Talk:Mimizuka

user:Caspian blue

hi. why do you keep reverting mimizuka article? do you want an editing war?

• Why did you delete the link to Toyokuni Shrine (Toyokuni Jinja), that honors Toyotomi Hideyoshi and is located next door to the mimizuka? Go and fix the link.
• You changed the article to include "The dismembered facial features were brought to Japan in barrels of brine." without any source. Previous sentence "The dismembered facial features were brought to Japan in barrels of salt for preservation." made a lot more sense.
• Your article includes "Whatever the reason it was built, it has almost certainly come to represent something other than what Hideyoshi intended." that is nothing but PoV and meaningless. Delete that sentence.
• Your article includes "In the 1970s, members of the Korean government asked Japan to level the monument.[3]" However, the same source says "But most say that the mound should stay in Japan as a reminder of past savagery." Why did you change the article to show only the minority view of Koreans?
• Do not wipe out other editors contribution whenever you write something.218.216.99.67 (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

To User:218.216.99.67 ORIX Corporation IP user

hi. why do you keep reverting mimizuka article? do you want an editing war? 218.216.99.67 (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Your edit contains incorrect information and deletion of several contents without any explanaiton. You're the one obviously who initiated the edit war. Please don't falsely accuse that I want edit-warring.

* Why did you delete the link to Toyokuni Shrine (Toyokuni Jinja), that honors Toyotomi Hideyoshi and is located next door to the mimizuka? Go and fix the link. 218.216.99.67 (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You deleted my contribution, and wiped out my contribution, so I reverted your edit as a whole. I don't think I ever delete the link.--Caspian blue 00:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

-That kind of attitude will just bring about an editing war.218.216.99.67 (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That kind of your attitude has disrupted the article unfortunately instead of improving the article. Please show me when I ever deleted the link that I don't see?--Caspian blue 01:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

-You did it here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mimizuka&action=historysubmit&diff=336846120&oldid=336562899

-The article before your editing http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mimizuka&oldid=336562899 has link to Toyokuni Shrine (Kyoto) in the 4th line of Legacy section.218.216.99.67 (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean Toyokuni Shrine? How ridiculous, ou imply that I removed some link for citation provided by you. While you wiped out the cited information and others, you complain about the frivolous removal of one "internal link". Now, you can give me the good reason for your removals.--Caspian blue 02:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

-fixed.218.216.99.67 (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• You changed the article to include "The dismembered facial features were brought to Japan in barrels of brine." without any source. Previous sentence "The dismembered facial features were brought to Japan in barrels of salt for preservation." made a lot more sense.

The cited source said "the severed body parts (ears) were "salted", please read the cited sources more carefully.--Caspian blue 00:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

-Why "salted" translate into brine rather than salt.218.216.99.67 (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Please look up brine and paraphrase and plagiarism instead of the bad faith accusation.--Caspian blue 01:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

* Your article includes "Whatever the reason it was built, it has almost certainly come to represent something other than what Hideyoshi intended." that is nothing but PoV and meaningless. Delete that sentence. 218.216.99.67 (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The horrendous Ear Mound has indeed brought more than its original intention. I think the original writer wrote the article based on the NYT source.--Caspian blue 00:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

-Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That subjective sentence does not fit into encyclopedia and does not enrich the knowledge of the readers.218.216.99.67 (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you blame for the content written by others.--Caspian blue 01:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The article says, "The exact reasons it was built are unknown." Then it says, "Whatever the reason it was built, it has almost certainly come to represent something other than what Hideyoshi intended." These are contradicting and by no means verifiable. How can we know that the mound means something other than Hideyoshi's intention if we do not know his intention? Moreover, the sentence is just rhetoric and does not have any meaning in itself. The article is just fine without the contradicting, unverifiable and meaningless sentence.218.216.99.67 (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Look, as having told you many times that due to your repeated wholesale removals of the cited info, I restored the previous version. I'm willing to compromise you since you see, I don't revert your addition of Park Jung-hee things and others. The sentence could be removed if you wish.--Caspian blue 03:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

-fixed. 218.216.99.67 (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Your article includes "In the 1970s, members of the Korean government asked Japan to level the monument.[3]" However, the same source says "But most say that the mound should stay in Japan as a reminder of past savagery." Why did you change the article to show only the minority view of Koreans?

