User talk:TakuyaMurata

See the page history for retrieving old talks.

Design pattern (computer science)

Hi there. I stumbled on a sub-page of Design pattern (computer science) and was troubled by the article. It mostly seemed like it was advocating some terms from a 1995 book that are not widely used in programming, as far as I know. Most of the sub-links contain no information, and others, like anonymous subroutine objects pattern, looked like copyvio. Can you provide some more information, perhaps in the articles themselves? I added the article to Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. Tempshill 18:34, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

?

私は、日本語版(Japanese Wikipedia)のAraisyoheiと申します。日本語版富士山の記事の編集で、富士山(Mt.fuji)の、画像の撮影地がわかればと思いました。写真の撮影地を教えてください。Araisyohei 06:46, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC) {I (Wikipedia of Japan) of a Japanese version say Araisyohei. I thought that the taking a picture ground of the image of fuji mountain was understood from the edit of the article on Japanese Hanfgesan. Please teach the taking a picture ground in the photograph. Araisyohei 06:46, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)}

Hello

I just haven't seen your edits for a while...and wanted to say hello -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 01:11, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi Tukuya,

I hope your xmas and new year's were good!

I'm wondering if you can tell me anything about docomo email addresses (that go to cellphones). I've got a friend in Japan who I email annually. Her @docomo.ne.jp has stopped working. And docomo.ne.jp doesn't seem to resolve (when doing a ping in windows).

Was there a change in everyone's address or something? If her phone got stolen would she get the same address? Serves me right for only emailing once a year! :-)

Thanks a lot in advance, tb 04:00, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I email a lot of my friends at @docomo.ne7.co.jp if i want them to receive emails ith pictures. Haven't emailed them recently, mind you, and I dunno if this helps. -- Tlotoxl 13:28, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks tlotoxl, but i found something that lets me see why the email bounced, and it was an invalid username. I'll try ne7, but i don't think it'll make any difference.

A thanks TM for letting me use your user_talk space! :-) tb 07:22, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Takuya, if you ever find the time to write ups something at the (now non-existant) article Japanese customs, I'd be very happy. I behave the wrong way all the time, and only realize it as a strange feeling long afterwards. In particular I understand that e.g. dating and "saying no" to someone is radically different from the western world. Please help! Nixdorf 15:06, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm listing myself as a participant on Wikipedia:WikiProject Station, because I would like to help out in that...if you need help, just ask me :). Ilyanep 03:24, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Subprefecture

Prefectures other than Hokkaido and Nagasaki have Shicho's. Assuming you can read Japanese, please try following examples. These are in the prefectural government web sites.

Shicho's today are not used for addressing and Hokkaido is not an exception. Only occasionally, however, towns and villages on islands of Tokyo are (erroneously) called with shicho's.

Then please look at

I think they are different kind of subprefectures. I rely on the above web-page organizing geographic articles in Japan. It would be misleading to list up shicho in Chiba along with shicho in Hokkaido. If you know something about them, please let me know. -- Taku 01:53, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

If you are talking about the past (before 1947), shicho's were peculiar to Hokkaido, but nowadays all prefectures are on the equal plane and they may or may not have shicho's by their own discretion. Listing only shicho's in Hokkaido is misleading. Peoples tend to believe Hokkaido is a special prefecture, as were in the past, but all its remaining speciality is its fancy name.

As to www.glin.org, it seems a nice site. But a personal site can not compete agsinst prefectural government official sites. As the shicho has the least sense for most peoples, it is not surprising the author of www.glin.org does not know all. What I had listed may not be exhaustive as well.

168...

Why are you undermining my project?168...|...Talk 02:18, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, I have to ask: what are you up to? To me, what you are creating a mere collection of links. -- Taku 02:28, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

It's kind of like a table of contents. Ever use books? ;-)168...|...Talk 02:30, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Didn't we have such already? Besides, can you make more specific and clear your intention? -- Taku 02:33, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

No. I don't think we have anything easy to use. It's a metadirectory project Wikipedia:WikiProject. The categories seem intuitive to me. What do you think doesn't belong with it's groupmates?168...|...Talk 02:38, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I doubt your intention is anything but good. But just give us break. It doesn't seem to me that there is consensus made about reorganizing metapages. Well, the problem is a place to discuss this. Anyway, couldn't you wait until people agree with your new scheme? -- Taku 02:47, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not reorganizing anything. I'm just creating a few new directory pages with links to existing pages, and then as you see I put a little header at the top of the existing pages that provides an easy way to get to related pages or to find the right page if you're not quite at the right page. I've gotten positive feedback from others. Go ahead and start discussing it far and wide. I'm interested in what people think. But I think it's unobtrusive, so you don't need to undo all my work like we're in a dire emergency. Let's get a bunch of feedback. If most people are against it, I'm sure it all come down soon enough. But it has to be there for people to understand its utility and see if it's worth having.168...|...Talk 02:56, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

