User talk:Bamse/Archive 1

License tagging for Image:Deltawell.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Deltawell.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 09:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 12:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sopade
Hello. I don't know German, so the basis for this article is a machine translation that I did. Could you please proofread it and make sure it's an accurate rendition of the original? If so, thank you. Biruitorul 01:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello! I hope the following comments are useful.
 * The sentence: When the Sopade reached an agreement with the remaining party executive committee in Berlin about Paul Löbe for Hitler's peace resolution,... does not represent the meaning in the German version. According to de:Sopade, the Berlin committee about Paul Löbe agreed with Hitler's peace resolution, while the Sopade tried to convince the Berlin SPD not to agree.    This caused the break between Berlin SPD and Prague Sopade.
 * Should the titles like Deutschland-Berichte be translated?
 * I am not sure about the words: secret correspondence system. For me, geheimes Berichterstattersystem rather refers to the reporters (Berichterstatter) operating in secrecy, than some correspondence being secret (it still was though, I believe).
 * The next sentence does not make sense to me at all: These dealt with the      situation in National Socialist the EN Germany internationally informed.
 * In the bibliography, maybe given change -> new edition? Bamse 02:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot. I'm busy at the moment, but when I've gotten a chance to integrate your suggestions, I'll see if I have any questions left. Biruitorul 02:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Bot Issue
I've reported it and it appears to have been resolved. Sorry for any inconvenience my bot may have caused. (It appears that no other articles were affected by this rare bug). Alphachimp 05:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess
You might like to join us at Physics/wip where a total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess. At present we're discussing the lead paragraphs for the new version, and how Physics should be defined. I've posted here because you are on the Physics Project participant list. --MichaelMaggs 08:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Japanese Railway Stations
While the articles discussing Japanese railway lines are notable and its nice to see someone paying attention, why are small stations such as Hon-Atsugi Station 本厚着駅 included? I can see the argument for large terminals, such as 東京, etc., but why include the smaller ones? Wikipedia isn't a train station directory. If we treated every station equally we would crash the wiki-servers.--Shakujo 08:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hon-Atsugi Station
I have added a "" template to the article Hon-Atsugi Station, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria.--Shakujo 08:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a translation in progress (in fact right now) of the not-too-short japanese article. I believe that this station deserves an article, having 140,000 passengers a day, thereby being 5th largest among the 70 stations on Odakyu-Odawara line. Bamse 08:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If it was the fifth largest in Japan, then there would a case. We are slipping into a directory of the stations on the Odakyu-Odawara line, which is against WP:NOT.--Shakujo 08:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you going to delete all articles on railway stations in Japan being smaller than the fifth largest? Hon-Atsugi is an important station for commuters to Tokyo, so maybe there is some interest for Wikipedia. Bamse 08:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOT. 140,000 passengers a day is not a big number. The list of stations at the bottom of this and related pages, suggests that the intention is to form a directory of all stations on the line. Some choice needs to be made about which to keep and which not to. If all stations that were considered important by commuters in Japan, including the ones I use, were included then we would have either a complete meltdown of the wiki servers or a list of only a few. There might be a case for this station to have a listing on the 日本語 site, but not here.--Shakujo 09:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Map
Thanks for completing the map of suicide rates. I've added it to three articles and the image alone makes them significantly better. Cheers! MahangaTalk 00:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ditto! As someone who usually just reverts vandalism to List of countries by suicide rate, it's wonderful to actually see a map! Thank you!--Will.i.am 07:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, apart from the Caribbean it wasn't all that hard. Let me know if you need another map. Bamse 07:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Star
Hi Bamse, just noticed the terrific svg maps you have been doing, especially the elephant range in Africa and Tanzanian protected areas. Great work! --Astrokey 44 09:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

1868 Expedition to Abyssinia
Hi Bamse -- I uploaded some public domain images related to this article to Commons, & tried to link to one of these images on de:Wikipedia. After saving my edit, I saw that my German caption for the image was grammatically incorrect (my German sucks), so when I tried to fix it I discovered that my edit was rejected. Sigh. Would you update the German version of this article to reflect my updates? Much thanks. -- llywrch 02:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Llywrch. I am working on an update for the German article. Your article is quite expanded since when I last looked at it. Do you happen to know who Rosenthal is? Bamse 09:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Rosenthal? The name's not familiar; was he one of Tewodros' captives, with the British Expedition, or a writer on the subject? At the moment I'm not at home, so I can't check any of my books that treat of this event. -- llywrch 18:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * He was chained with Stern according to the article. Might deserve a note who he was. Bamse 00:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Now I'm home, & found his name in Crummey's Priests and Politicians: Henry Rosenthal was a fellow missionary of Stern to the Bet Israel, & Tewodros took them both into custody at the same time -- which is why the two were chained together. Rosenthal was the companion in the article who was badly beaten, according to Crummey. (The reason I left his name out this draft was that I didn't want to spend too much space on the prelude to the main act.) -- llywrch 05:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for elucidating. I updated the German version of the article and also added the nice pictures. Bamse 06:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Tokyo
I saw your name at Photo_Matching_Service. Please consider adding your name to and monitoring Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Tokyo and any other subcategory at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Japan. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Physics participation
You received this message because your were on the old list of WikiProject Physics participants.

On 2008-06-25, the WikiProject Physics participant list was rewritten from scratch as a way to remove all inactive participants, and to facilitate the coordination of WikiProject Physics efforts. The list now contains more information, is easier to browse, is visually more appealing, and will be maintained up to date.

If you still are an active participant of WikiProject Physics, please add yourself to the current list of WikiProject Physics participants. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:StressEnergyTensor.svg
I'd like to bring this comment to your attention. 24.36.74.15 (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Coord formatting
Hi. On User:Bamse/Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos, you've got a bunch of templates of the form  -16.58408°N, -60.68883°W . Coord is a bit odd, in that the region: and type: parameters (and a couple of others) are separated by underscores rather than pipes, so they should be "...|region:BO-S_type:city|...". —WWoods (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It should be fixed now. bamse (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Spanish translation/proofreading?
I saw your name on the list of users who can do translations. I don't know if this is up your alley, but there's an English-language article with a Spanish source that really needs help. Dormitator latifrons. It's short. Would you be willing to give it a shot? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the "Revista AquaTIC" article? Wouldn't a direct translation violate the copyright? bamse (talk) 09:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. It's not a direct translation, but the sources are in Spanish. So what the article needs is someone who can read the sources and copyedit the article intelligently. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Newton'sDynamicalEquations
I am replying to your message on my talk page. The image is Image:Newton'sDynamicalEquations.PNG Thank you, Ancheta Wis (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You put 'png' instead of 'PNG' when linking the picture on the graphics lab page. I fixed this and created a an svg-version. Let me know if you like it. bamse (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:World Heritage Sites in Bolivia
Hi Bamse. I've updated the template with the link to Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos and, intrigued, have quickly scanned through the article. It looks excellent. It's great to know that quality work continues to find its way into Wikipedia, away from the squabbling and vandalism. I want to read it again more thoughtfully and will let you know if any queries arise while I do so. I know nothing about the subject, but I think that helps! Thanks for your work. Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sardanaphalus. I hope you will enjoy the read :). Let me know of any questions or comments you might have. I could need some feedback on the article.bamse (talk) 11:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Syria map
Thanks for your guidance on Syria map with Turkish names--Tuleytula (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * With the svg-map found by User:Time3000 it should be easy to add the Turkish labels with inkscape. Feel free to ask if you encounter some problems along the way.bamse (talk) 07:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Santa Ana and San Miguel
Done, but not very interesting up to now :). -- CaTi0604 (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks anyway. Maybe will add something about the missions on the individual pages one day. bamse (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

arg / probability amplitude
Dear Bamse, I spotted on your userpage (linked from the feedback page) your contributions to physics articles, and I was wondering whether you could give a quick once-over to my article on probability amplitude, which I wrote a couple of months ago but have had little input on. After seeing my catastrophically loose wording turn what started off as a simple tweak to arg into a nightmare of typos, slips, and gaffes, I now seriously distrust my ability to write what I am saying, let alone thinking, so I appreciate a brief review there, if only for accuracy's sake and not readability. I think all my other contributions have been read enough that they should be safe. Thanks, Kan8eDie (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look over it in the next couple of days. At first glance it seems that most of it could go into wave function. The rest (discrete amplitudes) consists only of an example and should be expanded to make the article relevant. Unfortunately I don't have enough time at the moment to add to it myself. BTW, if you feel like it, I am looking for feedback on Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos. No physics there I am afraid and the article is a bit longish, but if you restrict yourself to just a section or two that would be helpful as well. bamse (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I left some feedback on the talk page. bamse (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Mhlwest Adoption
Hello Bamse - Thank you for agreeing to adopt me!I am working on the Miyazawa Flutes page. When I originally created it, I had a section about Innovations and Technology, because that is what Miyazawa is known for. I had citations linking to educational articles on their website. And I had their website as a reference, also, but it is now gone. But I guess I did not do the citations correctly. I deleted the Innovations and Technology section since it was the section causing problems. Can you give me some guidance on how to make the citations correctly link to another website? And also how to add the website back as a reference?

I used other flute makers pages as a guide, so I'm confused why my page was tagged. (Other flute makers are Muramatsu Flutes, Powell Flutes, Brannen Brothers, Sankyo Flute Company, etc...)

Thank you so much!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhlwest (talk • contribs)


 * Hello Mhlwest! Glad you accepted my adoption. I'll try to be a friendly adopter. :-)


 * I had a look over the Miyazawa Flutes page and its history. For a beginner not a bad start I must say. It is good that you were trying to provide references for the text. You used the company website as a reference which is good for general information (product range, company history, location, revenue,...). So it is worth citing in these cases.
 * However for information concerning the quality of the products and to judge the innovations it is naturally a bad source. For instance "computer-monitored microwave energy" sounds like marketing fluff to me. Difficult to say for me as a reader if these innovations are real or just tiny modifications of existing technology with good marketing.
 * Suggestions: If the company is famous for innovations, they surely own some patents which you could use as a reference. Maybe some magazine/newspaper ran a comparison of different flutes and found those made with the new technology to be best?! If yes, use the magazine as a reference. Maybe they received some prices for their innovations which you could use to proof that they are innovative. If you cannot find any independent references, you could still mention the technologies used (reference with company website) leaving out the superlatives.
 * I copied your first version to User:Bamse/Adoptee/Mhlwest and marked where additional references (company or independent as indicated) are necessary and where there are some issues with neutrality. By the way, the other wikipedia articles on flute makers are not good examples for neutral point of views. So to make a long story short, the reason that other editors deleted the innovation section were likely WP:NPOV and WP:RELIABLE. I am sure you can easily fix this with additional (and independent) references.


 * Now for the technical part of how to cite. In User:Bamse/Adoptee/Mhlwest I also fixed the references, so you might want to have a look at the source (click "edit" at the top of the page). There are various citation styles you can use on Wikipedia (see WP:CS. The simplest would be to list all the references in the reference section without inline citations. However for your article which has some statements which can be challenged it is better to give inline citations as you did. To do this, you need two things:
 * In the text:
 * In the reference section just write:


 * This will give you an inline citation and the reference "Miller..." to appear in the reference section. Of course you can replace "Miller..." with any reference you like including weblinks. If you cite a website, don't just put a link in brackets but also give it a name which is displayed instead of the default (default is a number), e.g., " Miyazawa Flutes " (Just put a space between the URL and the name) Also give the date on which you accessed the websites, since websites might change. See reference 1 and 3 in User:Bamse/Adoptee/Mhlwest for (very short) examples.
 * If you are like me and cannot remember how to format references (or grew up with BibTeX) there are very convenient citation templates which you would place instead of "Miller...". Then you just enter title, author, publisher, year and the formatting is done by wikipedia. I used this in reference 2 if you want to have a look.
 * Don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions. Sometimes I am confusing :-). Going to sleep now. Looking forward to see how the Miyazawa Flutes article develops. bamse (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Bamse! I hope to have some time in the next few days to work on all of your great advice! You were very detailed and helpful. I will certainly let you know if I have any questions!

--Mhlwest (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Adoption
yea that would be great thanks!--theslave (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Adopted! Feel free to leave a message on this page if you have any questions. Looking on your edits you seem to be doing fine on wikipedia. Some tips on Liebeskind-Srogl coupling: Naturally it is a very technical article. You should make it more readable for non-Chemists by adding some wikilinks. You also might want to mention the people after which the reaction is named. Not knowing much about such reactions, I would wonder in which context (commercial applications?) it is used or if it has only academic use. Also, how does it compare to other C-C bond forming reactions? You might find some inspiration on how to improve the article in Category:Name reactions. bamse (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply at Graphics Lab
A reply has been made here for your request at the Graphics Lab.  Zoo Fari  18:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverted ref style at New Netherland
No, it was an accident. I had spent about an hour working on various edits, and then found myself in an edit conflict with you. I tried not to revert any of your changes, but evidently one slipped through the cracks! Mea culpa. Q·L·1968 ☿ 14:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'll work my way through the rest of the references then. bamse (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Want ot thank you for your very concerted and comprehensive effort with cleaning up referemces for this article. It's a great improvement that inspires me to more careful and vigilent with them.Djflem (talk) 10:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome, I also started to fix links to disambig-pages. Made it up to "The Director-General of New Netherland" and will probably finish with it today. bamse (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:100 Famous Japanese Mountains
Category:100 Famous Japanese Mountains, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Heads up
Just a heads up that I plan to edit Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos soon and might leave some comments on the talk page for that article if specific things stick out or are unclear. And I promise not to disappear like the previous copy editor did. :) Recognizance (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've been reviewing the articles in the requests section and it appears that in most cases the request was just left there because no one thought to remove it. I was mainly leaving the above message because of your note about the editor disappearing on you - do you still need help though? If not it can be removed. Recognizance (talk) 06:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Bamse, I'm currently editing this article. Just thought I'd let you know in case you don't see the message I left on its talk page. If you want to discuss anything in relation to the article, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Faerie Queene (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Glad you will be editing the article. Just returned from holidays. Will have a look over it tomorrow. If anything is unclear please let me know. bamse (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Bamse - glad I can help! As for the edits so far, "living heritage" is a phrase I'm not really comfortable with. It is technically correct, but it sounds odd including it in an encyclopaedic article because it's a vague little phrase that can mean a lot of different things and gets thrown around a lot in advertising and so on. I took it out pretty much automatically because without context it's almost completely meaningless, but I can add something more suitable in about the missions still being active and fulfilling their original purpose. If you have any statistics about how many people live there now, and what number are involved in with the Jesuits, it might work better as a new sub-section.Faerie Queene (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you are right. Of course the missions do not fulfill their original purpose (Christianization, protecting the border, ...) anymore. Population statistics are in the respective town articles but it is difficult to say how many people are involved with the Jesuits as there are some other orders present as well. Also the population changed from native Chiquitos to Mestizos who got there from the highland and other parts. So I'd say the missions now are sufficiently different from the missions in the 18th century to leave out the phrase "living heritage". bamse (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Tokugawa Art Museum
hi there,

