Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:43, 16 December 2009

Archive Genseiryu Karatedo

Welcome!

Hello, UsagiM, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Welcome

BTW, be careful with that help page. By putting a {{db}} template on it, you've marked it as a candidate for speedy deletion. An admin who isn't paying close attention may delete it as "deletion requested by author" by accident! — Gwalla | Talk 01:07, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Gwalla for letting me know about the {{db}}... Didn't know it would be such a problem. Thought they would understand. But I have changed it now. -- MarioR 01:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) (this is just part of the answer copied from Gwalla's talk page!) -- MarioR 19:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Categorization of Bundestag and Bundesrat

You added a number of categories to both of these articles, notably Category:Political science terms, Category:Germany, Category:Government of Germany, Category:Politics of Germany and Category:German law.

Please note that one of Misplaced Pages's policies is that articles should not be members of a category and one of its subcategories at the same time. Check out Misplaced Pages:Categorization if you want to read more about that. That article also goes into detail why it's in general not too good an idea to have an article use too many categories, especially if the categories are related.

I hope this makes some sense and will help you with your future categorization efforts. sebmol 03:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so what you mean is that the mentioned articles (by the way, also Rechtsstaat and Judiciary of Germany) have a Category:Germany and at the same time also the other categories (which you mentioned), which are on their part also a sub-category of this Category:Germany... Am I right? So, either all the sub-categories should be removed or the main category... Which of these you suppose would be best??? Thanks for the clarification! BTW, I don't really see the problem (yet), but I will read the mentioned Wiki page about that. Maybe it'll become clear then... -- MarioR 17:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S.: I took the liberty of wiki-linking some part of your message. Makes it a bit easier, don't think you'd mind...

That's exactly what I was trying to say. I would try to be as sparing as possible with categories on an article, especially if the categories themselves are related. In other words, it would be appropriate for Bundestag to be in the category "German Government" (or some equivalent) and maybe in another category "National Legislatures" (if one exists).

It is also often common for an article to be in a category named the same as the article IF there are other articles that explain parts of the main article. "Bundestag", for example, is in a category called "German Bundestag" where that category also contains other (usually more detailed) articles about the "Bundestag". That way, the main article doesn't get too long and there's a one-stop page where you can find everything about the Bundestag you ever wanted to know.

I'm going to redo the categorization of Bundestag so you can see what I was trying to express.

sebmol 18:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I also removed category:Germany from Bundesrat of Germany. However, I do not fully understand why you also deleted Category:Government of Germany and Category:German law. I mean, the Bundestag has everything to do with the government and with the law. Why not put in these categories as well? Because of an overflow? I don't think that is such a problem, some items (articles) do belong in several different categories, nothing to do about that... If it's really an overflow thing, then there are just too many categories and maybe some categories should be removed! Don't you agree with me? Regards, MarioR 22:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S.: I also must add that the system of categories is not really transparent. It's difficult to see which categories are also a sub-category of another category. You can only see by checking it manually... That can be a time-consuming job...

I took out category:Government of Germany because category:Legislative Branch of the German Government is a sub-category of category:Government of Germany. I took out category:German law because Bundestag didn't really fit in with the other articles contained in that category. I added a full-length explanation of my category changes to the Bundestag article.

sebmol 21:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

New category

This may be of interest to you: ]. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Thanks for this information! -- MarioR 22:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

karate

Hello, I am researching a karate style called Gembukai, founded in Japan by Tsuneyoshi Ogura. Do you have any info on Ogura Sensei, or where he studied?? Is he realted in any way to the style you study? I can be emailed at sixt3@hotmail.com

many thanks

Sorry for the late reply. I don't believe that Gembukai and Genseiryu are related in any way, apart from the fact that they are both karate styles... I do believe that Gembukai has to do something with Shito ryu karate, since I did find something on the internet about a "Gembukai Shito Ryu Tournament"... Try with some Shito Ryu school or maybe even Shorin Ryu... Sorry I can't be more of help in this. Good luck with your research! - MarioR 14:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Genwakai

Mario Roering-san,

I saw your contribution on the talk page of Genwakai. If at all possible, I would like to correspond with your friend in Tokyo. I myself am a karate-ka of Genwakai of America, and I'm very interested in the history of Genwakai. I also aspire to go over to Japan for my education (and hopefully to train in Genwakai).