How do you determine that that is "minority view of Koreans? Can you prove your claim?--Caspian blue 00:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

-The quote says "most say."218.216.99.67 (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Please quote it, and I don't think that is relevant to the request for lowering the level of the Ear Tomb.--Caspian blue 01:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

-fixed.218.216.99.67 (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Do not wipe out other editors contribution whenever you write something.218.216.99.67 (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You deleted the cited "war trophy" and tried to wipe out my contribution as well as others. You also wiped out "the site is unknown to Japanese" without any justification. While you let uncited information regarding the history part. I've clarified the content with more sources. If you don't like the cited information, you should read WP:V, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you wipe out my contribution again, you're responsible for your inappropriate edits.--Caspian blue 00:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Since at least two different IP users have appeared to "wipe out" the previous contribution and my name is in the above thread, I think you'd not mind mention your ISP for clarification in case another IP user participates in the discussion. Thanks.--Caspian blue 00:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Repeated blanking of "War trophy"

User:218.216.99.67, why have you repeatedly blanking the well-source information on "war trophy"? That info is not only mentioned in three sources (one is NYT, the others are English book sources, one of which is authored by a Japanese writer), but also in the current introduction plaque in front of Mimizuka, ko:File:Leechong1.jpg. Please drop the WP:POV pushing and WP:IDONTLIKE attitude to improve the article which still need much expansion. --Caspian blue 00:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• NYT article does NOT call it a "war trophy".218.216.99.67 (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I already said at my edit summary, "war trophy and similar (wording)". The NYT source is not the only source. Moreover, how would you explain the description on the official introduction plaque in front of the Ear Tomb installed by the Kyoto City? --Caspian blue 01:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

-Calling it a war trophy is a strange usage and brings in wrong connotation. War trophy implies something of value. No media article called it a war trophy. No native speaker of English would call it a war trophy. I would suggest deleting the words.218.216.99.67 (talk) 05:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's see the sources.

• First of all, you want to selectively translate the Chinese character, 塚 with a Japanese source, while you want to "directly quote" from English source for the war trophy. Don't you think your insistence over the two cases is contradictory and inconsistent? The tablet installed by Kyoto city clearly says "戰功" in Japanese, 전공품 (戰功品) in Korean. 전리품 (戰利品) is more commonly used instead of 戰功品 which translated into English as a (war) trophy [1].
• George Sansom, (1961) A History of Japan, 1334-1615 - "the ears of those 38,000, sliced off, suitably pickled, and sent to Kyoto as evidence of victory."
• Ihara Saikaku, (1990) The Great Mirror of Male Love - "Mimizuka, meaning "ear tomb", was the place Toyotomi Hideyoshi buried the ears taken as proof of enemy dead during his brutal invasions of Korea in 1592 and 1997."
• Kristof, Nicholas (1997), Japan, Korea and 1597: A Year That Lives in Infamy - "The samurai in those days often cut off the heads of people they had killed as proof that their deeds matched their stories, Japan's rulers displayed the noses and ears to Japanese subjects, apparently as a warning not to challenge the authorities
• Harold Piper, (2006), (OBSERVER) The worst calamity in Korean history - "The misnamed “Ear Tomb” in Kyoto houses not ears but noses ― tens of thousands of them, cut from slain Koreans during the Imjin campaign. These grisly trophies cannot be returned to Korea, the Japanese government has decided, because they are a Japanese “national cultural asset.”
• William Elliot Griffis (1876) THE MIKADO'S EMPIRE - "Among other trophies were several thousands of ears, which, instead of heads, the Japanese carried back to raise a barrow in Kioto."

Since you want to "strictly stick" to the source (only) for war trophy unlike your blanking of well-referenced "Ear Tomb", I can compromise it to be replaced with just "trophy" although the tablet written in Japanese and Korean clearly refers to the body parts taken from the war as "war trophy". However, according to English dictionary "trophy" means

a. A prize or memento, such as a cup or plaque, received as a symbol of victory, especially in sports.

b. A specimen or part, such as a lion's head, preserved as a token of a successful hunt.

c. A memento, as of one's personal achievements.

d. The spoils of war, dedicated in classical antiquity with an inscription to a deity and set up as a temporary monument on or near a battlefield, placed in an existing temple, or housed in a permanent, new structure.