I just replied to your message on Talk:Tokugawa Art Museum. AFAIK the scrolls are never displayed in public, but I could be wrong. If you do go to the Gotoh Museum, do you mind taking a good picture of the outside of the museum? Neither the Wikimedia Commons nor the Japanese Wiki has one and it would be really great to have. Thanks alot and enjoy your visit! Gryffindor (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Shifting coordinates for locations on inset maps
28-Apr-09: The latitude & longitude shift amounts for Japan's Okinawa inset-map are: +6.3, +17.9. See reply at Template_talk:Location_map_many. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Moves
Hello I tried to make names that conformed to WP:DAB as best I could - in particular, ones without unnecessary disambiguation or improper capitalization. There is no need for "shrines" to be capitalized, nor is there really a need for it to be parenthetical at all, as best as I can tell. Please let me know if this is unclear. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the capitalization issue, but still think that the title is easier to grasp with the parentheses. The parentheses also suggest that there are other lists (with different content of the parentheses) available. Do you have strong objections if I moved the lists to List of National Treasures of Japan (shrines), etc. ? bamse (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay I don't prefer it, but I have no strong objection - I'll grant you that the way it is worded now is it a bit ungrammatical. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnsensu

 * Well deserved. Keep up the good work!! LordAmeth (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Art Object National Treasures
Hi Bamse. I am indeed an art lover, as you say you were looking for, and would be happy to help out with this project. I can just start going through the database and adding to your template... Or did you have anything in particular in mind that you need help with? LordAmeth (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to start from the bottom of the first page of paintings, so that maybe we won't overlap, and I'm going to add straight into your subpage. If you'd like me to do something differently, just ask. I hope I'm not jumping the gun here. LordAmeth (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've added a few objects. I'm going to take a break from that for now, to give you an opportunity to give feedback and tell me I'm doing it all wrong. Let me know if you'd like things to be done differently, or any other concerns you may have. I am wondering about adding separate columns for the English, kanji, and romaji, or maybe just two columns, one for English, and one for kanji & romaji. I think including the translation is important, but it looks cluttered as is. Thanks! LordAmeth (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Very good work! I'd suggest putting only the title in the first column and move "ink and color on paper with gold leaf background" to the type column (to be renamed "format"?). Remove "紙本金地著色" etc completely. Can we do that? That should unclutter the first column as well. If necessary we can put Kanji+Romaji in a new column. Not sure how it looks on a normal screen; there is not much space on my tiny laptop screen with another column.
 * It would be good to have at least the age and location column to be sortable. To achieve this, some magic code needs to be added to the entries. This can be done later though. If you are curious, have a look at some of the other NT lists. I used to sort the location as "Prefecture City Name-of-Museum" and the date column as "year month day" or by the year of the beginning of a period if no exact date is known (if the author is known we could put his birth date instead if it lies in the same period). Note that these dates are hidden and don't appear otherwise in the table.
 * It's a good idea to work from opposite ends of the list. I split the table in two to avoid editing conflicts. Maybe it would make sense to temporarily make tables of 20 entries to compare more easily with the original list. I'll have a look at the Sanja Matsuri tomorrow and will be back on wikipedia on Monday to finish User:Bamse/List of National Treasures of Japan (antique materials). Will start working on the painting list some time next week. bamse (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Well, I'll keep going as I had been. Once you're ready to start working more on this page, we can rework it if need be. For now, as I haven't seen what other types of descriptions there are for other objects beyond those that are 紙本金地著色, I think I'll just translate directly, transferring the info into the WP page, and we'll work with it later if need be. Thanks! LordAmeth (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, bamse. I just wanted to apologize that I haven't been doing too much work on these National Treasures lists. I've become busy IRL, and just don't quite have the time to devote to it that I thought I would. At some point, maybe later this week, I might find the time to help out some more... Thanks. LordAmeth (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. bamse (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello again!
Just to let you know that I've been ill for a few weeks, and will get back onto copy-editing Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos this week some time. Faerie Queene (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad you are back. You might want to follow this discussion as well. bamse (talk) 10:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look
at my addition to the translation section at the WP Japan:talk page. Thank you. I think you've been doing a great job. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy the images here. Oda Mari (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the translations and pictures.bamse (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Chojugiga
It means exactly what I wrote. They may or may not be on display at any given moment, but the scrolls are 'entrusted' to those museums, and if they aren't on tour, that's where they're being stored. The Japanese word is 寄託 (= ~bailment = transfer of possession without transfer of ownership). See for example: Bueller 007 (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarification. So one scroll was on display in January 2009.bamse (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Bamse/List_of_National_Treasures_of_Japan_(sculptures)
Hi, Bamse. Checked the list and changed very little. I got rid of some occasional typos and: 1) hyphenated kondō, hondō and the like, as specified in the Manual of Style. Not many in Wikipedia do it, but it makes sense. 2) I capitalized The Twelve Heavenly Generals, because I figured it's a proper name as that of the Four Heavenly Kings. The Tokyo National Museum capitalizes it. 3) The last point concerns the difference in my treatment of Bodhisattvas, which I left with an s, and Bosatsus, where I removed the s. As a rule, in English foreign words do not take an s when they are pluralized, hence my choice of Bosatsu, and not Bosatsus. (Shogun for example takes an s because it's now considered an English word.) I think Bodhisattva is sufficiently known in English to be considered an English word, but it's only my opinion.

I hope I didn't fuck up any part of the table. If there is any problem, let me know.

urashimataro (talk) 06:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the copy-edits. I will try to remember hyphenating -dō in the future. I changed back Chuson-ji to Chusonji and Hon-do to Hondo in two places where they appeared within the sorting code (the stuff between ... bamse (talk) 09:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I see. I am not familiar with that sort of code, but had I noticed some sentences didn't appear anywhere. If you need me again, drop me a line.urashimataro (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorting
Hi, Bamse. The sorting works fine, but I modified a sentence in the Usage section to mention the little arrows. I hadn't noticed them until you told me, so I figure it's better be safe and mention them. Feel free to revert if you think it's not necessary. I would say it's high time to publish the article. Thanks for the meticulous, hard work you put in it.

A small point: according to the manual of style, Shinto should be written with no macron because it's an English word now, but here I do not agree. Macrons should stay, because they are necessary to properly understand a word and how it's written. You used the macron. I would leave it, but someone sooner or later will remove it. urashimataro (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking it out and adding the note. I think that sorting is a strong point of the table as it helps in digesting this huge table. BTW, also the other tables in the series are sortable. bamse (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hyphenation
Bamse, my heartfelt apologies. Today I noticed for the first time your question: Is the double-hypenation correct or should it be "Shin Yakushi-ji" or "Shinyakushi-ji"?. Very sorry.

Looked it up on the net and, to my dismay, it seems it does have a hyphen after Shin. I had it wrong all these years. See Shin-Ōsaka Station. So, "Shin-Yakushi-ji". Don't like it, but there it is.

I have taken a look at the article. Coming along fine. I guess the next will be an article about the 12 Heavenly Generals. You have some of the material already there, ready to be pasted in. Urashima Tarō (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * How did you know? ;-) bamse (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just this feeling I had ...

Urashima Tarō (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Buddha and buddha
BTW, I took the liberty to fix the Buddha link in Twelve Heavenly Generals. In this case, Buddha means simply an illuminated person, and the link should direct to buddhahood (as it does in the page about Yakushi).

There is a useful convention, that however not many follow, according to which Buddha capitalized means the original, historical Buddha, whereas "buddha" in the lower case means an illuminated one. I left the original capital in your file, so you can decide what you want to do. Urashima Tarō (talk) 23:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the illuminating info. ;-) I followed the convention. bamse (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos
HI bamse! I'm so sorry to have mangled your wonderful work on the Chiquitos article. I've re-edited to show that Schmid was both composer and priest. Unfortunately because I was only thinking about the words I confused father to be a person who has children which in that context would not have been relevant. That Schmid was a missionary priest is relevant. If you don't mind I'll continue slowly on your wonderful article that should have FA status. Please don't hesitate to tell me if I delete anything of importance. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi bamse! I have a question about your Chiquitos article. In some parts you use the term "Indian" and in other parts the term "indigenous people." For the sake of consistency and readability, perhaps only one term should be used, although a lot of work would go into changing it. What do you think? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I used these terms synonymously. It is fine with me to just use one term. I don't have any preference. How about you? Could the change be done with an automatic search/replace? There is also "Chiquitos" which could be used instead though that can have several meanings (as explained in the lead section) and could lead to confusion. bamse (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think for now it's fine to use the term synonymously. Using "Chiquitos" isn't advisable as the term does have more than one meaning.  Perhaps for a final edit a common term would be useful for consistency, but let's wait until the article has been polished perfectly. For now, I'll ignore the terms. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi bamse! I've completed an initial pass through of the Chiquitos article. It's a very interesting article full of wonderful detail. In some cases the detail, (none of which should be edited out, in my view), tends to create dense sentences, but for now I've left it as is, and will stay away from it for a few days and then return with a fresh perspective. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the great job you've been doing with the article! You really deserve some rest. Do you think that anything needs to be added to the article, for instance in the lead section, or that anything is unclear and needs to be rewritten? bamse (talk) 09:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * An interesting experiment would be to try some reorganization so the article flows better. Separating the two charts in the middle would help the flow. So, one way of reorganizing would be to have the first table following the history section (since the table delineates the founding of the towns), then move the entire architecture section up to follow the history section with the table about the individual churches at the end of that section, then "life in the missions", "tourism", and "cultural references."
 * So the article would be organized in the following manner: 1. History; (table) 2. Architecture; (table) 3. Life in the mission towns; 4. Tourism and so on.
 * One other point, that's perhaps irrelevant (but interesting): Schmid's churches resemble Swiss chalets. Do the Schmid churches differ architecturally from the other churches, and if so, is it worth writing a small subsection about Schmid's architecture? Or perhaps the section you've already written about Schmid's churches could be slightly more developed, if sources exist.
 * I've enjoyed working on this article. Good luck. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I followed your suggestion and exchanged "Architecture" with "Life in the mission towns". At first glance it looks better but the whole text needs to be read again to see if it makes sense this way. Concerning Schmid's architecture I remember reading that the proportion of the churches equaled musical keys. Visually his churches are obviously different from the others (and similar among themselves). Not sure if he was inspired by Swiss chalets though. :-) I'll see what I can dig up. bamse (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Visually the article is better with the two tables split apart. I'll read the text later for coherence. An image of an old chalet [here] and a new chalet [here]. The shape of the roof is similar to Schmid's churches. I'll check back in after I've re-read the text. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Upon rereading the article, the text doesn't seem to suffer from the repositioning of the tables, in my view. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am rereading as well now. Haven't found any reasonable references yet which claim that Schmid was inspired by chalets, though I agree the churches look very much like chalets. One quick question: In "The Jesuits in Chiquitania", Eleven missions were founded between 1691 and 1760. However, many missions were rebuilt due to fires, floods, plagues, famines, hostile tribes or slave traders. Do these lines sound as if the missions were rebuilt after 1760? (which is not the typical case, most relocations happened during the time of the Jesuits, i.e. until 1767, as far as I remember). bamse (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I remember that sentence, which indicates, in my mind, that the missions suffered from fires, floods, etc. during the missionary period and before the expulsion. I'll have another quick look in the article and change the wording if necessary. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, one more thing. In "Architecture", there is something missing in the sentence: The Jesuits selected locations with sufficient wood for construction, sufficient water, good soil, and would not be flooded during the rainy season. How about ...and a site that would...? bamse (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Try this (corrections in italics):The Jesuits selected sites with sufficient wood for construction, sufficient water, good soil, and that would not be flooded during the rainy season.
 * Honestly, this is difficult sentence. A much better way would be something like: "The Jesuits had specific criteria for building sites: locations with plenty of wood for construction; sufficient water for the population; good soil for agriculture; and safety from flooding during the rainy season."
 * About the initial eleven churches -- were they completely demolished (hence rebuilt), or simply damaged? If damaged, then "repair" would be a better word for that section.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize for making your talk page so long, but I wanted to link [this] which discusses the Schmid churches and possible influences. See page 7: "Wherein does the personal style of Martin Schmid lie? Are specific Central European influences recognizable, as has been often stated? – Hypothesis:  That which distinguishes Schmid's buildings are the stylistic and constructional care and the rationality with which he developed further local building methods and forms.  However, only a few stylistic influences from his homeland or from architectural books can be determined." Sorry, I brought up this point, but the churches are so unique, that it sent me off on a tangent. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, there is enough space here. Thanks for the link. In cases where the settlement was moved (the majority), the original churches were completely demolished as far as I know. In fact today the location of the original settlements is often not known. The church in Santa Ana is the original church (with recent restorations). For the three remaining villages the situation is not as clear. However most if not all of the church in San Jose is definitely from a later date. The original (!?) church of San Ignacio was definitely destroyed in 1948. No idea about San Miguel yet, but I'd guess that it was also rebuilt (and not repaired). bamse (talk) 01:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that there is no mentioning of San Miguel's founding in "The Jesuits in Chiquitanía". Will fix this tomorrow unless you are faster. I finished reading all of the article and like you, did not notice any problem with the new order of sections. bamse (talk) 01:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I added: In 1718 San Rafael had 2615 inhabitants and was the largest of the Chiquitos missions. As a split-off of the San Rafael mission, the mission of San Miguel was founded in 1721 by Felipe Suárez and Francisco Hervás. How does it sound? bamse (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If the San Miguel mission is the result of overpopulation, then reword something like this: By 1718 San Rafael was the largest of the Chiquitos missions with 2615 inhabitants; as a result, in 1721, Felipe Suárez and Francisco Hervás established the mission of San Miguel, as a split-off of the San Rafael mission. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I changed it. bamse (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm ready for another run through. I'll start at the top this time, and save each change so it's easily visible in the history and easy to revert if necessary. If I have questions, I'll post them as I go along. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Very good. Thanks. I'll keep an eye on it. Just finished List of National Treasures of Japan (sculptures) so I'll have more time for the Jesuits. bamse (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In the section "Arrival in the Viceroyalty of Peru" were the Jesuits restricted to existing settlements and not allowed to build new settlements? If so, why? I'm not sure it's important to the article, but I find myself being curious. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed the Jesuits in the Viceroyalty of Peru were not allowed to found new settlements along the border of the empire. I'd guess the reason is ultimately a conflict of interests: as Spain (and Portugal) was eager to claim the newly discovered territories to itself and not to hand it over to the Jesuits (which virtually happened later). Maybe the Spanish were even hoping to find Eldorado... I don't have a reference discussing the reasons, but several sources say that the Jesuits were restricted in this sense. I also wonder what the situation was for the Franciscans, Dominicans and other orders. bamse (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing the typo -- I knew it was time to stop, but wanted to finish the paragraph.
 * I have a question about a sentence in the last paragraph in the "Jesuits in Chiquitania" section. The article states: The same strategy was employed by the Jesuits from the other side in Asunción. My question is this: were some of the Jesuits moving east toward Ascuncion, and others moving west toward Ascuncion?  Where was the starting point for the Jesuits moving west? Or were they all moving east? It might make that section slightly more clear. Thanks.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. I felt like doing at least one character after all the work you'd been doing in copy-editing it :-). I sketched the situation roughly in File:Jesuit missions chaco.png. The Jesuit settlements are marked in red. Dates of foundations are in parantheses. The old road went west of the Gran Chaco via Tarija and Tucuman. The new road the Jesuits were trying to establish went along the east of the Chaco. As you can see, Jesuits from the "Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos" moved east while those from La Santisima Trinidad de Paraná moved north along the Paraguay (river). If you compare the dates of the Chiquitos missions you will see that they were founded further and further east. Did this make it more clear? Please keep asking questions. It can only improve the article. bamse (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll look at the map. At the moment I'm stuck on another sentence. I'd like to shorten the first sentence in the section "Expulsion". From what I can tell the sequence of events was: 1. Political tension between Portugal and Spain over control of the region; 2. the general expulsion of all Jesuits from Spanish territories in 1767. Is that correct? Was the political tension prior to the general expulsion, and was it a cause of the general expulsion? Thanks for the answers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately there is not a single cause for the expulsion. From what I understand, there were tensions in the 1750s in Europe between the Jesuits and the ruling powers. These were political and economic conflicts of various type (also have a look at Suppression of the Society of Jesus). Here it says: These moves were the culmination of anti-Jesuit propaganda that had been fueled by Enlightenment ideas and growing religious nationalism; the allegiance of the Jesuits to the Pope and their material wealth and autonomy, most visibly demonstrated in the Paraguayan missions, were seen as a threat to state power Re-reading the first sentence in the section "Expulsion" I am not happy with it either. It is too mission-centric and does not mention earlier conflicts in Europe. Maybe a sentence could be added stating that there were conflicts in Europe beforehand!? I feel that this part of the article is very important and would like to get a second opinion. I asked the experts at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_History and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism. bamse (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did read Suppression of the Society of Jesus which is why I thought the sentence needs to be rewritten into multiple parts. I'll leave as is for now.
 * Regarding my edit (which I suspected was not right) about the movement east, your map (which is very good) indicates easterly movement from the Chiquitos and north-by-northwest movement from Asuncion. The original sentence:( The same strategy was employed by the Jesuits from the other side in Asunción.) seems to refer to those who were moving north (by northwest) if I'm correct? If so, then I'll reword completely. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was referring to those moving north (and a tiny bit northwest). Actually if you take San Ignacio Guazu (founded 1609) which is a mission on the left/west in the red blob ("La Santisima Trinidad de Paraná"") and compare it with the latitude of Corumba (the place where the two arrows in the map meet), you will see that they are almost on the same latitude (in real, not on my sketchy map!). I would not hesitate to say that the Jesuits from the Paraguay side moved north. bamse (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reworded the article (I hope correctly) and stated north, because the north-by-northwest is not entirely accurate and also too wordy. I've reread the rest of the article and only see some minor edits that I'll work on tomorrow. For now I'll leave the "Expulsion" section until you get another opinion. Certainly the mid-18th century was a time of upheaval in Europe, which spilled over to the New World. I did not, however, realize the Jesuits were expelled from all the New World colonies. Very interesting to read about. Thanks again for your help, and allowing me to work on this article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good now. Thanks for working on this article. bamse (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Put up a post on my talk page about rough draft in the Expulsion section in case you've missed it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the barnstar. I enjoyed working on the article and the collaboration. Will keep an eye on the article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Twelve Heavenly Generals
That leaves the question of Tibet. I don't know all that much about Tibetan Buddhism, & in particular whether they have this list. I think there's a Tibet project you might try asking. If the list doesn't exist in Tibetan Buddhism, then the best phrasing would probably be "in East Asian Buddhism", which covers China, Vietnam, Korea & Japan, all with very similar Buddhist traditions. Peter jackson (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I asked WikiProject Tibet. bamse (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

