User talk:AMorozov/Archive 1

Chigi and Katsuogi

Hi, AMorozov. I also work on Shinto, so I wanted to thank you for those two useful and well written articles. I am sure out paths will cross again, so I wanted to welcome you on board. Keep up the good work. BTW, remember to italicize Japanese words, except those like shogun and tsunami that have become part of the English vocabulary. urashimataro (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your tips and compliments! AMorozov (talk) 02:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Japan-Vietnam relations

This is one good source http://www.viettouch.com/numis/nagasaki.htm but I'm sure about its reliability. And an other http://books.google.com/books?id=hVGMjBzBz9cC&pg=PA107&dq=Nguyen+Lords+Japan+Trade#PPA108,M1.

I will try to write something about this period by using the offline source Phan Khoang Viet Su, Xu Dang Trong (Vietnamese history, the Inner region) which is mentioned here Nanban trade#Amicable friendship between Japan and Great Viet. I will inform you when it is finished. Thanks a lot for your help.--Amore Mio (talk) 09:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Buddhist temple

Hi, Amorozov. I tried the new version of the template you created in Jōmyō-ji (Kamakura), but the mountain name entry, which I input does not appear. Could you take a look? Venerated works fine. Another thing: I would like to add the distinction between the founder and the founding priest. Could you/would you do it? I can't.urashimataro (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Karamon & Onigawara

Compliments on both article's! Even though new page patrol is my daily job i never saw a page specific to a type of roof before - much less did i assume that someone could ever fit a page regarding that topic within the all the guidelines i can actively think of. And above all, i enjoyed both article's texts and image's. Many thanks for creating somthing so unusual, yet so interesting. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Secondary sources

In that case, a whole load of articles on Wikipedia can be considered WP:OR, as they all use sources such as Nihon Shoki and Samguk Sagi as cited references. Should they all be tagged with the OR template, in your opinion, or should this be let to pass, and secondary sources are progressively introduced over time? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Nihon Shoki/Baekje

Thanks. I appreciate your(AMorozov) neutral manner, please keep a neural stance. However, '大国' is always not mean super power or great country. Nihonshoki is a regard as unreliable source, because many of its records are not match with korea, china sources.Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 08:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your input. But, Biased mean "Fact, but, wrttien as negative manner". But, problem is many of its records are regard as Unexisted facts. not whole nihonshoki was fake, just some parts are fake. This mean unreliable than biased. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 08:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Update Talk:Baekje

Talk:Baekjewas updated.[1] Please write the opinion. --青鬼よし (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Economic history of China (Pre-1911)

I have followed your suggestions and removed the questionable/primary sources such as Jia Qing that you mentioned as well as adding in new scholarly sources and 10+ new citations, while reducing the amount of citations from Li and Zheng's source. The overly reliance on Li Bo and Zheng Yin (2001) is mostly for some eras(e.g., the 220-589 era of division) that are ill covered by acadmeic publications, which tend to focus on the unified dynasties (e.g. Song, Ming, and Tang, which have many citations from other sources). I have removed the source of Jia Qing and Zizhi Tongjian from the article. In addition, I have added citaitons from new sources and I have reduced the number of citations from Li and Zheng's source from 60% of the total (123 out of 220) to about 49 percent of the total (106 out of 216), removing 17 citations from Li and Zheng's source and replaced them with 13 citations from scholarly sources. I hope this resolves the problem of over-dependence on one source.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind even the above figure is higher than actual, because many Li and Zheng citations are duplicate, e.g., it cited the same as a scholarly source, so I put it in along(2 citations in a row).Teeninvestor (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you think this article's prose is up to FA quality? If not, how to improve it?Teeninvestor (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

First Nations art

Hi! I appreciate all the writing you have done about Kwakwaka'wakw art. If you get the time, perhaps you would be interested in contributing to the Northwest section of Native American art? As you can see, not much is written there. Best, -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

DYK for Kwakwaka'wakw art

On July 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kwakwaka'wakw art, 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) 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

WH sites in Japan

Hi! Good to see that you created the Gusuku site article. I noticed that you redirected the Hōryū-ji site in Template:World Heritage Sites in Japan to Hōryū-ji which is not quite correct. Though the site consists mainly of structures at Hōryū-ji, it also includes the three-storied pagoda of Hokki-ji. Therefore I would prefer either the previous version of the template or maybe change the entry to "Buddhist Monuments, Hōryū-ji Area (Hōryū-ji and Hokki-ji)". Even better would be to have a separate article on the WH site, though I am afraid it would either be a very short article or largely a repition of the Hōryū-ji article. bamse (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Note on WP policy