If you can point me to any direction, it would be much appreciated!

--There is no knowledge that is not power 17:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Mofokuban,

Zach, I will send you an email (found on your user page). We can then talk further about it... Osu! --MarioR 20:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

AN/I

Hi I wanted to let you know there is a conversation regarding you ] here regarding your recent edits. Regards - 4twenty42o (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Indeed this is leading nowhere like this. As much as you and I like to see it, there will never be an understanding between Peter and me. It goes too far to explain everything here, but believe me, it will never happen. Not because I don't want to, but because he doesn't want to... --MarioR 08:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Erroneous warnings

Edits by User:74.104.96.51 are clearly not vandalism. Do not accuse editors of vandalism because you dispute content. Even the most misguided edits are not vandalism, a principle documented at Misplaced Pages:Vandalism, and in fact these edits comport with the Manual of Style, documented at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (icons). —Centrx→talk • 06:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Looked to me like User:74.104.96.51 was deleting every American flag he could find. Later I found him deleting every flag he could find. Why is it okay to remove the flags? As far as I can see in the mentioned document, it's okay to put the flag next to the name of the country. It is not inappropriate use. I agree it goes too far to call it vandalism. The most it might have been was a mis-edit. Sorry for that. Now about the reverts you did. Again, why should the flag not be there, next to the country name, inside the info box? --MarioR 16:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

At best, these flags are needless decoration. At worst, they misrepresent the topic, often by inflating the article with nationality or by using flags of the wrong time period or for nations not yet existing. Therefore, Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (icons) states that icons and flags specifically need an encyclopedic purpose not purely decorative, should not emphasize nationality without good reason, and especially warns against rewriting history. The primary appropriate purposes for flags are in tables for international sporting events and military conflicts. —Centrx→talk • 20:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, noted. Thanks for the clarification! -- MarioR 20:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Genseiryū Karate-do International Federation Edit War December 2009

User:Mario_Roering and User_talk:Peter_Lee are reverting each other at Genseiryū_Karate-do_International_Federation. This could be interpeted as Edit warring. Could I invite you both to a friendly discussion on the talk page Talk:Genseiryū_Karate-do_International_Federation#Edit_War_December_2009 to attempt to resolve the two views? jmcw (talk) 11:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ha! A friendly discussion on the talk page with Peter Lee? Are you new in town? Peter Lee has been reverting my good edits for over 5 years now, always calling it vandalism and accusing ME of starting an edit war. On advice of NeilN I have edited the article AND gave an explanation about what I edited, and why I did it. It was a good explanation and even NeilN agreed. Still, Peter Lee reverted my edits, insulting me once again in the edit summary with words like "vandalism", "the aim of pissing him off" and accusing me of starting another edit war. There is no good discussion possible with Peter Lee. Even when evidence is thrown in his face, he totally ignores it and writes "his own" story! He keeps adding sentences to the articles about Genseiryū that hold no ground, have no (good) reference to it and are totally disputable, even with counter-evidence. I try hard to make a NPOV article, but Peter does the utmost to accomplish the opposite... But I am always open for a "friendly" discussion... If it is with a civilized human being, who is willing to open his ears and eyes... MarioR 11:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Mario, please observe WP:3RR on Genseiryū Karate-do International Federation. --NeilN 14:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Neil, it's noted, but I am observing it very carefully... Although I appreciate it, I do find it strange to warn me for such a thing. In the last 24 hours I have reverted only twice, and WHAT I reverted was merely vandalism by Peter Lee. All my edits where suddenly gone by an unnecessary revert from him. All the crap that I just so carefully had taken out (WITH an explanation on the talk page, which you even agreed with!), just came back in the article with one push on the mouse button by Peter Lee... I did see that you also reverted Peter's reverts once. Hope you will keep an eye on the article and take measures if he again reverts my edits or adds the same crap again without good, solid sources. For me, I will stick to the 3RR, don't worry about that. MarioR 16:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Genseiryū Karate-do International Federation. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Please note you do NOT have to revert more than three times to be blocked for edit warring. Edit summaries such as are completely unacceptable. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 14:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that you are edit warring: calling the other editor a vandal for anything other than blatant vandalism may earn you a block for disruption and NPA violation. Heed me: an aggressive combative attitude is not welcome here. Suggest you read WP:BATTLE and moderate your approach. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 14:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua, please tell me, when was the last time I called Peter Lee a vandal? I have been defending myself on numerous occasions against his insults and accusations and in the latest defence I wrote that "his edits come closer to the definition of vandalism than mine" (please mind, I am just quoting here!). So, I didn't call him directly a "vandal" in that, but merely stated that his actions aren't any better than mine. Was that wrong to say??? If so, I do apologize and I will be even more careful in my defences from now on and, as you say, will "moderate my approach"...

