User talk:Masanori Asami

I am writing

どうしてですか？Everton 09:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

返事が非常に遅くなってすみません。 ノーマークで噴火口付近に保育園とかがある大根島が噴火の危険があると思ったからです。

(Masanori Asami (talk) 10:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

In English, "Ryukyu Islands" refers to everything between Taiwan and Kyushu, even if there are different names in Japanese.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Treaty of San Francisco

I wrote the definition of "Ryukyu Islands" different from Japanese definition of "琉球諸島". Japanese definition of "琉球諸島" does not incluide Amami islands, but I wrote the definition of "Ryukyu Islands" include Amami islands.

Moreover, according to your definition of "Ryukyu Islands", you cannot understand the phraze of "Nansei Shoto south of 29° north latitude (including the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands)" in the article 3 of "Treaty of San Francisco".

For the word "Ryukyu Islands", most important aim is to understand the article 3 of "Treaty of San Francisco".Wikipedia must provide the definition that the interpretation of the treaty is possible.

(Masanori Asami (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

This is the English Wikipedia which focuses on the English definition of the phrase. It is stated multiple times on the page that Amami is not part of Japanese Ryukyu already, and you removed other large portions of the page for unexplained reasosn. And stop bringing up the Treaty of San Francisco. It is not relevant to the discussions and it is pointless to link to the Wikisource page. The English speaking world refers to the Nanseis as the "Ryukyus".—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the relevance of the treaty either. It simply says "south of 29°", which just means south of 29°. If it means more than that, you will need a 2ary source to justify that; otherwise it's

WP:SYNTH. — kwami (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

South of 29° north latitude of Ryukyu Archipelago was not only the phrase in

Ryūkyū Kingdom) in the begining of 17th centry, and geographically the north end of the Amami Islands(奄美群島).(Masanori Asami (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC))[reply

]

Stop quoting the treaty. It is becoming clear you are here to push a nationalistic point of view and that will not be tolerated.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By what reason, did you label me a nationalist? I'm afraid you lack the ability of reading, and I think I am far from a nationalist or a patriot of Japan.(Masanori Asami (talk) 07:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Because you've been unnecessarily disrupting the articles and pages on multiple projects.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought up your actions on

Don't edit archived discussions like Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands. That only discussed the disruption caused over the naming of the article on the Senkaku Islands on the English Wikipedia. It should remain unedited since the case's closure. Also, it should not be renamed anyway. The issues you are bringing up are on the whole unrelated to whether or not the English Wikipedia should have used "Senkaku", "Diaoyu", or "Pinnacle" for the name of the island group.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. —Ryulong (琉竜) 15:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the edit also. Do not post such comments on article talk pages. Eau(W)oo (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it bad. The person who told a transparent lie is bad.　The length of the chain of islands extremely important to determine where the north end is and whether they includes Satsunan Islands or not. -(Masanori Asami (talk) 10:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

(Masanori Asami (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Please click the map, then:

You will understand the black line "1,046 km (650 mi)" means hole Ryukyu arc.

You will understand the red line "650 km (400 miles)" means middle and south part of Ryukyu arc.

(Masanori Asami (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

To make it clear, I will quote from Talk:Ryukyu Islands below. -(Masanori Asami (talk) 11:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC))(Masanori Asami (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

***** The quotation from Talk:Ryukyu Islands *****

There are two definitions of the "Ryukyu Islands" in a certain online dictionary.

Please see the definition of Ryukyu Islands by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. There are two definitions in it.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Ryukyu+Islands

>Ryu·kyu Islands

>An island group of southwest Japan extending about 1,046 km (650 mi) between Kyushu and Taiwan.

>The archipelago was incorporated into Japan in 1879 and returned to Japanese sovereignty in 1972 after occupation by U.S. forces following World War II.

(There is a contradiction in it, for Tanegashima(種子島) and Yaku-shima (屋久島) of Ōsumi Islands (大隅諸島) had never been under the rule of "United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands(琉球列島米国民政府)" . )

And there is the another definition as follows.