--Caspian blue 06:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

-"Proof of killing" or "Evidence of killing" would be OK. "War trophy" has different connotation and is not neutral.218.216.99.67 (talk) 08:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Please look at the "b" meaning. I already suggested that we compromise it to take out "war".--Caspian blue 08:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

-By calling the ears trophy, your are implying Koreans are like animals such as lions that got hunt by the Japanese and the ears are the proof of successful hunt. This kind of implication should be avoided to make the article neutral. 218.216.99.67 (talk) 08:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That is your POV. The "trophy" is well referenced.--Caspian blue 08:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

-Being referenced is one thing, neutrality is quite another, as you can see here. WP:YESPOV "Bias/ Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article." Loaded words like "trophy" should be avoided. 218.216.99.67 (talk) 09:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"Trophy" is a succinct, neutral, and accurate term to describe the intention of the act by the Japanese of the era as well as a compromise between you and me. WP:SPADE is spade, brutality is brutality, and you can not change the history. Moreover, your opinion is your strong POV that I don't think NPOV. Do you think the bilingual plaque is biased?--Caspian blue 09:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Literal meaning of zuka/tsuka "塚" in Japanese

Literal meaning of zuka/tsuka "塚" is a "mound". [2] Mound shaped tombs may be called "tsuka", but other shape of tombs are not called tsuka. There are tsuka that are not tombs such as "ichiri-zuka" and "koshin-zuka"218.216.99.67 (talk) 05:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The dictionary is not a Japanese-English dictionary, isn't it? The dictionary says 塚 refers "tomb" too. :-) According to this Japanese-English dictionary, 塚 means a mound, a tumulus, a barrow, a grave, all of which mean "tomb" with slightly different meanings. Moreover, except the NYT, all sources (including other additional sources), Mimizuka is translated "Ear Tomb". Mound has various meaning, whose primary meaning is just "a hill" while it contains "tumulus" though in later order. So I let your "Ear Mound" stay since it is sourced, but I have to restore the well-sourced translation that you wiped out. Please don't continue your agenda for your POV.--Caspian blue 06:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

-We are talking about "literal" meaning, right? Think of it. The literal translation of French words "l'arc en ciel" is "the arch in the sky" but it means "rainbow". Likewise, the literal translation of mimizuka is "ear mound" which may be translated as "ear tomb" in this context. I think none of your sources say the "literal" meaning of mimizuka is "ear tomb". The first meaning in the dictionary you linked is "mound" and "tomb" is not even in the list. So, I would suggest following writing.

The Mimizuka (耳塚?, literally "Ear Mound", sometimes translated as "Ear Tomb") is a monument in Kyoto, 218.216.99.67 (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Literal meaning of 耳塚 is "Ear Tomb" as well according to "your provided dictionary". Moreover, "sometimes translated as Ear Tomb" is misleading because except one source (the NYT news), 4 English sources (two are suggested in the right above thread) clearly translate it as "Ear Tomb", not "Ear Mound". So, "sometimes" is not correct based on the fact. Moreover, the official tablet installed by Kyoto city, Mimizuka's Korean name is "귀무덤 (코무덤)" which literally (Ear Tomb (Nose Tomb), so I think the intro should have 鼻塚 as well instead of your incorrect wording suggestion.--Caspian blue 03:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

-OK. How about the following. By the way, Korean translation is irrelevant to literal tanslation of a Japanese word into English.

The Mimizuka (耳塚?, literally "Ear Mound", often translated as "Ear Tomb") is a monument in Kyoto, 218.216.99.67 (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Korean translation is irrelevant to the article pertinent to the Korean vicitim? Please don't make such nonsense. The tablet clearly states "鼻塚" in Japanese, and this complied book for a conference held in Japan[3] clearly says that the current name is "misnamed"/"renamed by Hayashi Razan to minimize the connotation of the word, 鼻塚 that sounds "brutal" according to Japanese scholars. So well, I don't see why you flatly reject the idea of legitimately addressing the another name in the intro.--Caspian blue 04:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

-Stay on topic. We are talking about "literal translation of mimizuka". If you want to talk about nose tomb, you can add such a sentence in the article. 218.216.99.67 (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You're the one who should "stay" on topic. Your evasive and misleading responses are not helpful. The "new addition" would make the first sentence unnecessarily lengthy, so I suggest we address like this "The Mimizuka (耳塚?, "Ear Mound", or "Ear Tomb") or also known as Hanatsuka (鼻塚?, "Nose Tomb"). I've seen "literally" is omitted in many articles due to the reason.--Caspian blue 04:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

