: That's not an adequate reason for deletion under G6. I don't think any other criteria applies either. Take to AfD. Thank you. GedUK  11:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ansei. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jinbō clan, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Deletion of this page may be controversial or is under discussion. Thank you. GedUK  11:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's for teh same reason as the previous one. Best thing to do would be to roll them together as one AfD. GedUK  11:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ansei. I am just letting you know that I deleted Jinbo Nagamoto, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. GedUK  12:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ansei. Thank you for your attention to Jōetsu region. I was thinking about merging the two senses myself, but given my uncertainty about the relationship just left the wording per the DAB page. I'm happy to see that someone more knowledgeable has the issue well in hand. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Betty Furuta is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betty Furuta until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jcgoble3 (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed up the Abe Motozane AfD nom. Since there was an AfD nom in 2007 (the page that you were editing that frustrated Snotbot), you needed to make a "2nd nomination" page instead, but all better now! It's live at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abe Motozane (2nd nomination). (I've seen your several samurai AfDs recently—you may want to install WP:TWINKLE, which automates the whole process.) Take care czar · · 19:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Ansei (talk) 00:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working on some of these questionable historical figures and putting some up for AfD. Some clearly need to go though, as you can see from my comments, some seem to have more to them than appears at first. Putting that aside, I wanted to direct you to the etiquette guide for AfDs: WP:DISCUSSAFD. It says: "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." It can confuse the closing administrator. I see you've done that several times with current AfDs, so you might want to be careful with that in the future. Michitaro (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks. In each AfD, I changed the word "delete" to "comment".

In part, I wanted to position each individual AfD in the wider context Nihonjoe writes about. A review of the edit histories of these articles shows that Tadakuni tried to fix these problems in 2008; and I have tried to do the same in 2013. My objective is to ensure that no more good intentions will be squandered. This list is too much like a Sysiphean exercise. Do you know what I mean? --Ansei (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. And thanks again for trying to do this. It does seem like a lot of these are samurai fancruft with little solid basis as encyclopedia entries, but the problem is that a few don't seem to be that. And since authentic medieval historical research is not always easily available on the net--especially when it's in Japanese--I think a few of these need to be confirmed by going over to the university library and browsing through a bunch of reference books. If I have time in the next few days, I might do that. Michitaro (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a response at Czar's talk page. czar · · 02:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you start an AFD discussion, you have to add it to the current log of AFDs so multiple people can discuss it. You can't just add the template to the article and then start a discussion. It has to be listed on the central page.

And regardless, you should not have edit warred on the Ryūkyū Province article to restore it just to send it to AFD. Your acts are bordering on WP:POINT violations.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1899&entity=FRUS.FRUS1899.p0573&isize=text

I received the mail from you, but I generally try to avoid discussing on-wiki actions via other means, except in special circumstances involving sensitive matters or request for action by functionaries. If you're okay with discussing this on-wiki, please repost your message to my talk page. LFaraone 14:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, not okay. --Ansei (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you have recently admitted that you are the previous operator of Tenmei (talk · contribs), I believe you are in violation of your topic ban on the Senkaku Islands. I have raised this issue at WP:AE for investigation by the arbitration committee and administrators.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint against you at WP:Arbitration enforcement has been closed. The result is that you are banned from all topics that concern the Ryukyu Islands as a whole, including the past or present political status of these islands. The ban covers Ryukyu Domain, the Ryukyu Kingdom and the Ryukyu Province, and applies to all pages of Wikipedia, including talk pages. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We learn from experience. Too often in the Wikipedia context, these are lessons learned the hard way --Ansei (talk)

You really need to stop your habit of linking to articles to get your point across.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:NOTDICT, I have nominated a number of idioms that you have either created or been involved in editing. User:Ryulong has nominated some additional entries. If you wish to be involved in the discussion, you can find them at: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_May_31. Bueller 007 (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm SarahStierch. Ansei, thanks for creating Japan-China Joint History Research Committee!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Hi there. Most of the citations used don't mention the Japan-China Joint History Research Committee by name. Please consider expanding this article with more reliable secondary sources about the Japan-China Joint History Research Committee. Thanks!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. SarahStierch (talk) 05:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]