Thanks for the heads up, I will use -zukuri in my future edits. And may I say that your additions to the Shinto shrine page are very impressive! Wikipedia was in dire need of information on the construction styles and it's nice to see that you've stepped up to the task. Cheers, ~ AMorozov ^〈talk〉 06:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you back, BTW. Urashima Tarō (talk) 07:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not sure about the construction style. I made the page back then so that links on a UNESCO World Heritage site page would not be red. Because of this I really just put together a placeholder page, the information was taken from Japanese Wikipedia [1]. Google search results in Japanese seem to turn up 桃山様式 (Momoyama-style) a lot, but I assume that's only a reference to the period when the structures were built. This [2] travel guide page seems to claim that separate elements of the building are built in different styles (本殿は一間社春日造りに三間社流造りを左右につないだ三殿一棟の造り), but it's certainly no academic source. Sorry I can't be of more help. ~ AMorozov ^〈talk〉 13:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cultural properties database says: 桁行九間、梁間二間、流造、正面中央一間隅木入春日造型、左右各千鳥破風付、檜皮葺. bamse (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be: The honden, an Important Cultural Property，is 9 ken long and 2 ken wide and built in the nagare-zukuri style with bark shingles, with a 1 ken unit in the kasuga-zukuri style at the center. Each ken to the sides has a dormer gable. Urashima Tarō (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Urashimataro. Regretfully, this edit summary will be my concern about your bold but unilateral move. There is no such title nor similar cultural protection program on intangible properties in North Korea. You obviously did not research nor discuss with editor working on the article. Even though we call Republic of Korea "South Korea" here, unless there is a "duplicated title or name", no need to arbitrarily put "South" to the official title. I think you have to fix all double directs as the consequences. After I did a similar thing to Po River, I had to fix over 100 double redirects. However, this case only is limited to less than 50 articles, so you can finish the job relatively quickly. Good luck.--Caspian blue 01:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I just started. Urashima Tarō (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Caspian blue 02:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please have some manner if you say like this behind my back.[3] --Caspian blue 04:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my apologies. Please take into account that Bamse NEVER mentioned you once (neither did I until today). He has done nothing against you. And, for what it's worth, that's a private talk page between me and Bamse. Nobody knows or ever reads it but us. Urashima Tarō (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The reason I looked into the personal subpage was just because you left the cryptic edit summary "Svg" to me[4] and to the subpage.[5] If you had not carelessly moved the Korean page "twice" without discussion, I would've not left the "irate note" to you. I don't see why you depict me as some sort of "a tackle" for you to create the Important Intangible Cultural Properties of Japan. Without even the "WP:DAB" page, you're free to create your desired page. In addition, I wonder why you even mentioned about Bamse here as if you and he would've had some secret discussion "about me". Bamse is not nobody as well and I of course have no ill-feeling against him. (not even encountered him at once) All leave a bad taste in my mouth. Anyway, good luck with your editing.--Caspian blue 05:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was mentioning Bamse because he is the only person who ever reads those notes and I was therefore obviously talking to him. I don't blame you for reading, I just wanted to say that whatever happened is exclusively my fault, and Bamse has never so much as mentioned you, as you can check reading the archives if you wish. Once again, my sincere apologies for that rude sentence.Urashima Tarō (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On January 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cultural Properties of Japan, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you have added incorrect information about Ashikaga Tadayoshi at a number of places, or your choice of wording makes it appear incorrect. For example, from Ashikaga's page:

"In an obvious reply to this move, Tadayoshi, without an order from the Emperor escorted another of his sons, eleven-year-old Prince Nariyoshi (a.k.a. Narinaga) to Kamakura, where he installed him as Governor of the Kōzuke province with himself as a Deputy (Sagami no Kami (相模守)) and de-facto ruler."