-No one calls it Hanazuka today. So, "or also know as Hanazuka" is grossly misleading. You can argue that it was once called Hanazuka centuries ago, but not in the first paragraph. You do not describe Seoul as "Seoul or also know as Keijo", do you. 218.216.99.67 (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the conference title includes "鼻塚" and the table clearly states the name as well. So your assertion that it is not called "鼻塚" is simply untrue. "Also known as" indicates that the alternative name is less used anyway than the primary title, so I don't understand why you are jumping to the conclusion. Your comparison with Seoul is also improper and unconvincing since I don't see Japan referred to as "Wa", Wō, "Wae" in the intro of Japan even though it had been used for centuries while the 35 years old usage only for Japanese contexts is even not comparable to any stretch.--Caspian blue 04:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

-So, you are saying that the mound is called Hanazuka today. Where can I see the souce? Your link[4] does not show Hanazuka. 218.216.99.67 (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

In the conference. I already said that "the book is complied based on a conference held in Japan". Moreover, how do you explain the official tablet with the another name in the parenthesis in front of the tomb? I have many Korean sources to back up, but given your confrontation so far, are you going to denounce the Korean sources? (well, we already have one Korean source inserted by some editor in the past)--Caspian blue 05:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

-Things must be verifiable. Can you provide the minutes of the conference? I do not understand your argument about the "official tablet". Is it written in Korean or in Japanese? If it is written in Korean, how can you tell the mound is called Hanazuka in Japanese? The word "Nose Tomb" (or Hanazuka) appear in what sentence in what context. Does any of your Korean source say the mound is called Hanazuka today? 218.216.99.67 (talk) 05:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The tablet/plaque installed by Kyoto city written both in Japanese and Korean (as you can see the already provided file link). I don't understand your demand "the minutes of the conference". One English source provided by me in the above already says about "nose tomb" (not about the other Nose tomb) The Korean sources[5][6][7][8] that I read say that the another name is "recently" added to the tablet to correct the misdocumented event and discussed in the conference. I'm tired of your insistence over and over. Please compromise the argument at time time, and focus on improving the article.--Caspian blue 05:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

-I think I have waited long enough and there is no source to show the mound is called "Hanazuka" today, though it was called Hanazuka centuries ago. So, the first sentence should be changed to the following.

The Mimizuka (耳塚?, literally "Ear Mound", often translated as "Ear Tomb") is a monument in Kyoto, 218.216.99.67 (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Please explain the "official plaque installed by Kyoto city" having the "hanazuka" in Japanese and Korean.--Caspian blue 03:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

-It is your responsibility to explain, if you want to write "it is called Hanazuka today", in the article.218.216.99.67 (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I already provided a lot of sources as opposed to your objection based on your baseless accusation. My suggested wording, "also known as Hanzuka" is not same as your insistence.--Caspian blue 04:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

-Let us settle this. Write the un-disputed part first. Then, if you can show that it is called Hanazuka today, write "also known Hanazuka".218.216.99.67 (talk) 04:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This is getting tedious. I've shown you the hanazuka is being used in the official plaque today in front of the site as well as a lot of source. Are you insisting that the plaque is exhibited in a museum today to show the past usage?--Caspian blue 04:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

-Highly likely. And what are "a lot of source" that show it is called Hanazuka today. I see nothing you ever provided.

This is a mirror site of Agancy for Cultural Affairs of Government of Japan that designated mimizuka as Historic Site. You can also check it by typing "方広寺石塁および石塔" and rearching here. The official document call the mound Mimizuka only and Hanazuka is not mentioned.

The article has the coordinates of Mimizuka. Double-click and see any map linked. All of them call it Mimizuka. 218.216.99.67 (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point with the evasive responses. What is "highly likely"? You mean the current plaque is a fake done by Kyoto city? Yes, the a lot of source says that the "Nose tomb" phase is used "today by referring to the plaque and the past conference in Japan. "Also known as" does not necessarily mean that its usage is more prevalent to the other. Please stop the unproductive insistence.-Caspian blue 05:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

-fixed undisputed part. If you can find reliable source that it is called Hanazuka today, you can add so.218.216.99.67 (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you unilaterally decides to think that your preferred wording is "undisputed" (which makes the first sentence unnecessarily lengthy). Moreover, I've provided reliable sources already which you're totally refusing to accept the reality.--Caspian blue 06:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Grappling about noses and "ears"

There appears to be a lot of scuffling regarding the ears. I looked at three scholarly sources, one of which is a primary source (directly translated from the original written in Japanese), and no mention is ever made anywhere of ears. Moreover, looking at correspondence among Toyotomi Hideyoshi and his three principal commanders Konishi Yukinaga, Kato Kiyomasa, and Kuroda Nagamasa, dispatches mention noses as proof-of-trophy from Hideyoshi, never anything else. The term "ears" never appears in any letter. Here are my sources:

• Cho, Chung-hwa (1996). Dashi ssunum imjin waeran-sa (A Revelation of the History of the Imjin War). Seoul: Hakmin-sa.
• The Imjin War: Japan's Sixteenth Century Invasion of Korea and Attempt to Conquer China. Royal Asiatic Society. 2005. p. 501.
• The Inseparable Trinity: Japan's Relations with China and Korea, (in The Cambridge History of Japan. Vol. 4, Early Modern Japan). Cambridge University Press. 1991. p. 235-300. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521223553.007

Quote from Cho Chung-hwa: "According to Cho Chung-hwa, this name change was made by the government-sponsored scholar Hayashi Rasan (1583-1657) in the early years of the Tokugawa era." Jurgis Elisonas also looked closely and noticed the name change because the original sounded too cruel and it was altered to Ears during the Tokugawa period.

It does not rule out the possibility that ears were cut, but it makes it highly unlikely any were used as receipts of "martial valor." Furthermore, a person has two ears, giving the killer the ability to slice both, mutilate them (to reduce left-right differences), and submit them as two different ears. But, there is no ambiguity in one nose. The second source, by Samuel Rawley, appears to make that clear through translations of the letters though Rawley never explicitly writes it.

Other authors, especially Western ones, have parroted wrong information because they write from hindsight secondary sources, concise histories, never bothering to check because the issue was never really important enough that a misconception would generate in that very topic.

Snowfalcon cu (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Additional source purpoting only noses and misnomer is thus (bringing it to four):

• Pak, Chu-yong (January 16, 1996). "Imran gui-mudom kot tora-onda...Pak Sum-jung sunim chujinjung; Gui-mudom silche hwankukumjikim bongyokhwa". Chosun Ilbo (Seoul)

Snowfalcon cu (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

In this exhaustive search to use primary sources as opposed to concise, secondary sources, I added the following Japanese translations into the English thus (two were written in hindsight in the 1600s):

• Motoyama Buzen no kami Yasumasa oyako senko oboegaki, in Zoku gunsho ruiju Series (Zoku Gunsho Ruiju Kanseikai), 1933, p. 391
• Wakizaka ki in Yoshino, Jingoza'emon. Yoshino Jingoza'emon oboegaki, in Zoku gunsho ruiju XX-2 Tokyo Zoku Gunsho Ruiju Kanseikai (1933), 1636, p. 448).
• Chosen ki (Korean Record), Okochi Hidemoto, in Elison George. Nihon kyoikushi ronso: Motoyama Yukihiko Kyoju taikan kinen rombunshu, edited by Motoyama Yukihiko; Kyoju taikan kinen rombunshu henshu iinkai. Kyoto: Shinbunkaku, 1988, p. 28.

Added secondary source thus:

• Turnbull, Stephen (2002). Samurai Invasion: Japan's Korean War 1592-1598. Cassell. pp. 230. ISBN 0304359483

Snowfalcon cu (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Exaggerated and POV wordings, discussion requested.

"In a fit of toadyism" is exaggerated and highly opinioned. It's hard to imagine that the mind and mannerisms of a man who lived over 500 years ago could be accurately sourced unless he wrote an autobiography after-the-fact condemning his own statements, so I doubt this is properly sourced.

"several decades later this would come to be regarded as too cruel-sounding a name, and would be changed"

1) Can we be less vague than "several decades later"? Perhaps "in the early 17th century"?

2) How is "ear tomb" less "cruel-sounding" than "nose tomb"? I think "cruel-sounding" may be POV, given the name change may indicate a social taboo more complex than simply wanting the name to sound friendly. Perhaps it should be referred to as "euphamistically changed", instead, rather than making a direct attribution to motivation?

There are a couple of edits I will make without asking, because they seem much more obvious than these. TricksterWolf (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Re:

The contributors cited scholarly books, journal articles, and magazine pieces, not themselves. They inserted accurate source material. Name change from noses to ears is covered Samuel Hawley (2005). Consult reference list and specific inline citation page numbers about the other question. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 11:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mimizuka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050805021834/http://www.jkcf.or.jp:80/friendship2005/ to http://www.jkcf.or.jp/friendship2005/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mimizuka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608203248/http://www.donga.com/fbin/output?n=200908140228 to http://www.donga.com/fbin/output?n=200908140228

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)