See the comments at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion 168...|...Talk 02:59, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am not contending if we need this kind of directory or not. There is no question having a better organization is better. My trouble is that they look rather out of place. I couldn't find any explanation about the purpose or context of those pages. I have found feedbacks saying pages seem unintuitive and redundant. So please please stop vanlizaing wikipedia or pages need to be protected as a last resort, which neither of us wants. -- Taku 03:12, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

It's not fair to call it vandalism just because you don't like the name. The names can change, and in the meantime they give us a functional directory, and you seem to support the directory concept. I'll set up a "vote for a name" poll at each directory page.168...|...Talk 04:20, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Vote on revert policy

Hi Taku,

would you mind explaining your rationale on Wikipedia talk:How to revert a page to an earlier version? I would love it if we could come to a consensus with regard to this policy. I personally think a three revert policy makes a lot of sense, and I hope I can convince you that this is the case.—Eloquence

Yes, I would love to give my reason. Having four exams in coming weeks, I am very busy now. I could see that the majority favors this policy and don't mind it is put in action. I will read comments made by others and write my reason sometime in the future when I have time. -- Taku 03:46, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Rachel

Re: Rachel: yes, she was. -- Nunh-huh 02:33, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I guess I just don't understand the objection to "world-acclaimed". She was. "Europe" is not the only place she played, (among other places, she toured the U.S.) and she is one of the perhaps three most legendary actresses of the stage: Sarah Bernhardt, Duse, and Rachel. It's odd that we had an article only on one of them. - Nunh-huh 02:54, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, we Japanese seem not to regard her as world-acclaimed. Do you have any established source that says she was world-acclaimed not in certain period of time in certain place but universally. -- Taku 03:19, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

I would be very much surprised if you could not find her in a Japanese encyclopedia. -- Nunh-huh 03:22, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How about this page [1]. It says she had fair success in the US. -- Taku 03:27, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, she did. Added to her acclaim there.<g> Seriously, is she not in Japanese encyclopedias? - Nunh-huh 03:37, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't have a Japanese encyclopedia with me right now so I really can't say much. But I doubt if the encyclopedia has a mention about Rachel at all, it says she was world-acclaimed. What reads might be like she was the greatest among her contemporaries or something. -- Taku 03:40, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

Well, if you ever do find yourself near one, I am curious. - Nunh-huh 03:44, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No problem. Also if you find any established source that says Rachel is world-acclaimed or equivalent to it, let me know. I just want to make sure the ground of the claim. That's all. -- Taku 03:56, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

Not if world-acclaimed must include Japan, obviously. She was the most famous actress of her time, and I know of no source that asserts she was not internationally acclaimed. - Nunh-huh 04:02, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I guess I have a problem with this world or international. In 1841, Japan was closed from the world and I don't think many of Chinese people in this time saw her. -- Taku 04:12, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

Certainly one can be internationally famous without being known in Japan. As to whether that also rules out "world famous" is now moot as it's no longer in the article. I think that if someone is unknown in a deliberately insular society it doesn't bar their description as world famous. -- Nunh-huh 04:15, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But we cannot just make the Europe as being synonymous with the world. Also I am not sure what you saying. Are you saying she was world famous or not? The article says she had fame in Europe as well as in the US. And that's all. -- Taku 04:23, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

How's this formulation: "She is so well-known any history of acting which does not mention her is incomplete". And yes, international = more than one country, not all countries. Europe + U.S. is definitely more than one country. I am also quite certain she is known in Japan - certainly among theatre professionals, if not the general population. It is you who are claiming otherwise!-- Nunh-huh 04:36, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So in your logicl, some African language is international because it is spoken in more than two languages? Anyway, please let me show something concrete so I don't have to keep fussing. If your claim is correct, there should be something to support it. -- Taku 04:43, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

Two countries, not two languages. And your claim that she is unknown in Japan should also have something to support it. -- Nunh-huh 04:47, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As I said Japan was closed at that time she was famous. -- Taku 04:48, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. So your position is that nothing in 1841 was world-famous unless it was known in Japan at that time?? Not really a tenable position, I think. - Nunh-huh 04:51, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

Not just Japan though. For example, Napoleon didn't dominate the world but Europe just as Rache was famous in the western world. -- Taku

Napoleon is a good example. He's certainly world-famous, and would remain so even if one could locate a nation that had never heard of him. - Nunh-huh 05:00, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I guess we are speaking in a different language. Again he didn't dominate Eurpoe and Rache didn't receive fame and acclaim from throughout the world. -- Taku 05:06, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I guess we are:). He did dominate Europe, which is a separate claim from the one that he is world-famous. And Rachel did receive fame and acclaim from throughout the world. Even if they don't know her in Bora-Bora. -- Nunh-huh 05:14, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)