I do have to say that your remark that I am edit warring is misplaced. When was the last time I broke the 3RR? Okay, 1 month ago, but it was a mistake and I did apologize for that. But that's the only time I broke the 3RR. Accidents happen, people learn, so do I. I didn't revert any article more than TWICE within 24 hrs recently! Actually, I do get a bit upset with your remark, because I am doing my utmost here: I am working very hard in my precious free time to find references, dive into difficult Japanese texts, talk to insiders in the organization, sending mails, thinking about how to write good NPOV sentences (that won't cause edit warring) and thereby contribute to a NPOV article. And besides that, I also have to spend time on Peter Lee's wall-of-text approach and defend myself against his claims and accusations. Talking about edit warring: isn't it Peter Lee who keeps reverting my edits, even when I thoroughly explain my edits on the talk page?!? (getting close to the 3RR!) Even NeilN has reverted one of his reverts recently, because my edits were good, solid edits... Of course I do make mistakes sometimes, but surely I am not edit warring. On the contrary, I am doing everything I can to PREVENT an(other) edit war (and to prevent the articles from becoming a personal point of view)! I do hope you can see that... MarioR 15:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Just yesterday, you made statements right above here such as "...WHAT I reverted was merely vandalism by Peter Lee", "Hope you will keep an eye on the article and take measures if he again reverts my edits or adds the same crap again without good, solid sources." This is a combative attitude, and essentially a declaration that you intend to keep edit warring. Both of you have also been guilty of talking past rather than to one another, and asserting that you will refuse to speak reasonably to one another. 3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement—edit warring is not a good thing just because it's done less than 3 times a day, nor does not violating the 3RR mean that no action will be taken because of it. You and Peter both need to leave whatever differences you have at the door, and work only from reliable sources. Mails you send or conversations you have with "insiders" are not reliable sources, they are original research, which is not permitted. Please ensure to use only published, reliable, verifiable source material for any article, and not to use personal knowledge or experience. Please also ensure that even if another editor should go to the level of making it personal, you do not respond in kind. That includes calling others' edits "crap" or "vandalism", those are unacceptable ways of expressing disagreement. You may of course disagree with someone's edit, but you should clearly and civilly explain in detail what you disagree with and why. If you can't resolve it there, look to what the sources say. (If there aren't sources, what's the material doing in the article in the first place?) If you disagree after reviewing the sources, request dispute resolution. If this bickering continues, it may result in escalating sanctions on both of you, and I never want to see that happen to anyone. Seraphimblade 15:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)