This IS the top shrine in Japan, like the Vatican for Japanese people and rather than being called commonly Ise Jingu, or Ise Dai Jingu, It is just called Jingu as it is the only shrine in Japan that can be called "Shrine" and understood to be that place. It is a formal title. The Tiasha title is for a different lineage of shrines that are more ancient and pulled in from the non-Imperial line of shrines. The big example is Isumo Tiasha. However we cannot use the common name for Ise Jingu as it is just innacurate. Maybe the WP policy needs to be changed for accuracy. Takashi Ueki (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well after reading the policy it does seem to allow for exceptions in the case of a specific shrine where the name is very explicit, as in the case of this shrine. It is the most explicit shrine name that you can get. Takashi Ueki (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update and compliment, I am just trying to raise Shinto from the terrible mire of ignorance that has plagued its articles. Thank for being educated about this. Unfortunately, many are not and get it completely wrong. Read: [[2]] and see what I mean. I am trying to get them to understand the difference between a -jinja, -tiasha, and -jingu shrines and that they are not all the same. It may mean shrine but it is not the same. Takashi Ueki (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Thujaplicin

The article Thujaplicin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable due to lack of sources or content. Minor definition of this substance could be merged into Thuja plicata as an extract of the same.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ash (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah.. I don't really care either way.. ~ AMorozov ^〈talk〉 21:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you AMorozov for your comments! I truely appreciate. Cheers Phg (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry AMorozov, I have no information on zutsu (cannon) or ōzutsu (large cannon) at this point. I'll see what I can find. Cheers Phg (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

A 16th century swivel breech-loading Japanese cannon, called an Ozutsu (大筒, "Big tube").

Hmmm, this seems to be the ōzutsu (大筒) which you mentionned. I am giving some information on them in Artillery of Japan. There is also a somewhat related article on the Japanese Wikipedia [3]. Cheers Phg (talk) 06:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help. Great suit of armor in your Ninja article! Phg (talk) 06:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ninja article

I stumbled across your changes to the ninja article while on recent changes patrol and all I can say is: wow. The rewrite looks great! It's definitely an improvement over the old version. --clpo13_(talk) 04:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic work. Congratulations! And some very nice images also! PHG ^{Per Honor et Gloria} 06:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

		Japanese Barnstar of National Merit
		Here is the Japanese Barnstar of National Merit for your remarkable contributions to Japanese subjects, particularly the rewrite of the Ninja article. Keep up with the great work! PHG Per Honor et Gloria 06:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Nice work. Much info seems to come from Stephen Turnbull, though. Prof Karl Friday Univ. of Georgia had some very interesting views on ninja and was very sceptical about Turnbull's research and about the ninja myth as a whole. I managed to save some of his posts from e-budo, and koryu books before they were lost and also have some private mail from him. Feel free to contact me if you are interested.Alopex1197

As more a reader than a collaborator, I just wanted to add another 'wow' comment at your work on the Ninja article. Incredible stuff, and hugely appreciated by us seekers after knowledge. Thank you! Wrayth (talk) 08:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Moving images to WP commons

Hi, AM. While reading your Ninja article I noticed you have a Commons account, so I went to see what you've got there. I saw you have successfully relicensed and moved images to WP Commons, something I don't seem to be able to do. Could you see if you can move [this image]? I relicensed it and then tried to move it several times, and it just won't go. All seems to go well, but in the end, when I go to see if it's there at Commons, it's not. If you find a problem with what I did, could you let me know what it is? Urashima Tarō (talk) 07:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Hino Kumawaka

On September 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hino Kumawaka, 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) 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.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 17:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Shrine styles

Hi, AMorozov. Just wanted to let you know that now the Shinto shrine article has an extensive section on shrine styles. To link to a subsection on a particular style, please use the suffix -zukuri, and not -style: for example: [[Kasuga-zukuri|kasuga-style]]. Thanks.

Again

Hi, AM. In the article Yoshino Mikumari Shrine you say:

The honden is constructed in the kasuga-zukuri and nagare-zukuri styles of Shinto architecture.

