Misplaced Pages

User talk:Eichikiyama: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:10, 31 December 2008 editCaspian blue (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers35,434 editsm →Kofun period← Previous edit Revision as of 07:26, 31 December 2008 edit undoCaspian blue (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers35,434 editsm →Kofun periodNext edit →
Line 102: Line 102:
::::::''The archaeological record, and ancient ], indicate that the ''various tribes and chiefdoms of Japan did not begin to coalesce into states until 300''', when large tombs began to appear while there were no contacts between western ] and ] or ]. Some describe the "mysterious century" as a time of internecine warfare as various chiefdoms competed for hegemony on ] and ].'' ::::::''The archaeological record, and ancient ], indicate that the ''various tribes and chiefdoms of Japan did not begin to coalesce into states until 300''', when large tombs began to appear while there were no contacts between western ] and ] or ]. Some describe the "mysterious century" as a time of internecine warfare as various chiefdoms competed for hegemony on ] and ].''


::::::Moreover, your translation on the source is incorrect: ''There were ] in the middle of sea of ], the place was divided into about 100 chieftains.'' ''The 300'' was period, not number of the chiefdoms. The book source says ''Until 300, Japan remained under the control of numerous regional chieftains, each rulling an area of 100 to 150 square kilometers.'' ::::::Moreover, your translation on the source is incorrect (the following is my interpretation): ''There were ] in the middle of sea of ], the place was divided into about 100 chieftains.'' '''The 300''' was period, not number of the chiefdoms. The book source says ''Until 300, Japan remained under the control of numerous regional chieftains, each rulling an area of 100 to 150 square kilometers.''


So I do not trust your translation. Revert your edit or provide translation of all the content each by each.--] 07:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC) ::::::So I do not trust your translation. Revert your edit or provide translation of all the content each by each.--] 07:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:26, 31 December 2008

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see

If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so on Misplaced Pages:Sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Misplaced Pages.

I hope you enjoy editing Misplaced Pages! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Caspian blue (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


July 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did to Japanese Sea Lion. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove content from pages without explanation, as you did with this edit to Japanese Sea Lion. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Mattie 14:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


Japanese Sea Lion

Many of references of Japanese Sea Lion were "Not Found. "Therefore, I replaced it with . What is my problem?

Dead Link

--Eichikiyama (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I only gave you one warning however

You deleted chunks of information across many articles. Your allegation on Japanese sea lion is also half false. You should refrain from committing such disruptive behaviors.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

re: Yokohama Kaidashi Kikō

Hi, YKK was mildly popular in Korea as well, thanks to the official Korean translation. It went out of print, but due to grassroots support from fans who mostly got to know the manga from word-of-mouth, who petitioned to have it reprinted, the publisher complied. All this shows that the Korean edition is significantly noteworthy. --Kjoonlee 16:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Kape Alpa is not as useful, because people wouldn't be able to search for the Korean edition with just "Kape Alpa." --Kjoonlee 16:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll put something in later on. Thanks. --Kjoonlee 17:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Onigiri

Please read carefully the description and citation that I added to the article. I have not said that gimbap (김밥) is onigiri but samgak gimbap (삼각김밥) is. That is different. When a new item is imported into a country, people tend to name it a "familiar term" to them or adapt its name for their taste and language. Like Japanese call grilled and marinated beef dishes "yakiniku", not pulgogi or Chinese people call Coca Cola "可口可樂" (pronounced kěkǒukělè). Gimbap is a derived from Makizushi, while samgak gimba is derived from onigiri. Originally, the equivalent food in Korean cuisine to onigiri is called jumeokbak (주먹밥) although that is indigenous food to Korea. However, samgak gim jumeokbap (삼각김주먹밥) seems too long, so people who introduced the food to South Korea would name the food the shorter name. Samgak gimbap has been recently spread to South Korea via convenient stores owned by Japanese companies such as Family Mart. So, don't falesly blame why the food is not called like what Japanese people do. If you check the quote in the citation with "translation tool" as you did to Japanese sea lion, you would not even need to visit to me. Regards.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. The recent edit you made to Kite has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. WadeSimMiser (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I did a wrong operation. --Eichikiyama (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Source