suicide rates
hi Bamse, WHO keeps a list of the latest statistics from each country. The most recent list is from 2008. WHO doesn't collect its own statistics but relies on the statistics it receives from each of its members, so the date after the statistics for each country reflects the age of the data collected by the member state, not the WHO list date. This means that some will be up-to-date whereas others are not. I think we probably need to make this point more clearly in the article. Jenafalt (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Indeed I though the 2008 WHO list had data from 2008. That's why I asked for an update of the wikipedia list in the first place. So maybe an update is not necessary anymore. bamse (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Review
I will be reviewing the article you nominated for GA over the next week at Talk:Jesuit_Missions_of_the_Chiquitos/GA1. Currently it is on hold as there are a few obvious problems to be fixed - they should be relatively easy to handle though. During the next days I will conduct a thorough review. ·Maunus· ƛ · 01:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have made a full review at the review page.·Maunus· ƛ · 22:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Some suggestions and questions
Hi Bamse. Okay, I've gone through the article, looking specifically at the names. The problem is this section.

I'm sorry to see the tables gone, because as a reader, I enjoyed looking at the images, particularly Schmid's churches. I'd like to compare information in the tables with the information in the section marked above, because perhaps it can be combined, and perhaps, one of the tables (maybe even both) can be rewritten into prose as Maunus suggests.

Before starting the project of deleting the names of the Jesuits, I'd suggest adding information about the indians, again as he suggests. I'd imagine Maunus can steer you toward sources (if you don't already have them) for adding either a section about the impact by the missions on the native population, or of interweaving the information into separate sections.

In the meantime, if you don't mind, I'll make a copy of both tables and work on them in my sandbox, and see where that gets us with information. Then, the last step can be to determine which names to delete from the one long paragraph.

How does that sound for a plan? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a good idea to incorporate at least some of the information from the tables, and certainly some of the very good images, into the article in form of prose. About the jesuits names it is not so much just weeding out the names as it is simply pruning the sections for information that does not contribute directly to the point of making readers more knowledgeable about the missions. Names of individual jesuits can of course be mentioned as far as they are relevant. for example I don't think there is a reason to remove the story about the frs. Blende and Arce who tried to travel to San Rafael.·Maunus· ƛ · 13:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is an example of combining the material from both tables into prose paragraph w/ image. Creating a paragraph such as this is possible for each mission, but I'm not certain that each paragraph would have sufficient text to support an image, so some triaging would be in order. Presumably such a paragraph can be part of a new section? I'll wait for feedback from both of you before I proceed with converting the table info into prose. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I very much like the look of that, but keep in mind that not all of the missions may be notable/interesting enough to merit more than a mention of its existence. In the table for example some of them have very little information and that might be a sign that they are not as important as the others. ·Maunus· ƛ · 15:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Bamse, we're having a conversation on your user page without you present! At any rate, I've completed three text-from-table sections here. The decision of which missions to include is up to you; I chose chronological order. Resizing the images slightly and displaying alternately left to right seems to work. Also, some of the information from the section that needs to be pruned could be moved into this potentially new section. Depending on how much The Jesuit in Chiquitos section is pruned, the images there (the two maps) may also require some resizing. But, I think this is a good solution as it will allow you retain most of the information and images without the tables. Finally, the text I've created is simply a rough draft to see whether it will work -- if you agree to this then I'd rewrite the text. I'll be popping in and out during the weekend; and unfortunately have some personal obligations next week, although I may get some time at the computer. Let me know what you think. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hope you are ok with this little rendezvous here. I think it should obviously be the six missions that are UNESCO heritage sites that get most attention.·Maunus· ƛ · 00:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One last idea: I've added the coordinate to the table-to-text version, so by the time you read this, it will look completely different than my first posting! Oh well. Here is the most recent version . Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the very late reply. I was changing continents in the meantime. Unfortunately I probably won't have much time to work on the article in the next couple of days either. Thanks Truthkeeper88 for starting to convert the tables to prose. (Very good job!) I think a prose version is visually better. On the other hand, with the tables it was easier to compare the misisons, for instance by sorting the columns according to the name of the settlement or the year of consturction/founding (by clicking on the arrows in the table header). Unfortunately we cannot have both, prose and easy accessibility. In any case I don't have strong objections to a prose conversion. It is a good idea to add the geo-coordinates as you did (and remove them from the "location" section later). I would favour a chronological order by date of founding. As for importance, I agree with Maunus, that the heritage missions get most attention. Of the non-heritage missions most information is likely available for San Ignacio de Velasco. One more comment: you write that "San Javier...was located in the area of the Piñocas tribe" This is probably correct, though all I know is that the first settlement (1691 before relocation) was located in the area and that the major group of Indian inhabitants were from the Piñocas tribe. Same with the other settlements. The column "Indians" should express which tribe was living in the respective settlement. This might or might not be identical with the area of the tribe. However I must admit that I don't know much about the tribes (reference suggestions welcome) to say where their territories were or if they had a fixed territory at all. One suggestion for the paragraph on San Javier: you could add directions by writing that the Paulistas came from Brazil (from the east) so that the mission first moved to the west (1696, 1698) and later (1708) it moved to the east since the Spanish came from the west. bamse (talk) 06:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How about keeping the legend about San Javier in "The Jesuits in Chiquitania" and replacing the third paragraph from "San Rafael is the second oldest mission settlement..." to "Nothing of the original settlement remains in the modern village." by a sentence or two saying that ten missions were founded? This could be extended by saying that the foundings happened in three distinct periods: 1690s, 1716-1721, after 1748. The information from the deleted third paragraph (mainly on how much of the Jesuit mission has survived) should be combined with the prose-converted tables. Is this a good plan? bamse (talk) 07:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * All very good suggestions. I'll (slowly!) continue with the prose conversions for the time being. As for the tribes, I didn't quite know how to strip off the information from the tables, but anything I produce for now will be a rough draft that can be edited for accuracy as we go along. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Progress report
Hi Bamse! Well, I've only managed to add one more section and I believe I have even more questions than before. For instance, the Jackson source describes the relationship between mission and disease in the native population. The missions in Bolivia seem to have had less disease for a variety of reasons, which might be worth mentioning somewhere in the text.

The table-to-prose text is moving slowly because of challenges in the formatting. The images have to be sized to fit the paragraphs, but as the paragraphs are not in final format, I've decided to wait to finesse the images. For now, I've completed four rough drafts. You'll note I've left out Concepción because I went off track to try to determine the reasons for the various dates (which is where I stumbled across the information about disease and epidemics). I'll add Concepción where it belongs and flip the images of the others when I return to the computer. For now I wanted you to see how it looks and to have an opportunity to provide feedback. Thanks. Almost forgot to add the link to the sandbox! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Truthkeeper88! Visually it looks very good to me. I wonder how you adjust the image size to the paragraphs as readers will have different screen resolutions/sizes. In any case on my laptop screen it looks good. As for content, I would prefer to write that the major group of Indian inhabitants in the mission were the Piñocas/Penoquis/Covarecas/ ... unless you are sure, that these groups had a fixed area of land (as opposed to being nomads) in which the respective mission was located. Not that important: is there a reason to write in Spanish "Misión de San Rafael de Velasco"? In San Jose, not only the church is at the original site but the whole mission/settlement.
 * Some information from the history section should be copied to the table-to-prose text. For San Jose, for instance, the following lines: "It is also one of four missions that still stand at their original locations. Today, a mortuary chapel (1740), the church (1747), a bell tower (1748) and a house for the fathers and workshops (1754) can be seen." Similarly for the other missions.
 * I started to work on the architecture and make more clear which elements are of Indian origin. Will keep looking for more elements there. Yes the lower disease could be mentioned, maybe in "Life in the missions"?bamse (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Bamse, the image resolution is a good question worth investigating, although encouraging that the display looks fine on a laptop and my fairly large monitor. Will ask around about that issue and see if anyone can give some tips for resizing images according to browser, etc.
 * I'll rewrite the section about the groups of indians in the missions. This: (Misión de San Rafael de Velasco) was the result of a copy/paste edit, and needs fixing. For now, before I move ahead, I'll wait for an answer, if there is one, about the images, and then will continue with rewriting the sections. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Quick update: there's a comment on my talkpage about images and screen resolution. In my view, maybe best to get the text finished and then test last. Unfortunately I'll be unavailable tomorrow, but perhaps will have some time on Wednesday. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good plan, to finish the text first and worry about the pictures later. Since it seems to work on different screens, there is no problem anyway. Quick question: you write that the restoration project started in 1968, while I remember the year 1972 . Is that a typo? Take your time. I will probably not be able to do much on the article before next week. bamse (talk) 04:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, sorry, a typo. I've added

