User talk:Corruptresearcher

Hi, Corruptesearcher, how are you ;) お時間がありましたらWP:JCOTWの投票にご参加くださいませ（化けて編集画面で読みにくいので英語でも書いときます） If you have an interest, pleaee visit WP:JCOTW and vote, thanks. --Aphaea * 04:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tsushima islands

I would like to ask why have you removed

Due in part to Tsushima's proximity to Korea, the islands have been more heavily influenced by Korea, both linguistically and culturally, than the rest of Japan. For example, Korean songs such as "Arirang" and "Chingu" are sung on certain days, leading to the establishment of festivals not found elsewhere in Japan. Signs on the islands are often in both Korean and Japanese.

To prove to you, I will copy a webpage by professor Cho Kyeungdal about this phrase (i cannot provide the link because I have lost it)

Japan prepared to open up to the rest of Asia? Open minds bridge the gap between cultures CHO KYEUNGDAL Professor of modern Korean history, Chiba University

Too Long, So I replace it with the original link.

EN / JP Poo-T 21:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tan 11:34, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now we have some information. I understood. I modified the article a bit. By the way, why don't you write this on the discussion page of the article? --Corruptresearcher 04:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Aritiyaki pottery is stated above, but the

It was noted that the current population of the islands were mainly recent immigrants from mainland Japan, thus displacing the indigenious Japanese populace which may have some Korean ancestry.--

Is an analysis of facts (please see Tsushima Islands's talk page for my description)

Hey man, why aren't you replying?

Tan 11:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody has his usual life other than Wikipedia. Why are you so in hurry? --Corruptresearcher 08:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Let's come to the point. You say that Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not: 5. Primary (original) research". Do you understand? You should find another place to publish your own analysis. It also states that proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. Do you realise, that proposing theories is not the same as an analysis? An analysis is not a theory at all! Furthermore, an analysis from factual accounts are not the same as those of primary original research. Primary original research is the researching of information by yourself throgh various means, while analysis is using inferring from factual accounts. Thus I see nowhere that analysis are not allowed in wikipedia. Tan 22:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need to write the same contents on my talk page as that on the discussion page of Tsushima Islands. I can easily find you wrote something on the discussion page because the page is included in my watchlist. You should learn more about Wikipedia itself. --Corruptresearcher 21:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then, Mr.Tan. Wikipedia is not a place to show your personal opinion as "ANALYSIS". It's far from NPOV. Do you undersatnd? Poo-T 21:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Baekje connections?

Proceed to Talk:Tsushima Islands, please.

Tan 19:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proceed there again, please.

Tan 12:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey man, are you there?

Tan 15:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The discussion method of Mel Etitis =

Having trouble with him at Talk:Tsushima Island, I posted Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#How to use talk if almost all passages of an article are disputed?. I'd like to hear your comments. Thank you. --Nanshu 05:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Before I Vote on 'Move Tsushima Islands' Issue

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]] 00:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi! You appear to be an interested disinterested bystander... I'm just making the rounds to everyone that has made their mark in the last month trying to mediate this flaming revert war — I can use your help — Bring lots O water! (Better yet Beer) Frank

[[User:Fabartus| FrankB || TalktoMe]] 00:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WPMilHist East Asian Task Force

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 15:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Law for Temporary Measures concerning University Management

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Law for Temporary Measures concerning University Management, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Futurano 22:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nitta no Yoshishige

I was so pleased by your edit to the nengō Kennin. I knew that there was something amiss, but I didn't know quite how to resolve the problem. I was hoping that someone would help me out; and I must admit that I would never have stumbled into Minamoto no Yoshishige. My efforts to clarify Yoshishige's identiity were directed along entirely different lines of reasoning.

Thanks. I'm smiling to myself over this one because I was so, so wrong. Sometimes being wrong is a little bit funny, I think; and so I smile wryly. I chuckle quietly to myself while I think of friends with whom I can share this small story. --Ooperhoofd 21:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. Yes, I can share your story and can understand it was a bit difficult. I was also annoyed: why a cook's death was written in the history book??? But the hint was the very word "cook": I found the original text wrote it as "Oo fi souke". It took a time to identify it is "Oh'i-no-suke" but afther that it became easy: I just searched "Oh'i-no-suke" who was dead in Kennin by google. This is all of my story(^^). --Corruptresearcher 23:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rising Sun Flag

In June 2007 you edited the Rising Sun Flag article, adding that a variant of this flag with the mon centred (as opposed to offset towards the lanyard, as in the naval variant) was used as the war flag of the Imperial Japanese Army. What is your source for this information? Other than Wikipedia, I can find nothing on prominent vexillological websites, and googling has uncovered only two images which I have linked on the talk page for the article in question. Thanks for your time. 86.8.141.80 22:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Fundamental Law of Education

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Fundamental Law of Education, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Unnotable topic. Fails WP:N. Almost entire article is paraphrased from a single "source."

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Fundamental Law of Education

I have nominated Fundamental Law of Education, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fundamental Law of Education. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]