I left the note at the edit summary, and your version is not grammatically correct. You can use a translation tool as you did some time ago. Various socks of Pabopa (talk · contribs) also confirmed the source by himself.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As I already answered to your question at Talk:Tribute, the Korean source was added by Japanese users, not me. Please check the history of the article. --Caspian blue (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Mr Son is nationalized Korea-Japanese. He used to be Zainich Korean though. Korean-Japanese refers to only nationalized Japanese, or ethnically Korean but has Japanese citizenship. Simple.--Caspian blue (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Look I'm not the person who can define such term (by only authority). Besides, I was told the info first by a pretty respectable Japanese editor here.--Caspian blue (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Misplaced Pages, as you did to Korea under Japanese rule, you will be blocked from editing. What are you afraid of the added "reliable source" regarding Japanese crime written by Russian diplomats. You blanked the added information and then "support the indef.blocked user" contribution. Behave yourself--Caspian blue 15:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Eichikiyama

You have been accused of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Misplaced Pages accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Eichikiyama. Thank you. Caspian blue 19:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I strongly encourage all editors on Japan-Korea articles to discuss issues calmly on talk pages not edit war. And stay civil and cease the personal attacks. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I wrote the point under discussion. Thank you. --Eichikiyama (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I met you in one article or someones accusation. So I know you. I recovered vandalized article only my related contents.--Bukubku (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Your blanking

I already pointed out your fallacy of logic with the citation. The source is written by an American professor at UCLA, and the site only hosts the content originally posted to Korean cultural center located in LA,. Not to mention, the website has been regarded a reliable cite in South Korea (I've used sources from the cite when I need sources for Buddhist subject such as Buddhist cuisine, temple, culture, etc). You only snipped a very small portion from the source to make your WP:POINT as deliberately ignoring the premise that the early Japanese sculpture is based on Korean prototypes. If you feel that Korean sculpture is also strongly influence by China, go ahead to include it as sticking to the source. However, you labeled the content blanked by you is not insincere, which is a dishonest practice of yours. Please stick to the source.--Caspian blue 18:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

DO NOT EDIT KOREAN TOPICS AGAIN

Mind your business! Editing without valid reasons and reputable sources are not tolerable --Korsentry 23:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

conventional name

I creat a new section in Talk:Korea under Japanese rule.--Bukubku (talk) 10:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Kofun period

Again, after Unit 731, why did you replace the cited information from a book with a primary source? That means you erased the existent content. You must additionally insert your source and content.--Caspian blue 05:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, why you erased the book content? I clearly suggested you to "additionally insert the content" from your primary source. Besides, http://www.hoolulu.com/zh/25shi/02qianhanshu/t-028.htm does not look like a reliable site. How do people believe that the site properly copied the original content from the book? Besides, translate the whole quote since here is English Misplaced Pages and most of people do not read Chinese characters. --Caspian blue 05:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
You're evading my question. I asked you first, so answering my question is in order. And do not forget to provide English translation of your source.--Caspian blue 05:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I offered the source Book of Han(http://www.hoolulu.com/zh/25shi/02qianhanshu/t-028.htm). Is Book of Han a source that cannot be trusted? --Eichikiyama (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Prove that the site is credible and you still fail to answer my question and suggestion. Provide the English translation.--Caspian blue 06:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I admit you to look for the English translation. If I was inaccurately translating Book of Han, you can indicate the errors.
You wrote. The archaeological record, and ancient Chinese sources, indicate that the various tribes and chiefdoms of Japan did not begin to coalesce into states until 300', when large tombs began to appear while there were no contacts between western Japan and Korea or China. However, The Book of Han is being written. 樂浪海中有倭人　分爲百餘國(About 100)　以歳時來獻見云　What are grounds of until 300--Eichikiyama (talk) 06:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm sorry, but I do not understand "I admit you to look for the English translation". So how can you prove the credibility of the site? You always have not properly answered to my questions. Besides, why did you erase the book content?
The archaeological record, and ancient Chinese sources, indicate that the various tribes and chiefdoms of Japan did not begin to coalesce into states until 300', when large tombs began to appear while there were no contacts between western Japan and Korea or China. Some describe the "mysterious century" as a time of internecine warfare as various chiefdoms competed for hegemony on Kyūshū and Honshū.
Moreover, your translation on the source is incorrect (the following is my interpretation): There were Wa people in the middle of sea of Lelang Commandery, the place was divided into about 100 chieftains. The 300 was period, not number of the chiefdoms. The book source says Until 300, Japan remained under the control of numerous regional chieftains, each rulling an area of 100 to 150 square kilometers.
So I do not trust your translation. Revert your edit or provide translation of all the content each by each.--Caspian blue 07:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)