to the paragraphs and now the images are formatting better. I'll wait until I have a dedicated bit of time to finish these, which should be later in the week. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sacred Sites and Pilgrimage Routes in the Kii Mountain Range
Hello, I see you've done excellent work on similar pages in the past, and I was wondering if maybe you could help expand the Sacred Sites and Pilgrimage Routes in the Kii Mountain Rangepage. I separated it from the Kii Peninsula page today, but I don't really have any resources on it, not even a list of the inscribed sites. If you have the time to make a broad outline with a table, I could probably fill in the rest with details/pictures. Not in a hurry though, just putting it on your radar. Thanks in advance. (Awesome pages on National Treasures of Japan, btw) ~ A Morozov  &#9001;talk&#9002; 07:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi! I will keep it in mind. At the moment I am busy with other stuff so it could take a while. The UNESCO seems to have quite good information on their site:  bamse (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just started collecting the inscribed sites in User:Bamse/Kii_mountains. Eventually I would like to make a table out of it like for the Nara and Kyoto World Heritage sites. Feel free to suggest information you would like to see in the table (picture, prefecture/town, type,...). bamse (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this article would profit a lot from a nice map showing the three main locations (Koyasan, Yoshino & Omine, Kumano Sanzan) together with the pilgrimage paths. Maybe the Graphic Lab/Map workshop could help to create one. bamse (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried to resolve the nominated sites to building/structure level (like in the National Treasure lists but unlike the Nara/Kyoto World heritage articles). However I am not sure that I will ever find sources for all the nominated buildings/structures/... Also since there are quite a few sites (e.g. 135 separate sites for Kumano Sankeimichi according to ), I will give up on this plan and just list the Shrines/Temples/Trails. A sentence should be added to the article informing the reader that technically not the whole shrine/temple/trail is nominated but only specific structures. Maybe also the number of separate sites could be mentioned in the article. bamse (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you add references to the article? bamse (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick response! I originally thought that it should be something like the Nara/Kyoto heritage site articles.  Including all the separate 242 elements would probably be too much, and I think the current table you've made is more than enough.  If you don't mind, I will copy that table onto the article page later, and I'll fill in the location and picture fields, using the UNESCO documents as reference.  Thanks again for your help. ~  A Morozov  &#9001;talk&#9002; 00:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Update - I finished the page; couldn't find pics for all the sites though. Please take a quick took. ~ A Morozov  &#9001;talk&#9002; 07:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks very good. Great job! Actually I did not expect that there would be as many pictures available. One question concerning the "location" column. In other tables I used hidden tags to make it sort from large to small, i.e., by "Prefecture-(District)-City/Village". Similarly in the "type" column the temples should sort as "Temple Tendai" etc instead of "Tendai Temple". Then when sorting, all the temples would appear together. If you don't object I would add such hidden tags to the table. Next is the World Heritage site Nikkō ;-) ? bamse (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that also the Gusuku WH site needs its own article. bamse (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Just started Shrines and Temples of Nikkō. bamse (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I'll add those hidden tags later. It might be a bit hard to find pictures for every specific structure on the Shrines and Temples of Nikkō page though.  I will put the Gusuku WH site on my to-do list.  ~  A Morozov  &#9001;talk&#9002; 00:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. For the first shrine I found quite a few pictures, so I think I will keep the picture column. My only concern would be the time it takes to load the article over a slow internet connection. bamse (talk) 10:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on the Gusuku site page. The Nikkō page is looking good as well! Yes, I know the Hōryū-ji Area site includes more than Hōryū-ji itself, I just thought it would look better that way on the template, lol. I've changed the template a bit now, tell me what you think. I'm not sure if a separate page should be created for it, though I think it might be a good idea in the long run just for the sake of "completeness". But I can't seem to find anywhere a complete list of buildings and monuments inscribed for the site, could you give me a link if you have one? ~ A Morozov  &#9001;talk&#9002; 02:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know of a complete list either. The UNESCO advisory report seems to have an incomplete list and the total number of buildings for each site. According to UNESCO there are 19 National Treasures included. On the other hand I count 19 structure/building NT for Horyu-ji + 1 for Hokki-ji = 20 national treasures (see List of National Treasures of Japan (temples)). So either UNESCO counts differently (combining several structures in one) or one of the NT is not included in the WH site which is unlikely. bamse (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems that apart from the temples, the WH site also includes the area/landscape around them, so a separate article, even a short one might be worthwhile. bamse (talk) 11:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I just made the page for it (Buddhist Monuments in the Hōryū-ji Area). It's rather... deficient, though.  The advisory body evaluation .pdf says there are a total of 48 buildings nominated, all but one are located on the Hōryū-ji grounds.  It doesn't really offer a complete list though, so it might have to stay like that for now... ~  A Morozov  &#9001;talk&#9002; 08:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Very good. For the time being it is a good solution. Possibly the WH templates from Hōryū-ji should be removed. bamse (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Table to prose conversion: issues to be resolved
Hi Bamse. Some comments about the table to prose conversion: perhaps Maunus can clarify, but my impression is this would be a new section and as such not supplant the The Jesuits in Chiquitanía section. If so, then should the new prose section contain only the information formerly presented in the two tables, or would more text be added in about the mission from the Chiquitanía section? If the latter course is followed, I'm afraid the Chiquitanía section will shrink beyond a mere pruning. For now I've only converted the table text to prose. Also, I've formatted the first three with images lined up on the left, and the second three with images alternating left to right. Let me know which you prefer. Finally, Concepción is still blank, but may be done by the time you retrieve this message. The text will need rewriting as well as it's still in a rough form. As usual here's the sandbox. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I did imagine a new section for the material from the tables. But that section could encorporate material moved there from other sections. I would suggest that a guideline could be that information about the general history of the missions (plural) go in the history section while information about particular missions go in the new section (I'd suggest a title for that section such as "missions")·Maunus· ƛ · 15:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks, that's a good answer. Will carry on. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ran into some problems formatting when too much text is added. I've added a sentence in italics (to be deleted) at the end of the section on San Javier to show what happens. On my computer the text wraps partially under the image and looks messy. I've rewritten the text in each section. The wording is intentionally slightly different so you can decide which you like best, and then I can reword for consistency if necessary. The citations need to be added, any blunders I've made fixed, but essentially I'm seeing the end of the tunnel. Please feel free to enter the the sandbox and fix (both Bamse and Maunus), edit, copy, anything you like. If necessary we can use the talk page there as well. I'll be busy for the first half of the weekend, but will check in as time permits. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am back. Great job Truthkeeper88! I don't have a problem with the text flowing under the pictures in San Javier. Maybe it could be avoided using a 2-column/1-row table (without headers or any lines) with the picture in one column and the text in the other. For the pictures, I like the left-right alternating version better. I don't have a preference for any of the wordings so I leave it up to you (Truthkeeper88 and Maunus), which to choose. I am going to check for factual errors and typos and will edit in your sandbox. I'd also like to add references. Since most information comes from 2 or 3 sources, should these references be repeated for every mission or would it be enough to reference once for the whole section "Missions"? bamse (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I modified the "Jesuits in Chiquitania" in my sandbox here. Removed some names and shortened it a bit. I reduced the info on World Heritage missions to just the year of establishment/founding and kept additional information for the non-World Heritage missions. Feel free to add to/remove/edit in the sandbox. bamse (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome back. The rewritten "Jesuits in Chiquitania" looks good. Will read it more carefully a little later when I have more time, but it appears fine with a quick read. I've flipped the images in my sandbox to format alternating left/right. Apparently the text flows below the image for more than one section, so I think nothing can be done about it. I see that I can adjust my screen resolution, so I might play around with lower resolution  and if possible provide enough text for each mission so they all look consistent, but that might be getting a little too picky. As for the references, I'd defer to Maunus, but my inclination would be to reference each paragraph (unfortunately!) Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I checked for factual errors and typos. As for me, the section could be left as is. Will add references on each paragraph soon. bamse (talk) 08:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I added references. bamse (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we're done with the new prose section. The "Jesuits in Chiquitania" section also seems fine. Time to add the new section to the article? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. I put the new section between History and Architecture. Is that alright? bamse (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks nice. I'll re-read the entire article in a few hours, but with a quick glance it seems fine. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you have time to read the article again? I just read it and fixed a few minor mistakes. Concerning the review, "Well written B. layout and style" should be ok now. Also "Broad in coverage" seems ok to me after removing the names from the history section. The Indian part in the architecture section is also there now. The only thing left is maybe to write more on the "indigenous perspective", though there is already quite some information present in the article in my opinion. How do you think about Maunus suggestion of exchanging the "life in the missions" section and "architecture" section? bamse (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, it looked fine to me. Waiting for Maunus to weigh in re: the prose to table section, and more importantly how to weed out bias, which in my mind is the final and perhaps most difficult, issue to be addressed. I'll re-read his comments, and then re-read the article for content only (I tend to focus on mechanics) to find places to add balance. I have noted your changes which seem fine. Also, I did notice that your request for copyediting is still open here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) So far found two sentences to be rewritten that I've copied into the my sandbox and will work on later.

As for the adding balance, I don't know much about the Bolivian missions, but do know that the California missions destroyed the indigenous population & culture in a variety of ways. As one of your sources mentions, bringing disparate groups into a centralized location became a means for epidemics to spread amongst the native populations. Also, in California, diets were different, the hours of work different, and traditional clothing was discouraged in favour of European clothing. "Life in the Mission Towns" might be the section to add how the structured Jesuit routine clashed with the culture of the inhabitants. Again, just thinking off the top of my head, but presumably the methods used in the California missions were similar in all the colonies to some extent.

Also, a very minor point, but I will have to go to some style manuals to check the usage for "indian". Indian with a capitalized "I" is of the country India; my understanding is that without a tribal name indians (without a capital "I") is a generic term. Finally, I hadn't watchlisted the review discussion page -- but have now. Given that Maunus isn't available at the time, the best we can do is work on the text to improve and improve, and research the I/indian culture.

Will continue adding sentences to my sandbox that need rewriting, and will let you know how the progress goes. I will be in and out on Wikipedia during the weekend, but also will make this my priority for now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good plan. Will look out for culture clashes etc. I think I changed some "indian" to "Indian" believing it was a typo. Sorry for that. bamse (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. I've copied some of the sentences from the "History" section into my sandbox and reworked the section. I am worried about rewriting the text too much as the text should match the source. In my view, it needs one more run through to get it right, but wanted you to have a look first for content. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've copied the rewritten section into the article. Go ahead and revert if it's wrong. As for uppercase, lowercase Indian/indian, the Chicago Manual of Style refers to Indian (uppercase) as a person from India, and native Americans as American Indians (uppercase) with the caveat that the capitalization is up the individual editor. Although not American Indians, in my view it's most likely fine to keep the capitalizations in this article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late reply. The new version looks good to me. Unfortunately I don't have access to the reference (Lippy et al.) so cannot compare with it. If I remember correctly Maunus added those lines. Since the new version seems close enough to the old one and Maunus did not object, I guess it is ok.
 * Thanks again for the work you put into the article. bamse (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Enjoyed the work! If you need a copy editor again, let me know. Good luck on your new articles. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!
con gratulations - I have passed Jesuit Mission of the Chiquitos as a Good Article! You did great work there and I will not be surprised to see the article as a future Featured Article.·Maunus· ƛ · 01:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me add my congratulations! Sorry I dissapeared there but I am glad it was finished in the end. -- Glubbdrubb ( talk ) 09:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

World Heritage
Will you expand the edit summary reasoning which explains your recent edit at Hōryū-ji‎? I wonder about the factors which inform your point-of-view; and by extension, I wonder if your explanation will cause me to re-think the way I construe the relationship between two other World Heritage sites -- Kamigamo Shrine and Shimogamo Shrine? --Tenmei (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure which of the edits you mean. I just removed the WH templates, since the site is covered by the Buddhist Monuments in the Hōryū-ji Area article which includes those templates. Hōryū-ji is just one part of the WH site, in the same way as Ginkaku-ji, Ninna-ji,... are parts of the Kyoto WH site. None of the Kyoto temple articles has WH templates as far as I know. Same holds for the Nara WH site. bamse (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Chiquitos Peer Review
Hi. I've changed the wording as suggested in the Peer review/Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos/archive1 from only a few areas. Shall I comment there that the change has been made, or is it best for you to let the reviewer know the change has been incorporated? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks once more for the edits. Could you leave a short note at Peer review/Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos/archive1 indicating which issues you think are resolved and which (if any) you worked on but still need more work? bamse (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I didn't visit the peer review again, it just cropped up on my watchlist when the bot closed it. The only outstanding issues are :
 * "The War of the Spanish Succession from 1701 to 1714 resulted in a shortage of missionaries and instability in the reductions": were the missionaries recalled to Spain? Or did communication between Spain and her colonies suffer as a result of the war? Or was there a lack of funding? It's unclear how a war in Spain would affect religious activities in Bolivia.
 * Who is responsible for the maintenance and preservation of the World Heritage Site? This sort of information could go in the today section.
 * The first point isn't too important as the implication is that the reductions were cut off from Spain; the second point I'd like to see addressed, but I saw the post on the WHS project talk page and you didn't get any response, so I'm not sure what can be done. It could be argued that it's not important since the overall responsibility falls to UNESCO. What you do next is up to you, but good luck with what you decide. Nev1 (talk) 11:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am still hoping to address the second point and will contact organizations who might know something about it. As I don't have much time for wikipedia at the moment it will take a while. I'll let you know if/when I find out something. Thanks for the constructive peer review. I think the article already improved a lot through it. Maybe one day I will attempt a FAC, but I'd need more free time for that. bamse (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A good idea I think as it would be interesting if it could be added to the article. I'll keep it on my watchlist so that if at some point you decide to take it to FAC I can take part in the discussion, but feel free to give me a nudge if/when the time comes. It was a pleasure to read the article. Nev1 (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

New articles
Thanks for your new articles such as Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos/List of churches. The most commonly used format would be "list of churches of the Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos" - / creates a subpage, which we don't use for actual article content. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 02:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for moving the articles. I thought I had seen this subpage method on wikipedia in cases where a very long article was split in smaller parts. bamse (talk) 07:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We do that sometimes for internal stuff, like the Arbitration Committee thingies, but we tend to avoid it for articles. Instead we split it into say, an article on X, another article called "Early life of X", so on. Samuel Johnson is a good example. Ironholds (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Will keep it in mind for the future. bamse (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

New Netherland hoek=point?
You may recall looking for some way of how it came to be. Though there's still no explanation here, at least, is a citation for hoek as point: Would like to add it, but wouldn't know where to begin with gettting this info into a format. since you did lot's a work on references for article mind if you's sort this out. Your help would be greatly appreciated, as I will likely use other references from this title and a tmeplate would be great... Much thanks.
 * not sure where to cite:
 * editor of book: Roger Panetta
 * book title: Dutch New York:The Roots of Hudson Valley Culture
 * chapter title The Dutch Legacy in America
 * author: Daivd William Voorhees

Djflem (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello again. Do you still need me for this after DutchmanInDisguise's input Talk:New_Netherland#hoek.3Dpoint.3F? I don't have access to this book, so can't say much about it. Or is your question about reusing this citation in other places? bamse (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sutra mound
Hey. I saw you added a tag to this article asking for expansion. I've translated the Japanese article; you can see my raw translation here, and I'm going to try to incorporate that text into the main article. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your translation. I think you should leave a message on the article's talk page saying that the article is a translation from the Japanese wikipedia article. I remember, there is a template for this message but forgot what it is called. bamse (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, good call. I just found it - it's translated page. I added it on. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

UNESCO Programs
Hi! Glad to here that you're interested. Among the programs: World Heritage Site, Biosphere Reserve, Masterpieces of Oral and Intagible Heritage, Memory of the World, and Geoparks. There is also the Creative Cities Network. Other listings not related to UNESCO I'm currently working on: WMF List of 100 Most Endangered Sites. Going further, nature conservation groups also have their own listings: Conservation International's biodiversity hotspots, WWF's Global 200 Ecoregions and Terrestrial Ecoregions, Endemic Bird Areas, Alliance for Zero Extinction, RAMSAR Wetlands of International Importance, etc. Joey80 (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it make sense to create a category (maybe also a template and article) for these programs? bamse (talk) 11:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Image Request
Your request

Diagram created as requested, let me know if I need to change anything. — raeky ( talk 20:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyedits
The lead is finished and is ready to be copy/pasted into the article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

千手観音
Hello,

About your request to do the Thousand-armed Kannon (千手観音), I've decided to go ahead. It won't be translated at lightning speed because I'm learning to use a new CAT tool at the same time - and also it's my first day off from work in a long time so I'll be doing it in bits a pieces over the day. If I procrastinate too much and I don't finish it today, I have another day off tomorrow so worst case scenario it'll be done by then.