>Ryukyu Islands

>(Placename) a chain of 55 islands in the W Pacific, extending almost 650 km (400 miles) from S Japan to N Taiwan:

>an ancient kingdom, under Chinese rule from the late 14th century, invaded by Japan in the early 17th century,

>under full Japanese sovereignty from 1879 to 1945, and US control from 1945 to 1972; now part of Japan again.

(Masanori Asami (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

These two definitions are identical. They cover everything between Kyushu and Taiwan. Also, stop putting up a

content fork at Ryukyu Arc. There is nothing that you have put there that is not covered here.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

How shameless you are! (Masanori Asami (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Are "1,046 km (650 mi)" and "650 km (400 miles) " equal?(Masanori Asami (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

How could you graduate an elementary school?(Masanori Asami (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

They both mention the islands between "South Japan" and "Taiwan". The numbers used are inconsequential (as neither seem to be correct).

comment on the content and not the contributor.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Masanori Asami; I am a member of the Arbitration Committee. Your statement in the pending clarification request about the Senkaku Islands arbitration decision has serious issues with its presentation and readability. I have therefore removed this statement entirely, and you may not re-add it. Please re-write your old statement so that it is understandable, and re-submit your improved version only. You must use paragraphs and clear English. Do not attempt to submit your old statement, nor another unreadable submission. If you require assistance in writing your statement, you should contact a

I will quote from the page at 05:00, 8 October 2012 version of

User talk:AGK which is removed by Ryulong(琉竜) below.- (Masanori Asami (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC))[reply

]

The case of me (User:Masanori Asami) is the dispute of Ryukyu Arc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Ryukyu Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and is not the dispute of Senkaku Islands, so I demand that you should rename the title "Clarification request: Senkaku Islands" to "Clarification request:Ryukyu Arc and Ryukyu Islands" to remove a preconception. -(Masanori Asami (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I do not think that User:Lothar von Richthofen accomplishes a duty with responsibility, for User:Lothar von Richthofen named even the title incorrect way. -(Masanori Asami (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

And the initial satement by such person gives a wrong preconception to readers. I demand you that you should change the initiator. -(Masanori Asami (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

You deleted my statement without my permission and without changing a title. -(Masanori Asami (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

On "Statement by Masanori Asami" of "Clarification request: Senkaku Islands", you wrote "This statement has been deleted[1]." But the url of link is not direct. -(Masanori Asami (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I cannot but have distrust towards you. -(Masanori Asami (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Is my case examined as an arbitration or a trial of Witch-hunt? -(Masanori Asami (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

There existed infringement of copyright of the past article of Ryukyu Islands when the disput arose between Ryulong (琉竜) and me. For the past article of Ryukyu Islands, there was the definition almost same to the definition of "Ryukyu Islands" by encyclopedias and dictionaries without legal "quotation" of encyclopedias and dictionaries in the definition part (top of the page) of Ryukyu Islands, it had benn illegal obviously. -(Masanori Asami (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Treaty of San Francisco

And the Article 3 of the

Nansei Islands(Nansei-shotō) was the same as Ryukyu Islands. So, I asked the question in Talk:Ryukyu Islands, but I could not get useful answer. That means they had written the definition without understanding, this is a more serious problem essentially. -(Masanori Asami (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC))[reply

]

So, I edited Ryukyu Islands from illegal state to legal state. Should this be punished? -(Masanori Asami (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

By the way, Ryulong(琉竜) edited legal state which I had made to illegal state back again. -(Masanori Asami (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

And kwami changed Ryukyu Islands and added the "quotation" of the source of definition yesterday, but I am afraid kwami cannot answer the question properly. -(Masanori Asami (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

***** The end of the quotation *****

To make the reason of block clear I will quote from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents below.- (Masanori Asami (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

***** The quotation from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents *****

• This screed (diff is of its removal) made up my mind.
  Cluehammer 40000 having had an effect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

You have been

not here to improve the encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]