User talk:JPNEX
JPNEX, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure![edit]
|
Notice[edit]
Hi, I've replied to your post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your query. The thread is Accidental editing. Thank you. NativeForeigner Talk 03:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 12[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Geisha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Obi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 |
An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Geiko Kimiha.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 05:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
|
July 2014[edit]
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Daruma doll, you may be blocked from editing. As I and other editor told you before, please do not push your poor image. Oda Mari (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Oda Mari, there are no rules against inserting your own images into Wikipedia - on the contrary, it's encouraged. The reason I upload pictures on Wikimedia Commons is, of course, to put them to good use in the Wikipedia projects. I have received 2 thanks from other editors in the last 24 hours for doing precisely this.
- There are however rules against Wikihounding and making false accusations of "disruptive editing". Please stop. JPNEX (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- If the image was equally good or better, I would not restored the previous image. Please explain why your daruma doll image is better than the previous one. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 09:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- I already did in the edit summary. Btw, you claimed my photo is blurry but this is not at all true, it's as sharp as the other one, and without the glaring flash and blown highlights. I won't contest a replacement of any of my images if I agree the replacement is better (and normally I wouldn't revert even then but take it up on the talk page), but I could do without the incivilities, like "stop pushing your photos" etc. - it's obviously not WP:AGF and it doesn't set the two of us up for a constructive debate. I also, again, don't appreciate the wikihounding. JPNEX (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- The biggest problem of your image is the darumaotoshi's size and the angle. It's too small to see the detail, especially the face of daruma. It isn't sharp at all. Looks blurred to me. The second biggest problem is the background. It is distracting. The basket, the thin strip of cloth at the tatami edge on the left, and the something red at the bottom right. Even though there are technical flaws, the previous image shows more clearly what darumaotoshi looks like to viewers who have never seen it before. It's a more viewer friendly image of darumaotoshi. That was why I restored the previous image. What do you think of those problems I pointed out above? Oda Mari (talk) 09:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- The background is hardly as distracting as the horrible effects of the flash on the other photo. Even if it looks blurry to you, the fact remains, it is NOT blurry, take a closer look. JPNEX (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Not every reader click and see the image file. The face of the daruma is too small to see its features in the article. Besides, the doll in your image is not an original set. The size of the head piece and the other four pieces are different and the color tone does not match. The previous image is an original set and it agrees with the description of the article body. I'm sorry, but I cannot find anything better in your image and the doll itself. Oda Mari (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree. I do think this is an original set but it's not a modern factory produced one, it was on display at a museum in Fukushima city (福島県歴史資料館). I don't understand what you mean by "the color tone does not match." I think we have subjectively different opinions about the picture that seem unlikely to change and we could keep arguing until the cows come home. Whatever you and I may think, however, technically mine is doubtlessly better so I think it should stand. Feel free to ask for a Wikipedia:Third opinion. JPNEX (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I've been watching this for a while and might as well chime in. Comparing the two images, I see the original Daruma doll is more ornate and aesthetically pleasing, but the camera flash and the overall lighting are unappealing. The second image has excellent lighting, but the doll looks simple and almost crude. I would say neither image is good enough and a replacement should be found. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think it was 福島県歴史資料館 as it is a documents/maps/records archive. Wasn't it ふれあい歴史館? They said there was no exhibition of darumaotoshi, but there was a place with toys for children to play freely and there were some darumaotoshi. So probablly the pieces of the doll are not correctly stacked. why the circumference of the head is different from the body pieces? As far as I know, they should be the same. Funny, I thought the blue and the green are too modern. Oda Mari (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry, that was it. 126.25.72.133 (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think it was 福島県歴史資料館 as it is a documents/maps/records archive. Wasn't it ふれあい歴史館? They said there was no exhibition of darumaotoshi, but there was a place with toys for children to play freely and there were some darumaotoshi. So probablly the pieces of the doll are not correctly stacked. why the circumference of the head is different from the body pieces? As far as I know, they should be the same. Funny, I thought the blue and the green are too modern. Oda Mari (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I've been watching this for a while and might as well chime in. Comparing the two images, I see the original Daruma doll is more ornate and aesthetically pleasing, but the camera flash and the overall lighting are unappealing. The second image has excellent lighting, but the doll looks simple and almost crude. I would say neither image is good enough and a replacement should be found. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree. I do think this is an original set but it's not a modern factory produced one, it was on display at a museum in Fukushima city (福島県歴史資料館). I don't understand what you mean by "the color tone does not match." I think we have subjectively different opinions about the picture that seem unlikely to change and we could keep arguing until the cows come home. Whatever you and I may think, however, technically mine is doubtlessly better so I think it should stand. Feel free to ask for a Wikipedia:Third opinion. JPNEX (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Not every reader click and see the image file. The face of the daruma is too small to see its features in the article. Besides, the doll in your image is not an original set. The size of the head piece and the other four pieces are different and the color tone does not match. The previous image is an original set and it agrees with the description of the article body. I'm sorry, but I cannot find anything better in your image and the doll itself. Oda Mari (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- The background is hardly as distracting as the horrible effects of the flash on the other photo. Even if it looks blurry to you, the fact remains, it is NOT blurry, take a closer look. JPNEX (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- The biggest problem of your image is the darumaotoshi's size and the angle. It's too small to see the detail, especially the face of daruma. It isn't sharp at all. Looks blurred to me. The second biggest problem is the background. It is distracting. The basket, the thin strip of cloth at the tatami edge on the left, and the something red at the bottom right. Even though there are technical flaws, the previous image shows more clearly what darumaotoshi looks like to viewers who have never seen it before. It's a more viewer friendly image of darumaotoshi. That was why I restored the previous image. What do you think of those problems I pointed out above? Oda Mari (talk) 09:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- I already did in the edit summary. Btw, you claimed my photo is blurry but this is not at all true, it's as sharp as the other one, and without the glaring flash and blown highlights. I won't contest a replacement of any of my images if I agree the replacement is better (and normally I wouldn't revert even then but take it up on the talk page), but I could do without the incivilities, like "stop pushing your photos" etc. - it's obviously not WP:AGF and it doesn't set the two of us up for a constructive debate. I also, again, don't appreciate the wikihounding. JPNEX (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- If the image was equally good or better, I would not restored the previous image. Please explain why your daruma doll image is better than the previous one. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 09:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know the history of the doll (or how the game is played), but both images have positive and negative aspects. However, it seems that this version ([1]) is better, because it has all of the game's instruments shown completely and you can see more details of it (including the hole on the top piece). This image would be the one to place at a lead section. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 01:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
![[1]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Daruma_otoshi.jpg){kind=link}
- I cannot accept your opinion. Because, as I pointed above, the image you like is not a complete set. The head and the body pieces do not belong to each other. The doll should not look like that. Oda Mari (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- JPNEX replied to that and explained it was a museum display, and that's pretty valid. If you want your set to be displayed, should at least try to match it to the quality of the other image. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 12:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- No, it was not a museum display. Though JPNEX said it was a museum, 福島県歴史資料館, is not a museum, but an archive. I called them and the man I talked with said they never exhibit/display crafts or arts. I think the IP user 126.25.72.133 is JPNEX. If not the same person, why should the IP user said "Yes, sorry, that was it."? See the IP's contributions. Most of his/her edits are adding images uploaded by JPNEX to articles. FYI. The archive is in this building. Compare the urls and maps. [2] and [3]. If the image were taken at the archive, there is a big problem. The use of photographs taken there needs permission. See this. Oda Mari (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have raised your concern at the Commons village pump on copyright ([4]). That said, it doesn't diminish its importance whether the toy is in a museum or an archive. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 18:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with copyvio. It seems to me the archive just wants to know how the photographs are used. The problems are these. JPNEX has been pushing his worse images (See Talk:Sushi#Lead image. Though I didn't write on the talk page. The sushi itself is not a good example. I can explain if you want), clearly his doll image is not a complete set to a Japanese editor's eyes, and it's not an archive/museum display. This is the place the photograph was taken. And read ja sentences on the right. One of them says "手にとってあそんでみよう！