Just so you know, the article you linked me to is about the 千手観音 god herself and not any of the national treasure statues of her (although they are mentioned in places throughout the article). Is that still helpful to you? Either way it is quite an important topic culturally and should be in the English version of Wikipedia, and you can edit any way you like once I'm done. Gennoveus (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hell Scroll
Hi, sorry but I don't have any dates. I just randomly encountered this article and removed the current tag. This tag should only be on articles when information really quickly changes and 100's of edits happen the same day. All that wasn't really the case here. See the guidelines part at Current. Garion96 (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for a translation
Hello Bamse, as you're the world's strongest and kindest bear, I wonder if I could ask you for a favour. I am looking for a very accurate translation of a few sentences from a German documentary about the death of Muhammad al-Durrah. The documentary is by Esther Shapira, and the section in question is here. I am looking for a translation of the words from 6:17 minutes to 7:04, beginning "Vater und Sohn können zur diesen Zeitpunkt auch nicht ...: at 6:17 to "die Lösung des Rätsels sein" at 7:04. There are only a few sentences in between but they are crucial. Two native English speakers have translated it already, but we still don't have clarity, so I'm hoping a native German will be able to put us right.

If you have time for this, you could leave it either on my talk page or at Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah. And if you don't have time, don't worry. Thanks! SlimVirgin talk| contribs 18:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's great, thank you, and for doing it so quickly. :) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Zhou Maoshu Appreciating Lotuses

 * Hi Bamse, just noticed while closing this nom, but unless I'm very much mistaken you're not the creator of this artwork, as you stated you were at the FPC nom. That is surely Kanō Masanobu? Have fixed it and closed it as such. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 06:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Indeed, I am not the creator. In fact I am pretty hopeless at painting. bamse (talk) 06:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied at talk page
Hi, I replied to your comment on User:Truthkeeper88's talk page. ATC. Talk 11:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos
Hi Bamse! After a long period of little to no internet connection, I'm finally back online! I do have much work to catch up with, but am also happy to be able to navigate Wikipedia again. I've found your FAC page and see that there's a lot to do. I thought I might start, (tomorrow), with some linking as one of the comments was about underlinking. Is that fine w/ you? Let me know what I can do to help! Also, I'll shake out the prose as best I can one more time. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, I left a message on my talk page about Maunus' edits. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Review: List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Waffen-SS
I believe that I have addressed all your comments. Could you please recheck and let me know what you think? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. Thanks for addressing all my comments. I changed to "support". bamse (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead section [Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos]]
Hi Bamse! As per Tony1's comments, I took the initiative and rewrote the lead of Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos. I followed his comments, and essentially tightened the prose, eliminated some sentences as unnecessary to the lead and combined sentences. I've copied the old lead to the my sandbox in case we need it. Also, as per his comments, I think I need to spend some time going through the entire article and essentially jettisoning any statements that are too wordy, off focus or not necessary. Will wait for your approval before doing so, however. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the rewrite, which I basically like. Only point I noticed is: "The missions were self-sufficient, thriving economies, that achieved independence from the Spanish crown." which as far as I know is not quite correct. They were technically still part of Spain. bamse (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Is "economic independence" more accurate? Or should the independent part be eliminated? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think they were paying "taxes" to Santa Cruz, so "economic" would not quite catch it. Maybe "political", "virtual" or "a great deal of" would be better. bamse (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The sentence had an error that I've fixed. I've also added "virtually autonomous" as a description, rather than using the word "independent". Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looks good now. bamse (talk) 07:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional information
I found an English page on daime-datami. Happy editing! Oda Mari (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. bamse (talk) 09:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting
Hi Bamse! I've looked at the lead of List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings) and see that it needs a little polishing. Should be able to start working on it tomorrow, or the weekend, at the latest. Thanks for your patience. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Truthkeeper88! Glad that you are going to polish the lead. bamse (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved the text here to my sandbox to work on, but it's being copyedited at the moment, so I'll wait until that effort is finished, although I've redone the first paragraph. It's a beautiful list! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good already. I'll wait until you are done with copyediting and will have a closer look then. PS: BTW, next copyediting job, in the far away future, could be List of National Treasures of Japan (shrines) unless you got bored with all this Japanese stuff ;-) bamse (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I always enjoy reading your articles. My copyediting is slow because I want to do justice to the nice work you produce, so don't worry, I'm not bored. Part of the reason for being a wiki editor is to learn! (Also thanks for the link to peer review of List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings)). I'll incorporate those changes. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've gone through the first four paragraphs. Don't know what you want to do about the fifth -- if you separate into a new section, I'll wait and work on that later. Unfortunatly I'm still not feeling as well as I'd like (had H1N1) and won't get back to this until later tonight or tomorrow. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You deserve a rest! I'll go through the text in your sandbox now and will fix a few minor typos and add a reference. Hope it is ok if I edit in your sandbox. The fifth paragraph I would not want to separate into a section. It somehow explains the article's title and belongs to the lead in my opinion. During the FAC of List of National Treasures of Japan (sculptures) it was not a problem either. Hope you recover fast. All the best! bamse (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind if you work in my sandbox. I'm mostly fine now, but run out of energy very quickly. Apparently it takes 3 weeks to recover from this virus, which I didn't believe at first, but do now! Anyway, I think keeping the fifth paragraph as part of the lead is good. All I've done is tightened the text which was mainly fine. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Better now! I've finally finished the 5th paragraph, but have a question about this sentence: "This list presents 157 entries of paintings from Classical to early modern Japan of the 8th-century Nara period to the 19th-century Edo period." If it means the 8th century Nara period is Classical and 19th century Edo is early modern, but I'm not sure of the meaning here, so thought I'd ask. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly Nara period is part of classical Japan and Edo period is also called "early modern Japan". Have a look here for an overview of the periods. The first section (lead) looks perfect to me (thanks). Are you planning to change anything there or shall we copy it to the article? How about the statistics and usage sections? bamse (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me just flip that sentence right now and then you can copy the lead. Haven't gotten to the stats & usage yet. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, take your time. I'll have a nap now and will copy the lead later, unless you prefer to do it. bamse (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'll let you do it! It's done now. I have to go back and look at the comments from the peer review and then will finish the stats & usage. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Two more questions. This sentence from "Usage" (Present location: "building-name temple/museum/shrine-name town-name prefecture-name") needs some punctuation rather than slashes and dashes, but I'm not sure how to punctuate. Also, does the column called "Author" refer to the artist? If so, that should be indicated somewhere. Otherwise, I'm done. I tested the table by clicking the button on the first column and now hope I haven't messed it up! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure how to punctuate either. All I wanted to say is that there are up to 4 items in the "Present location" column: (1) name of the building (if applicable), (2) name of the temple or museum or shrine (as applicable), (3) name of the town, (4) prefecture name. In the table they appear from small to big: 1, 2, 3, 4. However the column sorts from big to small: 4 3 2 1. In the featured sculpture list, the sentence in the "Usage" section is the same, so maybe it can be left as is. The column "Author" contains the artist and in some cases the person who wrote an inscription on it. If the latter can be called an artist, the column name could be changed to "Artist". I'll copy the lead now and add a note about the author column on your sandbox.bamse (talk) 11:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I copied all three sections (lead, statitics, usage) from your sandbox to the article. Hope that was ok. Thanks a lot for the copyedit. Are you available (and willing) for copyedit in the near future if there are issues during  WP:FLC (should not be too much)? If you are busy at the moment I could postpone the candidacy to a later time.bamse (talk) 12:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm happy to copyedit for the WP:FLC. Thanks for asking about my schedule. I'll be mostly unavailable the week of November 21st to 27th. Otherwise, depends on work. Early to mid-December tends to be busy at work, but would be available in the evenings. Most likely will be unavailable for Wikipedia the last week of December (but not certain yet). My inclination is to say try to get it done sooner rather than later. I will have some time available that week in late November; certainly more than this month when I was unavailable for an entire week. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Just nominated it. Comments should appear here.bamse (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Graphics lab requests
See the Graphics lab for an update. -- penubag  (talk) 09:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have readded the stamp File:Portrait of Kanzan-no text-.jpg . -- penubag  (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this what you wanted? Focused on right Focused on far right   Focused on center -- penubag  (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perfect! Thanks. bamse (talk) 10:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

original left focus right focus original left focus right focus original center right and left top Okay! Here they are. Just ask if you have any more requests/concerns; I'll be happy to help. Japan really is fascinating. I've been there several years myself and I wish I could stay longer. -- penubag  (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)  I hope I did these correctly: -- penubag  (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perfect (as usual)! Thanks. bamse (talk) 09:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

secton break
original right center left

Okay, finished those too. Open a dedicated focusing request page? Other people already made me do that! see user:penubag/graphics, although I would prefer we just do this through talkpages as I haven't finished all the requests there yet. I'm happy to help with more focusing requests; so just keep them coming :). I would be glad to teach you how to focus. Do you have GIMP (free download) or Photoshop? If not you can try using http://www.splashup.com/ although I haven't really tried it too much. -- penubag  (talk) 09:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new pictures. (the main tower on the right was not really necessary). I have GIMP but virtually no experience with layers which I believe is what you used. bamse (talk) 09:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oslo Metro
Hi. Not quite sure if this request is kosher, so please excuse me if I am being a bit blunt, but: Could you do something at Featured list candidates/List of Oslo Metro lines/archive1. I have addressed all your and other people's comments, and the nomination is sort of just hanging there. Thanks, Arsenikk (talk)  14:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had forgotten about the list. Thanks for the patience with all my questions and congratulations to the list. I "support" it now. bamse (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Question re: Shrines
Hi Bamse! I may have a little time to get started tomorrow, but I have a question about this phrase: "The origins of Shinto, the natural spirituality of Japan..." Does "naturally" refer to the fact that Shinto is a religion based on nature? As worded, the sentence means Shinto is a religion normal to Japan, but I'm not sure that's what you want. Can you clarify? Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad you got some time. I stole the phrase from the Shinto article. In my understanding "natural spirituality" could have two meanings: 1. nature worship and 2. the religion that is native to Japan (as opposed to Buddhism which was imported).
 * For the purpose of the lead section, I'd tend to the second meaning. The first meaning is explained anyway in the sentences that follow it. Did this clarify things? bamse (talk) 08:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's what I thought. In fact, though I'm thinking the paragraph should be recast to begin with "shrines" as the subject of the list, rather than shintoism. At any rate, it's in my sandbox, and I'm working on it slowly. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that it would be good to have "shrines" somewhere in the beginning of the introduction. However initially (in Yayoi period) Shintoism was not an established "religion" and did not have buildings for worship (=shrines) etc.

I followed your copy-edits in the "Japanese art sandbox" and agree with (and like) most of them. Only, "During this period the prevailing religion was Shinto..." needs to be modified. As far as I know, it is considered a "religion" some time around the introduction of Buddhism (mid 6th century). Also "prevailing" can be confusing as there was nothing besides nature spirituality/worship at that time in Japan.bamse (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay thanks for the clarification. Have only made some preliminary changes so far, and unfortunately have family obligations beginning later today that will keep me busy for the next few days. But at least I've started, and will work on it slowly. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. Take your time. The new start of the intro is better. The Shinto article calls the early beliefs of the Yayoi period "primal Shinto", so maybe this little word ("primal") could be added to distinguish it from the religion Shinto which developed later.bamse (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI: Added questions/comments to the sandbox user page here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me know how you think it reads. I've been through a couple of time and can't find much else to fix. The only problem is I'm assuming I'm missing some content without knowing the Japanese terms so hope I haven't made any glaring (or not glaring) mistakes. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Amazing job! Reads very nicely. Thanks a lot. Just two questions/suggestions:
 * 1) In the sentence: "Three important forms of ancient shrine architectural styles exist: taisha-zukuri, shinmei-zukuri and sumiyoshi-zukuri; respectively exemplified by Izumo Taisha, Nishina Shinmei Shrine and Sumiyoshi Taisha each dating prior to 552.", does the "each" refer to the styles ("zukuri") or the shrines? Because of reconstructions the present shrine buildings are much younger. The present buildings however are stylistically similar to the original buildings which were constructed before 552.
 * 2) "Of these, the nagare-zukuri was the most popular followed by the kasuga-zukuri style." This statement is still true. Maybe, "was"->"have been"?bamse (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Both sentences were ones I wasn't certain of, so I happy you found the errors. I've fixed the first sentence. The second sentence is the same as in the article (I haven't edited it because I was a little unsure of what to do). Should it say that "nagare-zukuri continues to be more popular than kasuga-zukuri"? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fix. "Continues" sounds good for the second sentence. bamse (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed the second sentence. Hope it's correct. Don't hesitate to fix any discrepancies or problems with content. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perfect! I pasted it into the article.bamse (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I will nominate the shrine list at WP:FLC as soon as the painting list gets (hopefully) promoted to featured list.bamse (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

List of National Treasures of Japan (castles)
Hi Bamse! For some reason I keep getting a WP error & don't know whether my browser/internet/ or wikipedia is at fault, but need to stop now, as I've three times lost substantial changes. Managed to work through most of the lead, but it needs going through again. As usual, I'm a bit worried about any possible content changes, so have a look at the changes and let me know if anything should be reverted. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that you lost your work. As usual I am satisfied with your edits. Comments/suggestions/questions follow: Just a second, to be continued... bamse (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) "Archetypical Japanese castle construction began in the Momoyama period and early Edo period." Since there were not really any castles constructed after the early Edo period, the word "began" should be changed.
 * 2) The dates for the construction of Azuchi Castle (1576 to 1579) got lost during the edits and should be put back.


 * 3. "However, Azuchi functioned as political, cultural and economic center; and was also home to the daimyo, his family, and his most loyal retainers." The functions are typical not only for Azuchi castle but also for those built after Azuchi castle ("the new castles" that are the subject of this list).
 * 4. "Currently only twelve castles have a donjon that is considered "original".", could sound as if in the future there are going to be more than 12 (which is unlikely).

That's it for now. Could you also have a look over List_of_National_Treasures_of_Japan_(castles)? Thanks. bamse (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the problem is continuing, though I've managed (with difficulty) to get in the above changes. Will need to do some troubleshooting, but for now I don't seem to be able to edit in the sandbox. I'd hoped to get both articles done today, because I'll be busy at my real (i.e. paying) job beginning tomorrow and lasting for the next week. Unfortunately quite a few edits were lost today. The lesson is to save each edit! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem if you continue later, next week or whenever you have time again. I appreciate your effort. Had a look over 1.-4. again and with the changes you made it is perfectly correct. bamse (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Finished what I began earlier--on a different computer. Clearly I had mangled the 2nd paragraph, but should be better now. (Btw -- hope you don't mind that I split the first long paragraph into two.) Also worked somewhat on the Statistics section. At this point it's only a question of minor tweaking/smoothing so probably fine to go ahead and copy into the article/list where I can tweak slightly as I have time. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I almost forgot to copy it into the article (done now). Looks better with the split. Thanks for the good work already. Please let me know when you are done with tweaking. To me it already looks veryvery good.bamse (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Tweaked a little more. The passive construction had to be removed prior to review. Done now. Sorry, am very brain tired at the moment, but will continue to check in nightly. Once things slow down a bit, will begin the next article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you and take your time. The painting list just received the second review and now there are already the shrine and castle list waiting in line. Extrapolating, you have time until mid February or so before we run out of candidates for FLC. As for passive constructions, should they always be avoided? I could pay attention during writing n this case. bamse (talk) 09:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Japanese residences....
Thanks for the update on the Japanese residences. I haven't been very active recently, but it's good to know that things are still happening!
 * Peace and Passion &#9774; ''("I'm listening....") 01:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Oakland, California/archive1
Hi, and thanks for your review of this list. Can you revisit it to make sure your concerns have been resolved? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Featured list candidates/List of unreleased Michael Jackson material/archive1 too, thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done...and...done.bamse (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Christmas barnstar
I wanted to give one person a barnstar so I saw your name at random at WP:AN.