This is impossible. The two are incompatible, because one has the main entrance below the gable, the other on the non-gabled side. It has to be wrong. Could you find out which one style it is? I deleted the sentence, for the time being.

BTW, I have created independent articles for almost all the styles. Urashima Tarō (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Cultural Properties of Japan

Hi, AM. Just wanted to let you know that Bamse and I finished the article Cultural Properties of Japan, which contains all the official English translations of terms like Bunkazai, Jūyō Bunkazai, Kokuhō and so forth. It also explains the distinction between designated and registered cultural property. Urashima Tarō (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Terrific work! I'm always amazed at your and Bamse's ability to catalog these huge lists! Sorry I couldn't be of any help, I've been away from home and now school's started... Hope to collaborate in the future though! ~ AMorozov ^〈talk〉 20:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Japanese architecture

Hi, AM. After finishing the Shinto architecture series (for the time being: I have no more material to add) me and Bamse are planning to start with another one about Japanese Buddhist architecture, which should include things like your Karamon, pagoda, Tahōtō, Main Hall and so forth. Would you be interested in collaborating when and how you choose? I have just started developing a navbar to which you are welcome to add terms. If you are indeed interested in collaborating (I know you're busy but, if you cannot contribute in other ways, just your opinions about what to do would be welcome) please visit this page. It's where me and Bamse discuss. We both have it on our watchlist, and will know you left comments. - Frank (Urashima Tarō) (talk) 09:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Please Do Not Misinterpret My Intentions

Hello, it is nice to meet you. I am simply here to tell you your source for the first paragraph of the ninja article is inaccurate where it says "The ninja, using covert methods of waging war, were contrasted with the samurai, who had strict rules about honor and combat." I am a To-Shin Do practitioner, so I know that this is mistaken. I am not saying the source is always wrong, but I believe Mr. Turnbull used a source that was distorted. The Ninja were of the Samurai class, proving that they, too, also followed Bushido. Of course, I do understand the Ninja are surrounded by myth, thus making it hard to differ fact and fiction. I simply wish to point this out. We all make errors on occasion. I have made a ninja-related mistake on the En-No Gyoja article. I do not mean to go off topic, I am just proving a point. Thank you for your time. Shinobi223 (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Shinobi223Shinobi223 (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank You.

My apologies for the confusion. I simply misinterpreted your paragraph on the ninja. I have seen stuff on the internet that may have been literal about this, for example the deadliest warrior series and game, which did little, if any, research on the ninja whatsoever. Thank you for your response. I appreciate that we have this figured out. As I said before, the ninja are hidden by mystery. They are some of the most famous spies of all time, after all, and in fact much modern slang (ninja as slang or "ninja'd") has popped up associating ninjas with stealth. They have many secrets, many of which require top-level research. Many people debate the existence of the Ninjato in feudal japan, as do people on their association with bushido, how they used kunai, etc. I hope we have easier interpretations of information on the ninja in the future.Shinobi223 (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Shinobi223Shinobi223 (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Again.

Hello AMorozov, You stated that Ninjutsu was "Ineffective" in the Ninjutsu discussion and I was deeply insulted by this comment. You also clearly pointed in favor of Karate. I have nothing against karate, it is effective if you actually know how to use it, the same goes for ninjutsu and any other martial art. You do have the right to your own opinion, but I am a practitioner of ninjutsu and can honestly say that my instructors commonly tell me to use the best strategy in a fight scenario. Ninja were not only trained in a cunning and effective martial art, but also commonly intructed to improvise, should it be necessary. I am sorry if this comment is in any way aggressive, I do not want to cause a heated argument, I am only trying to show you another way to look at the argument. This is not in any way meant to insult karate, but I am saying that Ninjutsu doesn't deserve to be treated like some target for insults. Also, Tae Kwon Do and Drunken Monkey Kung Fu would work too if you knew how to use them. A good way to put it is, it's not what the school teaches, it's the capability of the student, that determines the winner in a fight to the death. Shinobi 224 (talk) 04:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Shinobi 224Shinobi 224 (talk) 04:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ninja

"Article cites extensively on sabotage, infiltration and such forms of unorthodox warfare"?
How is any of that unorthodox? That is perfectly normal and orthodox parts of warfare, and have been so for pretty much as long as warfare has existed.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AMorozov. You have new messages at ZarlanTheGreen's talk page.
Message added 09:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.