, meaning "pick up and play!". The toys are for children to play freely, not a display. Oda Mari (talk) 08:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- There are plenty of museums that I've gone to that also encourage attendees to interact with their inventory. So, again, nothing is wrong with that concept. Also, if the image is not a copyvio, then you should have stated it plainly in your prior comment; your prior comment indicated that it was a copyvio ("If the image were taken at the archive, there is a big problem. The use of photographs taken there needs permission."). Lastly, please don't mix apples with oranges; this is a discussion about the quality of an image in the Daruma doll article (not sushi). The image you are trying to maintain in the article is of bad quality, and you should improve it (or find an improvement) instead of preventing another editor from including an overall-better image as a replacement. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 14:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with copyvio. It seems to me the archive just wants to know how the photographs are used. The problems are these. JPNEX has been pushing his worse images (See Talk:Sushi#Lead image. Though I didn't write on the talk page. The sushi itself is not a good example. I can explain if you want), clearly his doll image is not a complete set to a Japanese editor's eyes, and it's not an archive/museum display. This is the place the photograph was taken. And read ja sentences on the right. One of them says "手にとってあそんでみよう！, meaning "pick up and play!". The toys are for children to play freely, not a display. Oda Mari (talk) 08:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have raised your concern at the Commons village pump on copyright ([4]). That said, it doesn't diminish its importance whether the toy is in a museum or an archive. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 18:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- No, it was not a museum display. Though JPNEX said it was a museum, 福島県歴史資料館, is not a museum, but an archive. I called them and the man I talked with said they never exhibit/display crafts or arts. I think the IP user 126.25.72.133 is JPNEX. If not the same person, why should the IP user said "Yes, sorry, that was it."? See the IP's contributions. Most of his/her edits are adding images uploaded by JPNEX to articles. FYI. The archive is in this building. Compare the urls and maps. [2] and [3]. If the image were taken at the archive, there is a big problem. The use of photographs taken there needs permission. See this. Oda Mari (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- JPNEX replied to that and explained it was a museum display, and that's pretty valid. If you want your set to be displayed, should at least try to match it to the quality of the other image. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 12:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
As I already mentioned (albeit not while signed in), the photo was indeed taken at the Fukushima Fureai Rekishikan, not the Fukushimaken Rekishi Shiryokan - so that the Rekishi Shiryokan wants to be acknowledged when a photo taken there is published is obviously completely irrelevant. Whether either place is a "museum" or an "archive" is slightly irrelevant, but while in Japanese you might distinguish between "shiryokan" and "hakubutsukan", they are both most usually translated as "museum" into English if they have displays ("museum - a building in which objects of historical, scientific, artistic, or cultural interest are stored and exhibited"). While the daruma head might come from another set, this is how it appears in the Fureai Rekishikan and it could appear in other places as well - it doesn't make other Japanese people scream and shout that it's not a good representative of a daruma otoshi. I agree that this means it's perhaps not the perfect image, but I don't see why this makes you see red. It's still obviously better than the alternative photo.JPNEX (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for clearing things up. JPNEX, since it seems you have a better availability to take photographs, I encourage you to try and find a complete set that addresses Oda Mari's concern. Oda Mari, I express the same to you. Sturmgewehr is right in stating that bot images could be better; as this seems to be a traditional (and still common) game, surely a better picture can be found or taken. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 16:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
島外人[edit]
Hello, you recently removed the section "Shimagaijin" from Ryukyuan people, with your reasons being that it was unsourced and that the phrase couldn't be found in a Japanese dictionary. "Shimagaijin" is the Japanese romanization of 島外人, however the Okinawan romanization is either "Shimasutunchu" or "Shimafukanchu". ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, I checked the kanji, not the reading. "しまふかんちゅ" and "しますとぅんちゅ" both get 0 hits though (hiragana/katakana). Either way, still unsourced? JPNEX (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Matsumoto Castle[edit]
Hi, I restored the photo gallery that you deleted that you claimed are an 'indiscriminate collection'. I disagree as they add value to the article. If there are concerns about particular photos, please raise these on the article talk page. Regards Bryan MacKinnon (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
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) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
POTD notification[edit]
Hi JPNEX,
Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Geiko Kimiha.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on July 3, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-07-03. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)