List of National Treasures of Japan (residences)
Have a look, but I think I'm done. If you think it's fine, go ahead and copy. If I see any problems I'll tweak once copied. (Btw--sorry about the error with the verb in the paintings lead! Very embarrassing not to have seen that!) If it still needs work before copying, let me know. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. It looks very good. I copied it into the article.bamse (talk) 09:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Bamse! Just so you know, I'll be mostly gone until the beginning of January. Will be available for limited editing for the next week, and then off line for about ten days. I've eliminated "additive terms" from the Paintings lead as per this from User:Tony1's page. Some useful information there, and when I return would like to comb through the Chiquitos article again. Enjoy the holidays! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy holidays and thanks for all the edits! See you back in 2010. bamse (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Issue w/German sources
Hi. You may be able to help out w/the deletion discussion at this page. Many thanks.--68.173.96.196 (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ding!
Reply ready. Res Mar 02:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Tōdaiji Fujumonkō
Hello. Thanks for all of your work on national treasures. I recently created Tōdaiji Fujumonkō, which was once designated as a national treasure, but was removed after being destroyed in 1945. Not sure if it belongs in your expansions, but I will leave it to you if you are interested. Regards, Bendono (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI
Hello. Thought that you may interested in the following news development: 阿修羅様なぜ赤い　謎に迫った. As you're surely aware, As[h]ura is a national treasure dating back to 734. Regards, Bendono (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting, thanks for letting me know.bamse (talk) 11:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

A little short on reviewers...
Featured list candidates/List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain/archive1 has not recieved much activity, and I'm wondering if you can revisit your comments... <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 13:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Sorry for the delay.bamse (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Order of battle at the Battle of the Nile
Hi, can you revisit the FLC for this list? Thanks, and Happy New Year, Dabomb87 (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Sorry for the delay.bamse (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Would you mind capping your comments (using rc) so that the FLC doesn't look so long? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.bamse (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Crested Serpent-eagle
It was not obvious to me that a site that said "monuments" could be about a bird, and in fact your first link goes to a page that doesn't mention this species, so it's a bit obscure. It might be better if you do it as an "In culture" section so that you can give it an appropriate context and an in-line reference, but if you want to just recreate as before I won't revert again, since this is obviously a good faith and relevant edit <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  18:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of Inner Hebrides/archive1
Needs a revisit when you get the time. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.bamse (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

National Treasure of Japan
Hi Bamse!

I've reworked the problem sentence here in the sandbox. Have a look at the sentence labeled "Rewrite 3". I hope it's better. If so, go ahead and replace in the article. If not, I'll try again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Better. I copied rewrite 3 into the article. An evil mind could still think that the institutions and individuals (and not the cultural properties) were protected, but let's leave it as it is.bamse (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That evil person would be me! That is exactly what I understood to be the case, despite your eloquent attempt to explain. So, I've added an additional small sentence to clarify the purpose of the law. Go ahead and remove if you think it's too much.


 * "Measures are not limited to responsibilities for owners." This sentence seems to need something -- can it be combined to say that "owners have responsibilities but also have advantages as owners of cultural properties" or some such? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea. In fact, when writing the article, I was initially thinking of creating sections: "Responsibilities"/"Advantages". Buth then I decided against it since the main focus of the article are the national treasures and the "preservation measures" are aimed at the cultural properties and are not meant to please the owners. The biggest advantage is likely the prestige which produces extra visitors and extra income. I'd like to find a source for this claim (something like: number of visitors before/after nomination as national treasure) but no success so far.bamse (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As for the other "problem sentence", any of the three versions is fine with me.bamse (talk) 10:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Still working on this, but leaning toward #3. It's a lot of information for one sentence, so must be written for flow. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK.bamse (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In the 1871 section, this needs some clarification I think: However, in the face of radical westernization, these efforts grounded to halt. Why did the efforts ground to a halt? Is it important to know the reason? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Because everybody was interested only in western stuff and did not care for traditional Japanese cultural properties.bamse (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My fix might not be strong enough! Used "ineffective" but maybe that's too weak of a term. Anyway, seem to have made my way to the end of the article. I still see a few little things that bother me, such the sentence that begins "About 89% ...." . I'd like to break for a day or two and return with fresh (and perhaps less critical) eyes. Once the organization is sorted out, the lead can be written accordingly and pasted in. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot already. Take your well deserved rest. See you back in a couple of days then. I will read once more through the article and see if I spot any inconsistencies.bamse (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Have made a few more changes. The sections that caused some difficulty earlier still needed tweaking. I hope they're better now. The bottom part of the article seems fine. Let me know when you list and if you need any more work. I'm deep into working on Ernest Hemingway at the moment, but it's always good to change topics to keep perspective! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Groups of traditional buildings
Great work on this article! LordAmeth (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Glad you like it. I think it should be linked to much more than it currently is. bamse (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: List of Washington state symbols
Thanks again for your suggestions with improving List of Washington state symbols, which is currently nominated for featured list status. If I have not fully addressed all of your concerns in order to gain your support, is it possible to at least cap the concerns that have been address (like The Rambling Man did) for organizational purposes? I would do it myself, but I do not think I am allowed to. Thanks so much!! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I capped comments and am tending towards support. As I wrote, I just want to see what other reviewers are saying about the lead.bamse (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! No problem. Much easier to keep track of things this way... -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou
The articles Battle of the Nile and Order of battle at the Battle of the Nile have both now passed their respective FAC and FLC, and as many of the points raised in these processes were applicable to both articles I wanted to thank you for your assisance and support. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

National Treasures of Japan
I have quickfailed the Good Article Nomination (GAN) for National Treasures of Japan, because I feel that the flaws with this article could not adequately be resolved within the period of a standard GAN. The main flaw is that almost all of the article is unreferenced; all of "Categories", and almost all of "Statistics". Sorry to be the bearer of bad news; regards, 86.171.8.245 (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your quickfail. I am prepared to make complete review and let bamse see if he can get the article up to the GA standard within the standard time frame I agree that there is a lack of sources, but I am sure that bamse can provide sources upon request.·Maunus· ƛ · 20:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reverting and the confidence in me. I don't spend much time on wikipedia these days but will try to address source requests and other issues that might be raised in the review as quickly as possible.bamse (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK
Bamse, I am pleased to see we both got it. Heartfelt thanks for your kindness.


 * == Question ==

Which category at WP:FL would the National Treasures lists best fit? I'm leaning toward "Miscellaneous" under "Arts and architecture", but they are currently listed under "World History". Let me know what you think. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Arts and architecture" -> "miscellaneous" looks good to me (for "paintings" and "sculptures"). In any case better than "History"->"World History" where they are now (oops, has the painting list already been promoted?). Some of the other NT lists could go to the history section if they ever get promoted: archaeological materials, ancient documents, historical materials. bamse (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Did that. Yep, I just promoted the painting list. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I put the shrines list in the same category as the paintings and sculptures lists. Hope that's alright. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Perfect. Thanks. bamse (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Castles
Hi Bamse! Lost power and internet Friday night, but now back. Fixed some of the most recent comments The Rambling Man made. I worked on this sentence/comment: ("This list presents eight" vs "In fact the number of structures presented is more than eight" one of these sentences, therefore, is incorrect. Or it just reads poorly. One way or another this could be fixed.") but want you to approve before noting as fixed.

Will get over to the other article very soon! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing the comments. I'll address the outstanding ones in a moment. As for the sentences mentioned above, I think it would be clearer if we replaced "structures"->"National Treasures" in the first part of the sentence (A NT can consist of one structure or more than one structure.). bamse (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So the sentence would read: "This list presents eight entries of National Treasures from four castles built

during the late Momoyama to early Edo period; however, the number of structures is actually more because in some cases multiple structures have been combined to form a single entry." bamse (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's a fine sentence to use. Go ahead and paste it in to avoid having two of us work on the article at the same time! I'll have a look again later. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied to all comments by The Rambling Man. The only open issue is the second last comment. If you are good with navbox templates, maybe you could help. If not, don't bother, I don't think it is really important. bamse (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I don't know how to change that. Have you tried editing the template? The parameters might be set there, or you could delete it altogether since it won't be a list, ever. Have started reading "Temples" which I expect will take a little time to polish. A lot of information! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bamse! I was still seeing a lot of white space on this article despite your valiant attempts to fill the gaps! I've been WP:Bold and tried a bit of reformatting before I had a look at the prose. If you hate the reformatting, or it looks terrible on your computer, go ahead and revert. The new prose looks good. I've made a few tweaks, and see a couple of other sentences that might need some more punctuation, but decided not to overlay the formatting edit even more than I already have. Will return to finish it later. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Very good. Thanks for being bold. I left a note on the review page informing Maunus of the changes. PS: You might be happy to learn that I  started to develop an interest in Japanese swords ;-) (doesn't seem as  boring as I thought they were) and started to overhaul the tables in  List of  National Treasures of Japan (crafts-swords). Eventually there will  also be an intro ... and work for you. bamse (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

List of National Treasures of Japan (temples)
Have a look and let me know if anything else needs to be fixed. I don't really think it can be cut anymore (it least I wouldn't!) but one never knows what reviewers want. For now though, I'd leave as is. It seems to read well, and as usual is extremely informative. I thank you my continuing education for all things ancient in Japan. Very interesting! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent job! I pasted it into the article. Just one phrase, I am not sure is correct: The architectural elements of temple structures, such as pagodas... In my understanding, a "pagoda" is a "temple structure", so an "architectural element of a temple structure" would be a part of a pagoda such as its roof. Maybe it could be rewritten as: Temple structures, such as pagodas...? bamse (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations: National Treasures of Japan now GA
Hi Bamse, congratulations with the article on National Treasures of Japan - I have now reread it and found that all my concerns have been duly adressed. Excellent work, I admire your devotion to making top quality articles about artistic heritage of the non-western world. If you are looking for more work then I have been thinking about doing something about this article for awhile.·Maunus· ƛ · 09:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to read and review the article. The Mexican monasteries look interesting and I might do something about the article in the future. Since I haven't heard anything about this topic before, I'll have to do some reading first. At the moment my wikipedia priority is making a good topic out of National Treasures of Japan, which means improving a couple of the Lists of National Treasures of Japan to featured quality. (see User:Bamse/National Treasures of Japan) bamse (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations from me too, great article! Hekerui (talk) 09:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Washington state symbols
Hi Bamse. Any chance you could revisit your comments and perhaps offer some indication of support to this list if you think it appropriate? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. bamse (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. Good luck with your latest 'treasure' FLC.  I'll review it in the next day or so... so be ready for some boring, picky comments!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Can hardly wait. Always looking forward to your comments. bamse (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey there Bamse, could you also revisit Featured list candidates/List of invasive species in the Everglades/archive1? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Revisited. I'd like to support, but just noticed two minor things which I asked to be clarified. bamse (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done now. bamse (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Digital Archives
Hi Bamse. Congratulations on the GA status for national treasures. FYI: the the National Archives of Japan has just announced the Digital Archives renewal project. You may be able to use some of their stuff in an External Links section. Bendono (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looks interesting. However it appears after a first glance that most items are from the time of the Meiji restoration or thereabout and that there are no national treasures at all. Might still be useful for other wikipedia articles. bamse (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Request  for  a translation
Hi   Bamse,  I remember you were very helpful once before by translating a    key  passage from German for an article I was working on. I'm  wondering   whether you'd be willing to do this again for Death of     Jeremiah Duggan. It's  from a recent decision of the Bundesverfassungsgericht here. I don't need a precise translation; just a good sense of what's being    said. These are the passages I'm interested in ideally, though it's a    lot to ask, so if you have limited time even the translation  of one    paragraph would be extremely helpful, in the following order.

From    section 1, paragraph 3:

Es gebe keine    Anhaltspunkte dafür, dass der Sohn der Beschwerdeführerin nicht durch     das von ihm selbst herbeigeführte Unfallgeschehen auf der Bundesstraße     455, sondern von unbekannten Dritten an anderer Stelle getötet und     sodann zur Verschleierung der Tat von den Tätern auf diese Straße     verbracht worden sein könnte. Die Richtigkeit einer solchen Annahme    unterstellt, hätte zur Voraussetzung, dass mehrere Autofahrer, die zu     unterschiedlichen Zeiten unterwegs gewesen seien, kollusiv     zusammengewirkt und an der Konstruktion des von der Polizei und dem     Sachverständigen vorgefundenen Unfallbildes zumindest mitbeteiligt     gewesen seien. Eine solche Möglichkeit halte der Senat für abwegig.

Dass die vorgenannten    Autofahrer nicht förmlich vernommen worden seien, erscheine bereits     deswegen ohne Relevanz, weil nicht ersichtlich sei, dass eine   förmliche   Vernehmungsniederschrift ein anderes Ergebnis erbracht   hätte. Auch eine  Nachholung der Vernehmungen erscheine daher   ungeachtet des  Umstands,  dass nach Ablauf von mehr als drei Jahren   das  Erinnerungsvermögen der  Zeugen eher eingeschränkt sein dürfte,   nicht  ergiebig. Auch dass seinerzeit keine Obduktion des Leichnams  des  Sohnes  der  Beschwerdeführerin durchgeführt worden sei, könne vor  dem   Hintergrund,  dass nicht zweifelhaft gewesen sei, dass das  konkrete   Unfallgeschehen zu  seinem Tod geführt habe, nicht  beanstandet werden. Eine solche erscheine zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt  ungeachtet ihrer   Durchführbarkeit  bereits deswegen nicht angezeigt,  weil nicht   ersichtlich sei, dass sie  zu weitergehenden Erkenntnissen  führen   könnte.

Soweit  die   Beschwerdeführerin schließlich die Möglichkeit für gegeben  erachte,    dass manipulative Methoden im Organisationsbereich der  „Polit-Sekte“  zu  einer   Einwirkung auf die psychische Integrität ihres Sohnes  geführt  hätten  und  dies die Ursache für das todbringende Geschehen  gewesen  sei, seien  in  diese Richtung zielende Ermittlungstätigkeiten  bereits  deswegen  nicht  angezeigt, weil aufgrund des Todeseintritts  des Sohnes  nicht  mehr  aufklärbar sei, was ihn letztlich zu seinem  Handeln  veranlasst  habe.