Your quote makes it appear as if he had something to do with Kōzuke province, whereas "Sagami no Kami" basically means "director/chief/governor of Sagami province". (He was, in fact, associated with Sagami, but not Kōzuke as far as I know. But I'm not an expert.) The fact that you've placed "相模守" in parentheses after "Deputy", makes me think that either you or your source has confused it with a general title, whereas in actuality it specifically refers to Sagami province. The information you added also appears at Kenmu restoration, and I believe I may have seen it elsewhere as well. Please check your sources on this to make sure your info and wording are okay, then make any appropriate changes. Thanks. Bueller 007 (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do it tomorrow. Thanks for the feedback. I believe that sentence comes from George Sansom's History of Japan. Urashima Tarō (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bueller 007. What I wrote is exactly what Sansom wrote on page 32 of the second volume of the History of Japan. The fact that Tadayoshi In Kamakura held the title Sagami no Kami (and confirmation of the fact he was the real ruler, and with that title) comes from another source (in Japanese). After re-reading what I wrote and the sources, I can't see anything really wrong with what I wrote, but I find (and found at the time I wrote) the facts a little obscure. Probably something is missing that explains the apparent contradiction. What do you think? Urashima Tarō (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite possible that he was both the kami of Sagami province and a deputy/behind-the-scenes ruler of Kōzuke. I don't know enough to say otherwise. I do know that he was definitely the kami. I think "what's wrong with what you wrote" is that by placing "Sagami no kami" in parentheses after "Deputy", you make it appear as if "Sagami no kami" is a general term or one that applies to Kōzuke province, whereas it actually applies ONLY to Sagami province. (And confusingly, Sagami province is not mentioned once in Tadayoshi's article.) So since, I think this is an error (or at the very least extremely unclear), the question is: Should the sentence be changed to read "Deputy of Sagami Province (相模守, Sagami no Kami)" or should it read "Deputy of Kōzuke and Kami (守) of Sagami Province"? Bueller 007 (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will get rid of the Sagami no Kami bit in all articles. Then everything will be exactly as in Sansom's article, and the problem avoided.Urashima Tarō (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Urashimataro! Just wanted to let you know that List of National Treasures of Japan (shrines) is now at FLC. Comments will appear here. bamse (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you revisit the above FLC to make sure your comments have been addressed? Also, if you feel like it deserves one, could you make a declaration (Oppose, Neutral, Support) to express your stance on the article's promotion to FL status? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-Done. Urashima Tarō (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I missed your comment on 21 January. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Good idea to move the reference to a "further readings" section. Did you see this reply concerning the content of the book? bamse (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did, and I am considering the idea of buying the book. You read French?

The new Torii article is on line. I will check it again several times.

I'll have a look over the torii article, when I got more time. No, I don't really read French, though I can sometimes make sense of it. bamse (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to: I was just happy I got it out after so much tinkering, and wanted to tell someone. There was plenty of info, but deciding what was relevant and how to order the material proved difficult. Many important historical details are still missing. I am not truly happy with it, but it's way better than what was there before. Urashima Tarō (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a look anyway. Thanks for the interesting article. bamse (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No rush, of course. Urashima Tarō (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Urashimataro -- I write to invite you to join others in becoming a co-mentor for me.

You may be unaware that the Tang Dynasty arbitration case in June determined that I needed a mentor or mentors. My perceived disruptive edits at Talk:Order of Culture led to a decision in December requiring that I have one or more ArbCom-approved "mentors" or advisors.

The nascent status of this mentorship group is clarified in the thread at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Tang Dynasty. Your assocation with Fg2 will help remedy a deficit in the composition of a small group.

If you are willing to try, please add your username signature (four tildes ~~~~) in the list of "active mentors" at User talk:Tenmei/Sub-page Alerts. This is a first step.

Core policies are the tools at hand; and if you agree to help connect the dots, it could benefit more than me. In this search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I cite Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences as a plausible context for discussing what I have in mind.

Among a prospective mentor's many burdens, the most difficult would involve (a) helping me discern why or when I should apologize or (b) helping me to explain why or when I will not apologize in a wiki-context" -- see diff. As you think about agreeing to join a mentorship committee, please review Patrick Lennox Tierney#Showa apology rebuffed.

You might want to consider reviewing the WP:A/R/C#Statement by Tenmei, especially

A. Response to Steven Smith

B. Response to Coren

C. Response to Roger Davies

If you are disinterested in a role in the cohort of ArbCom-approved "public mentors," perhaps you might be willing or able to be a non-public mentor/advisor. Nihonjoe is among those who have offered to participate in this limited manner.

Wiki-pacifism

I envisage you will offer a valuable point-of-view on the role on pacifist tactics in our Wikipedia venue. In March, I expect to begin an on-going experiment based on these premises:

• An initial editing strategy based on a theory of wiki-pacifism was suggested by the userpage of one of the prospective mentors, Leujohn in Hong Kong.
• One of the non-public members of the mentorship group, Fasten in Germany, suggested that I tentatively adopt pacifist tactics as an arguably useful experiment derived from a salutary premise:

We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. — Albert Einstein

In the absence of any better alternative, I agreed to try a pacifist approach; but a willingness to experiment with a novel tactic represents only a superficial change -- useful as an exploratory gambit, but not transformative. I am not persuaded that pacifist action is workable even in this experimental approach, but we'll see.

As you may know, the Latin axiom qui tacet consentire videtur is mirrored in WP:Silence + WP:Consensus. In our wiki-context, I would like to find a way to construe pacifist non-confrontation ≠ WP:Silence. In the slow process of resolving these seeming contradiction or dilemma, your point-of-view is likely to be important or even essential.

Thank you for the time it took for you to read this unanticipated enquiry.

I predict that you may find that what I'm asking for is probably less than you imagine in the short term, or perhaps more than you anticipate in the long term.

Please contact me by e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]