From    section 4, paragraph 1:

"In ihrer   Beschwerdeschrift trägt die Beschwerdeführerin vor, dass der     angegriffene Beschluss vom 19. Juli 2006 sich mit ihren Argumenten    nicht  hinreichend auseinandersetze und den Antrag mit sachfremden    Erwägungen  zurückweise. So sei die Ansicht des Oberlandesgerichts,  die   fehlende  förmliche Vernehmung der Autofahrer sei belanglos, weil   nicht   ersichtlich sei, dass eine förmliche Niederschrift ein  anderes   Ergebnis  gebracht hätte, eine unzulässige „petitio  principii“. Die   Erfahrung  zeige, dass eine verantwortliche Vernehmung  Anhaltspunkte  für  weitere  Ermittlungen ergeben könne, nämlich genaue  Details sowie   eventuelle  Unklarheiten, Widersprüche und  Ungereimtheiten. Auch dass   eine  Nachholung der Vernehmungen nach mehr  als drei Jahren wegen des    Erinnerungsvermögens nicht ergiebig sein  könne, nehme das Ergebnis in    unzulässiger Weise vorweg. Gerade  Vorgänge wie tödliche Unfälle, die    normalerweise nur einmal im Leben  eines Menschen passierten, prägten    sich zumindest im Kerngeschehen  relativ deutlich ein, so dass eine    mangelhafte oder gar fehlende  Erinnerung eher Zweifel an der   Richtigkeit  begründen könnten. Ähnliches gelte hinsichtlich der  Annahme, eine  Obduktion könne  schwerlich zu weitergehenden   Erkenntnissen führen. Angesichts der neueren wissenschaftlichen   Erkenntnisse und  Untersuchungsmethoden  dürfte das Gegenteil der Fall   sein."

As   I  said, anything you can do would be extremely helpful, even if it's    only a  small part. And if you have no time or inclination, I'll   understand  completely, so please feel free to ignore this request    entirely. :) SlimVirgin      TALK      contribs 00:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi! It is  not   the kind of German I usually read or would enjoy reading ;-). Will try to     provide a rough translation within the next couple of days. bamse (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't feel    you have to, Bamse, because I know it's a lot. I can ask around to see     if someone else is available if you'd prefer.  SlimVirgin      TALK      contribs 11:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The  message   itself is not much, just a lot of words. No problem, I start   now and   will let you know when I am done. bamse     (talk) 11:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The    decision of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG) concerns an  appeal   of  the mother of Jeremiah Duggan against a decision of the     Oberlandesgerichts Frankfurt am Main (which decided to stop the     investigations into the murder case). The mother wants the   investigations to continue.

Translation follows (my comments in  italics):

section 1, paragraph 3: (If I understand correctly this paragraph is  basically the reply of the Oberlandesgericht)

There    are no indications that Jeremiah was killed at another spot and then     (in order to conceal the act) brought to the B455. If this was the    case  (if he was killed somewhere else and brought here...) it would    mean  that several drivers, who were driving at different times, had     cooperated to create the picture (in the sense of view, not a real  picture) which the police holds of the  accident. This, the senate thinks, is   improbable/absurd.

The fact that the drivers were  not questioned   formally (probably   means in  writing) is  irrelevant  since  it is not  apparent how a formal hearing could have  changed the   result. For the same reason a hearing of the drivers now  does not  appear  useful  (besides, after more than three years their memory  likely is rather  limited). Also the fact that there was no autopsy after  the event can  not  be objected to because there was no doubt  that the  accident caused  his  death. There is no good reason for an autopsy at  this point of  time  because it is not apparent how an  autopsy could  result in  additional  insight.

There is no point investigating in  the  direction of "manipulative  methods of the  political sect affecting  the  psyche of Jeremiah and this  being the  reason for the event",  because  with the death of Jeremiah it  is  impossible to clarify what  caused his  action.


 * This is great,  thank you! One question: "abwegig," as in "Eine solche  Möglichkeit  halte der Senat für abwegig." I think I would like to quote  that  sentence, so it would be good to find the closest word. Is it  closer to  groundless, or closer to absurd?  SlimVirgin    TALK    contribs 17:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hold on a second, I am not done yet. Need to re-check. Just found a  slight error in the  first part. The drivers mentioned are not only those  that were  involved in the accident but also those passing by it seems.  As for the  translation of "abwegig", my dictionary has: absurd, devious  (kind of  literal translation), digressive, fallacious, beside the point.  I'd say  it means something like groundless rather than absurd. However I  am  not familiar with the language at court so there might be a special   word in English for it. If it is important you could ask at a   wikiproject concerned with such stuff. Give me a little bit more time   and I should be done with the translation. Do you still need the second   part (section 4)? bamse (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, please, if it's no trouble.  SlimVirgin   TALK   contribs 19:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do this within little time. That section basically contains the reasons of  the mother for appeal, i.e., why she is not satisfied with the reply  from the Oberlandesgericht. bamse  (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Here it goes...

section 4, paragraph 1 (concerns the appeal of the mother to the decision of the Oberlandesgericht; to make things easier, I just  translate it in the voice of the mother, the text itself is written in  neutral tone: she says... and so on)

The decision of July 19, 2006 (i.e. Oberlandesgericht) does not consider my arguments sufficiently and dismisses the petition with  inappropriate/irrelevant considerations. The view of the Oberlandesgericht concerning the formal hearing of the drivers (see  section 1 paragraph 3) is an impermissible "petitio principii". Experience shows that an accountable hearing (not sure what "verantwortlich" refers to hear, but surely the formal hearing is meant  here) may provide clues for further investigations such as details,  potential ambiguities, contradictions, inconsistencies. Also, that a hearing of the drivers after more than three years would not be fruitful  because of their capacity  for  remembering,  anticipates the outcome in an impermissible way. Particularly events such as fatal accidents, that generally happen only once in a lifetime,  are remembered well at least in their core issues. A poor or even lacking memory would rather cast doubts on their correctness. A similar  argument holds agains the claim that an autopsy would not lead to  further insight. Due to new scientific knowledge and methods, rather  the opposite should be true.

-- Done. Also checked the first part which should be correct now. Feel free to ask if something is unclear. Sorry for the poor English, I was more concerned about the correctness of the translation. bamse (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to make sure: you do understand that the first section above is kind of a secondary source (a rehash of the Oberlandesgericht decision). For the wikipedia article you might also want to look into the original 2006 decision of the Oberlandesgericht. (Not sure it is available online.) bamse (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is very kind of you, thank you! About the secondary source issue, are you saying that the first three paragraphs I posted above (section 1, para 3) are all just a recap of the Oberlandesgericht decision? So when they say "Eine solche Möglichkeit halte der Senat für abwegig," they are saying the Oberlandesgericht found it groundless? And the two paragraphs that follow it, the same?  SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 02:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the first part above (three paragraphs) must be from a ruling that happened before it got to the Bundesverfassungsgericht. Most likely it is the Oberlandesgericht ruling or even that of the Landgericht Wiesbaden. The second part (one paragraph) is the appeal of the mother to the Bundesverfassungsgericht. As it says in section 3:

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen. Annahmegründe nach § 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG liegen nicht vor. Die Annahme der Verfassungsbeschwerde ist - mangels hinreichender Aussicht auf  Erfolg - insbesondere nicht zur Durchsetzung der als verletzt gerügten  Rechte der Beschwerdeführerin angezeigt (vgl. BVerfGE  90, 22 <25 f.>). Die Verfassungsbeschwerde ist teilweise unzulässig (1.) und im Übrigen  jedenfalls unbegründet (2.).

The appeal is not accepted for decision (meaning the BVerfG did not even consider it in detail). THere are no reasons to accept it. The appeal is (because of insufficient prospect of success) particularly not suited to assert the rights of the mother. The appeal is partially unacceptable/ineligible/inadmissible and for the rest groundless. bamse (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * THe BVerfG agrees with the Oberlandesgericht in the following section:

Ungeachtet der möglichen Unzulässigkeit eines auf Wiederaufnahme der Ermittlungen gerichteten Klageerzwingungsantrags stellt das  Oberlandesgericht vertretbar fest, dass es nicht erkennen könne, welche  konkreten Ermittlungsmaßnahmen zu einem anderen Ergebnis führen könnten  als demjenigen, wovon die Ermittlungsbehörden ausgegangenen seien,  nämlich dem Selbstmord des Sohnes der Beschwerdeführerin. Das Oberlandesgericht nimmt zu der von der Beschwerdeführerin an den  staatsanwaltlichen Bescheiden formulierten Kritik ausführlich Stellung. Es erklärt, weshalb es die von den Ermittlungsbehörden angenommene Hypothese des Selbstmords für zutreffend hält und warum die dagegen  sprechenden, von der Beschwerdeführerin angeführten Indizien diese  Hypothese nicht erschüttern können. Weder die förmliche Vernehmung bereits polizeilich vernommener Zeugen beziehungsweise weiterer Zeugen  aus dem Kreis der Familie oder der „Polit-Sekte“ noch die Obduktion des  Leichnams des Sohnes der Beschwerdeführerin können nach Ansicht des  Oberlandesgerichts zu weitergehenden Erkenntnissen führen. Auf das infolge des Zeitablaufs von drei Jahren eingeschränkte  Erinnerungsvermögen der Zeugen und die mittlerweile nicht mehr  durchführbare Obduktion wird dabei nur ergänzend hingewiesen. Im Lichte dieser Begründung erscheint die Schlussfolgerung, dass die von der  Beschwerdeführerin vorgeschlagenen Ermittlungsmaßnahmen zu keinem  anderen Ergebnis führen könnten als dem des Selbstmords, als Konsequenz  einer verfassungsgemäßen, die Konvention berücksichtigenden Würdigung  der Ermittlungen und des Vorbringens der Beschwerdeführerin.

(basically the same as the first part I translated above) bamse (talk) 09:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is great, Bamse, very kind of you, especially to do it so quickly. I'll start trying to add it to the article shortly. It's actually very important material for the article, because some of these issues I've felt reluctant to mention for legal reasons (e.g. that he might have been killed elsewhere and his body placed on the road), even though the claims have been made by reliable sources. But as they've been discussed by two courts, I think I can mention them, with the stress on how they've been dismissed. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 22:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Jesuit missions
I replied on mine Johnbod (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Hi Bamse! Congratulations on your Triple Crown. Very pretty and well deserved! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, a great part of it is thanks to your copyedits. bamse (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, congratulations from me too! :) SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 19:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

New NToJ
Hi! FYI. Please take a look at these. and. Inō Tadataka's maps and his surveying instruments and this will be National Treasure soon. Plus 36 other things (paintings, sculpture, documents, etc.) will be jyuyobunnkazai. Note:the links might be dead in days. Oda Mari (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. Very interesting. I'll wait until it is official before I update the lists, National Treasures of Japan and National Treasures of Japan (statistics). bamse (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As for statics, this one is the latest. It was updated on March 1, 2010. Happy editing! Oda Mari (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it does not have the new national treasures yet, so it is the same as end-of-last year's statistics. Probably will need to wait until April 1. As for National Treasures of Japan (statistics), it differs from this statistics, because it lists the location of the treasure instead of the location of the owner of the treasure (which bunkacho lists). bamse (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of Dragonair destinations/archive1
Hi Bamse. Thanks for your review of the above FLC. If possible, can you cap your resolved comments and if you so feel inclined indicate whether you support, oppose or are neutral toward the list's promotion to FL status? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. bamse (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Missions
Hi Bamse! You didn't make a fuss at all. I've been busy with other articles and have plenty of work. If you don't mind, when I have time I might dip into the article every now and then to work on the prose. I hope all is well and that you enjoy your wikibreak! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, everything is fine, just too many things to do. I'd be very happy if you work on the prose. BTW, I am not on a complete wikibreak but am slowly working on another National Treasure intro here. bamse (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Japanese series is keeping you busy, as I see. I think the Japanese series is important so I understand your decision to complete it. The Missions article has the potential to require a lot of work, so let's leave it as is. I'll tweak a sentence or two when time permits. Happy to know you're not leaving! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

A Request for Help
Hi there Bamse :), I noticed your username on Translators Available German to English. I was wondering if you could help with updating Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi on the German Wikipedia? Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi on the English Wikipedia has been majorly revamped- particularly, its being treated as a BLP now, since no ones been able to find evidence of his death. I'm sorry to say I know little German, so I'd really appreciate your help in this :), although I understand if you don't have the time. Thanks in advance!<b style="color:#32B430;">Omirocksthisworld</b>( Drop a line ) 20:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure what help you are asking for. A full translation of the German wikipedia article or something else? I'd like to help but don't have a lot of time at the moment. If you could let me know what information you are looking for, that would be great. bamse (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, a full translation would be ideal, but just updating it (i.e removing the uncited death date and adding the more recently found references) seems fine to me. I understand about you being short on time, so no pressure :). Thanks either way! <b style="color:#32B430;">Omirocksthisworld</b>( Drop a line ) 22:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ellis Island
You once did a '"workover" of references for the New Netherland article that was really helpful. I wonder if you wouldn't mind, time permitting, to do the same for Ellis Island, which I have been revamping. Much appreictaed.Djflem (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I have very little time at the moment and therefore can't do much about the references. Good luck with the article. bamse (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of Jewish Nobel laureates/archive1
Hi. You commented at this Featured list candidate earlier, but the consensus was unclear, so I have restarted the nomination. Can you revisit this FLC and list your remaining concerns (if any are left), and if possible state whether you support, oppose, or are neutral on the candidate's promotion to FL status? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. bamse (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Buddhist temples in Japan
Hi, Bamse. I would like to use the User:Bamse/List_of_National_Treasures_%28temples%29 for the article Buddhist temples in Japan, as you proposed, but it seems a shame to steal if from you now that there's little more to do to paste it in. Why not do it yourself? Busy? Frank (Urashima Tarō) (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, quite busy. I'd be glad if you could do it. You probably don't want to copy the first paragraph (about national treasures) and might need to move the definitions of those references that are defined in the first paragraph (and used in subsequent paragraphs). Also there is some additional stuff in User:Bamse/List_of_National_Treasures_(temples) which is not converted to prose yet but might be interesting for Buddhist temples in Japan (that is the non-striked-out items). bamse (talk) 09:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, will do. Take care, and I hope there will be more chances to collaborate in the future. Frank (Urashima Tarō) (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Happy you do, thanks. Hope to have more time for collaborations in the future. BTW, the text in List of National Treasures of Japan (temples) is not only shortened but also copy-edited compared to that in my user space. bamse (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Attention!
Hi! I missed your question on WP:talk Japan. Here is the answer. Happy editing! Oda Mari (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

List of National Treasures of Japan (archaeological materials)
Hi Bamse! I hope you don't mind that I've edited in mainspace instead of in a sandbox. I'm through with a first pass, but would like you to check the revisions. This sentence is confusing to me: Following the treatment of Buddhist relics, the cremated remains in a glass container were wrapped in a cloth and placed in an outer container.[36] Does this mean to follow a Buddhist practice, or after the Buddhists introduced a particular practice? Also, I don't think the text will suffer if you remove this sentence: According to an ancient Buddhist prophecy, the world would enter a dark period in 1051. Finally, I need to think about how to address the problem of the long paragraph. You have a good capacity of summarizing immense amounts of information, that, as a reader, I find interesting. Maybe leave in, but be prepared to remove if the reviewers suggest to do so? I'll be busy with work until Wednesday or Thursday. Might tweak a bit between now and then, but most likely will wait to do a second pass then. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Truthkeeper88! Thanks for the copyedits (in article space is fine with me). I'll have a look in a short while ("1361" should be CE, not BC). As for the sentences above. The first is meant to mean, that in Buddhism relics were (long before Buddhism arrived to Japan) treated in the way specified. After Buddhism came to Japan, this practise was (in Japan) also used for non-relic remains. I am not sure if this happened for the first time in Japan or if it came from China/Korea. As for the second sentence, I'd like to keep it. Maybe it should be better connected to the following sentences which it introduces (Miroku would appear after the end of the dark period). This sentence dates the dark period and (roughly) the related archaeological materials. Hope to get back to the article and your edits today. bamse (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Got some time to have a closer look at your edits and it all looks very fine (as usual) except for the following things:
 * " from ancient to feudal Japan (circa 4500–1361 BC)"; the time should be 4500 BC - 1361 CE; also, the phrase might be confusing since the time in parantheses is not a definition for the ancient to feudal periods. It is rather a subset of the period (which corresponds to the national treasures).
 * I've reverted this, but changed again. Have a look. If it's still incorrect, revert to the original version.
 * "a variety of stone tools" sounds to me as if there are a couple (10-100) of tools only while there are in fact a lot
 * Fixed this
 * Referring to this comment by Johnbod, I removed the sentence with this edit. bamse (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw your responses but haven't had the opportunity to return to the article. Will fix as soon as I can. I also saw JohnBod's comment - I left the modifier dangling when I restructured the sentences, so the revert is fine, but the sentence is long, so I may have another go at it again. The other fixes won't take long, and I'll take another pass through as well. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ignore my previous remark here; the sentence if fine now.
 * No need to rush. I'll be more or less absent from wikipedia for the next 10 days or so and will therefore not nominate the list at FLC soon. bamse (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made the fixes and will swing by again in a day or so for a second pass through. This is dense material, so I like to come at it with a fresh mind. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looks already very good to me. bamse (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not bad after staying away from it for a few days. One problem is the verb tenses aren't consistent: the archeological narrative beginning 50,000 years ago is presented in present tense; the archeological findings is presented in past perfect; and the Buddhism paragraph is in the past tense. I'll leave it you to decide whether it should be fixed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I could try fixing it in a week or so. What would be the preferred choice of tenses? bamse (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure until I read it all in one consistent tense, but I suspect past is the best. I'm happy to take a run at it tomorrow, which will leave plenty of time to change it if necessary. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There was really very little to fix, and it's now done. I've also combined a couple of sentences, and flipped a few sentences: I've marked them in the edit summary, but please check my work for accuracy. I always feel as though I'm handling a National Treasure when I work on these articles - I don't have much context to work from, and I'm afraid I'll drop/break something very valuable! I'll keep checking in. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. I had a look through your edits and everything was fine. bamse (talk) 09:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings)
I have uploaded a better image  of KIFUDO in MIIDERA: Miidera Yellow Fudo2.jpg. Please compare them. This was a sectet icon  for  handreds years, and few chance to take pictures. --ReijiYamashina (talk) 00:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you (also for the many other pictures which you are uploading). I replaced the new kifudo image. bamse (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your handling. I"m preparing  several images e.g one of Twelve deities Saidaiji, Priest GYOSIN Portrait sculpture in Yumedono, et al.--ReijiYamashina (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

National Treasures of Japan
Honestly, I felt it wasn't my best effort - (the reason I went into a panic when I saw it listed at FA earlier today!). At any rate, I'm not surprised they have suggested a copy-edit - I'll do what I can, but suspect some prose tightening is in order.

To begin, I'd like to suggest removing the first 3 sentences from this paragraph: '' As a term "National Treasure" has been used in Japan since 1897, though the meaning changed in 1950. The significance of the term pre-1950 differs from the term in post-1950. Before 1950 "National Treasure" had been assigned to a much larger number of cultural properties, comparable to the current Important Cultural Properties and National Treasures combined. Japan has the most comprehensive network of legislation for protecting, preserving, and classifying its cultural patrimony.[1] The regard to physical and intangible properties and their protection is typical of the Japanese preservation and restoration protection.[2] Direct measures aimed at protecting designated National Treasures include restrictions on alterations, transfer and export and financial support in the form of grants and tax reduction. The Agency for Cultural Affairs provides owners with advice on restoration, administration and public display of the properties. These efforts are supplemented with laws that protect the built environment of designated structures and the necessary techniques for restoration of works.''

I don't think the paragraph or the lead suffers from the strikeout/delete, as the information is well-explained in the body of the article. Just a thought... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Very sorry to surprise you with the FAC. I should have checked with you beforehand. To me the article reads fine, so I thought it was ready. If you think that it still needs a lot of work (and more than can be done during the time of a FAC), maybe we could ask to extend that time or rather withdraw the nomination in order to address the issues for the next FAC. I can address the boring issues (like UK vs US spelling,... what's your preference?) but unfortunately won't be able to do much about "crispness and clarity". bamse (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Concerning the suggested strike. Probably it is ok to remove the sentences, since they concern only history. bamse (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't withdraw yet, let's see how it goes. It doesn't need a lot of work; usually reviewers suggest copyedits based on a small sample, and the lead needs a bit of work. I don't know how crisp and clear I can make it, but will try. Perhaps a comment to the effect that the copyedits are being addressed would be helpful. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I left a note at the nomination page. bamse (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, in the future I will have to learn to organize my time better. Had to look at the dates I worked on this and when I saw early to mid-January it explained quite a bit: I was unexpectedly busy with work and family during that period. Anyway, I've worked my way through to the statistics section, but will go through again from top to bottom. If you could check for errors (I always make errors!); inconsistencies in WP:ENGVAR and anything that is posted to the review page, I'd be grateful. I'm going to bed, and will finish in the morning. One more thing: can't remember whether we discussed this or not, but I think this article would be much stronger if the history comes before the categories sections. Something to think about in terms of reorganization. Oh, before I forget: I've indicated that swords are in a subcategory - hopefully that's correct. Also, if I felt the edit changed the meaning I've indicated so in the edit summary; and in one case a series of sentences need to be clarified, which I've indicated in the edit summary and by an in-text comment. Think that's all. Leave questions here or on my page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot already. Quite an impressive number of edits. I had a look at the edits you marked (will check the others later today). Comments follow:
 * As for subcategory "swords", there is no official subcategory. The Agency for Cultural Affairs only has a category "crafts" which includes swords, pottery, textiles, etc. Because about half of the crafts are swords (and mountings) I chose to split the list articles in two. So the "subcategory" "swords" and "crafts-others" are my invention. To avoid confusion it is probably better to avoid calling it "subcategory".
 * Removed subcategory
 * Clarification of: "Through documentation and the establishment and operation of museums and centres for cultural research, the government satisfies public and  scientific interest in cultural properties.": All this means is that the government financially supports (or runs) museums and research centers and thereby enables visitors to view the artworks and researchers to study them.
 * Thanks, fixed
 * With the other clarification, you mean the four sentences starting from: "Compared to important cultural properties and National Treasures..."?
 * Yes, sorry, but am lost in that section. If you could reword, I can brush up the prose if necessary
 * I think your confusion might be due to the fact that these four sentences are completely unrelated to each other. Does this help? If necessary, the 1st and 3rd of these four sentences could be removed without much loss.
 * As for swapping categories and history, yes we discussed that. Basically I don't care which comes first and I checked a while ago that the two can be swapped without any other changes to the text. Do you want to swap them, or shall I do that?
 * I'll let you move sections around. That always makes me nervous!
 * I'll have a look at the other outstanding issues raised in the review later today. bamse (talk) 09:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Some more comments: That's all concerning your recent edits. I fixed one or two obvious typos myself and will now have a look at the comments by reviewers. bamse (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In the sword section: "However, most of the items are from the Kamakura period, and the earliest object is from the Muromachi period." The "youngest" or "latest" (not the earliest) object is from the Muromachi period.
 * I think fixed
 * Same section: "The subcategory of swords can designate..."; not sure if a "category" can "designate" or if only people can designate something.
 * Fixed
 * In the "Extensions of the law since 1950" section: 1st sentence does not make much sense; maybe "has"->"is"?
 * Reverted to previous version
 * Same section: "... the law functioned as a waiting list...". Not the "law" but rather the new designation/label introduced by the law ("Registered Cultural Property") functioned as a waiting list, i.e., to become a National Treasure, items can take the route of increasing importance: "Registered Cultural Property" -> "Important Cultural Property" -> "National Treasure".
 * Interesting and fixed
 * In "Designation Procedure": Is there something missing in "...even though not necessary according to the law.["?
 * Reverted to previous
 * Am back. Will get started on the corrections now, and will message you when I'm done. I think you should do the article reorganization. If you need me to stop for awhile so you can work on the article, let me know and I'll finish later. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Welcome back! I'll wait until you're done. bamse (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done with the corrections. Will come back later to finish from Statistics to the end, and then go through the entire article again. It's yours for now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll shuffle around a bit. Will let you know when I am done. bamse (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Have worked my way through the entire article and have cleared all the problems mentioned on the review. Let me know how you're getting on with the script - I can go through and fix the ENGVAR problems (catalogue/catalog is the most obvious). A few issues:
 * Am done with converting to UK English.
 * the Ancient documents and the Writings sections are very similar.
 * Naturally since both are written objects. Still there are sufficient differences in my opinion.
 * some overuse of the words such as "some", "most" and "many" - if possible approximate quantification is better.
 * I'll have a look and will try to quantify where possible.
 * Went through the article and replaced some instances with numbers. Can't do much about the remaining since sources don't tell more than "some/most/many".
 * check for overlinking - I seem to think that some terms were linked more than once.
 * I've fixed the capitalization problems with National Treasure/s, but in some cases the term is in quotations, and in some cases in italics. I think should be consistent.
 * Very good. Which is preferrable italics/qutoations or just plain?
 * Check my edits before alerting Nikkimaria that the copyedit is finished; or I'll do so, but not until you're satisfied. I will continue to tweak throughout the FAC if you don't mind (when I took Ernest Hemingway through FAC a few weeks ago I had to copyedit the entire 8500 words per one reviewer's comments; and check punctuation throughout per a second reviewer. One reviewer asked for more linking, another asked for the linking to be removed, and so on.) Anyway, this in much better shape than this time yesterday! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll have a look. I am now converting to UK-English semi-automatically since the script does not work for me. bamse (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Just noticed now that you wrote more above. I replied to the items above (also check the clarification of four sentences further up). There was an issue with explaining "Tangible Cultural Properties" raised in the review (quote: Well, "tangible cultural property" is pretty self-explanatory, but doesn't Tangible Cultural Properties of Japan mean something beyond that? That's the term used in that sentence, so that's the term that needs to be explained.) Honestly I don't know how to explain it in more compact way than is done at the start of the Tangible Cultural Properties of Japan article. Do you have an idea? Also, do you have a better idea for a heading than "Recent developments in cultural properties protection"? That section covers changes to the main law from 1950 and other laws which affected NT since 1950. bamse (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing me to the clarifications about the four sentences, missed it earlier. I'll get to it later tonight. National Treasure should be plain unless in a title, but I'll also check those later. I don't know what to tell you about the Tangible Cultural Properties, but will give it some thought. If it can't be explained any better, then there's not much to be done. Ultimately you are the expert on the subject. I rather like the new section headings, but once I get to the article tonight might think of something else. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding to above: I'm down to these two sentence (the others are still in the text with minor fixes): The insufficient supply of raw materials and tools necessary for restoration works was realized by the agency. In 1999 protective authority was transferred to prefectures and  designated cities. Might be helpful to indicate when the agency realized the supplies and tools were insufficient, or what was done about it. Sentence 2, authority moved to cities and prefectures from where? Presumably from the national government? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for all those new improvements. All look fine, except for a minor issue (see your talk page). Yes, the authority moved from the national government to cities and prefectures. As for the "raw materials and tools", the source (from 1998) mentions a two year investigation that started in March 1998 with the aim "to survey the production and marketing of such tools and materials and the countrywide supply and demand and draw up measures to assure a long term supply.". I don't know what has become of this and if raw materials and tools are nowadays protected or subsidised. Since this fact only partially affects NT, I think it should be only mentioned briefly (if at all) the way it is now. Maybe "1998" as a date could be added. One more thing: in the second sentence of the article: "Tangible Cultural Property is considered to be...", shouldn't there be an article ("A") at the start? bamse (talk) 09:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed the mistakes. I'm leaving those sentence alone for now, as they don't bother me as much as they did the other night. One way of fixing, though, would be to add in the late 1990s (instead of end of 20th century) at the beginning of the sequence for flow.
 * Another issue that concerns me is capitalization of terms. I'm really not certain whether or not to capitalize National Treasure, Tangible Cultural Property, Important Cultural Property, but I've always presumed it was a title and hence an argument can be made for capitalization. Is that correct? I think it's a minor issue, easily fixed, and wouldn't bother to change unless a reviewer mentions it, but want you to be aware that someone might bring it up.
 * I'll post to the review page that the copyedit is done, if that's fine.
 * I took the liberty to "clarify" Tangible Cultural Property in the lead.
 * Very good. Give me a little time and I'll be done with a final read. I am posting some stuff on your talk page. bamse (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm continuing to tweak, and this is a reminder to check my edits. I may not be online tomorrow, so just revert anything that's wrong. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I am keeping an eye on everything that's happening to the article (and related list articles). As for your recent edits everything looks fine, just a minor question: "with the proviso that historic uniqueness and exceptional quality were to be established", is too high-level for me to understand. Does "...were to be established" mean the same as the previous version ("deemed to be of...")? bamse (talk) 10:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've used the subjunctive to indicate it would happen in the future (after the passing of the law). I can substitute condition for provisio: "with the condition that historic uniqueness...were to be established" if you'd prefer. As it was written, the clause "if deemed to be ..." modifies the law, not the art, so it had to be recast. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes a lot of sense and I wouldn't want to change it. Thanks for clarification. bamse (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)