Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by UsagiM (talk | contribs) at 13:44, 24 November 2009 (→Talk Page: Oops!!!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

November 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on World Genseiryū Karate-dō 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. Frmatt (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay Frmatt. Thanks for clearing that up. Please help me, keeping that article NPOV. All I did, was making sure that all the rubbish that Peter Lee kept putting in the article, was taken out, for it only contained false accusations and name slandering. If I would have kept to the Three-revert-rule, then now there would have been a page with lots of false information, accusations and the good name of a very nice, honourable, well-respected man would have been smeared all over the place by this young Danish person who won't sleep until WGKF and its members are out of the (his) karate world. So, if you or somebody would help me to keep the article NPOV, then there doesn't have to be any edit war... Thank you. --MarioR 08:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

My revert

I reverted the article back one reversion to a version by you. My reasons are on the article talk page. I am not taking sides and do not expect this version to stay. We are discussing future changes on the talk page. Please join out discussion and offer your proposals. - 4twenty42o (talk) 06:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand. Hope this will come to a good end soon. My time is also limited and just too precious to deal with somebody all the time who finds it necessary to smear the good name of an honoust and well-respected person in the karate world... I will not rest myself, until he stops this name slandering, but also will I try to follow Misplaced Pages's rules and guidelines in this as much as possible. If I can think of a solution, I will not hesitate to mention that on the article talk page. Regards, --MarioR 08:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Z9

To clarify, your conduct in this matter has been quite unacceptable, both in your engagement in an edit war and the extreme incivility in your edit summaries. The only reason that the blocking period is as short as it is is due to the fact that you stopped the edit war after being warned, but given your tenure here, you should be well aware that both edit warring and incivility are unacceptable. You are not expected to refrain from behaving in this manner "when possible", you are expected to refrain from it at all times, period. Seraphimblade 08:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|There has been NO edit war AFTER Frmatt explained the Three-Revert-Rule and gave me a warning that we would be blocked if we would continue to do so. Since that, there was NO reverting anymore. Why would you now suddenly decide for a block after all??? When you drive too fast, does the police stop you and then say "Hey, you get a warning, don't do it again... Oh, you know what, I am giving you a fine after all!"?!? This being totally unfair, also because I did seek consultation, but nobody responded, while the slandering and posting of made-up stories on WGKF continued (as a matter of fact, the slander was already on for 3 months!!! Why didn't anybody see that?) I request that you remove the block immediately, so I can come up with constructive proposals on this problem.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): As you've stated you wish to come up with constructive suggestions to the issue, I'm willing to give you a chance to do so. This is contingent that, during the period the block would have lasted, you firstly do not make uncivil comments toward Peter Lee or toward anyone, and secondly, you do not revert the article in question. Would of course prefer those behaviors not be repeated at all, but should you repeat them while you would still have been blocked, you may be blocked again without warning by any administrator. Request handled by: Seraphimblade 15:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Thank you. I will do what I can. And about being "uncivil" (which by the way I have NEVER been to anybody but Peter Lee), it was foolish of me to allow Peter Lee to provoke me like that. It will not happen again, and I will continu to contribute to Misplaced Pages as I always have - as a contributor who likes to see the facts as they are, no nonsense stories. Also, I won't revert the article in question, provided that administrators keep a look-out as well that Peter Lee doesn't abuse the article again to smear my or other people's names, without coming with facts and evidences. If I see that nobody is taking care of that (as the last time, the name slandering and bs in that article was already on that wiki for over 3 months!!), I will have to take action, of course taking into consideration the Three-Revert-Rule... Thanks again. Regards, MarioR 16:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of World Genseiryū Karate-dō Federation

A tag has been placed on World Genseiryū Karate-dō Federation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ukexpat (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Noted. I added the {{hangon}} tag... --MarioR 19:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not leave messages on your partner in crimes page. I removed it because that is totally unnecessary. Regardless of the reason taunting someone is not acceptable and whether you realize it or not that was taunting. regards - 4twenty42o (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh? And just why should I not mention the fact that he COPIED my reasoning of the request to unblock, while in his case he is lying??? That shows how he works, what a shrude liar he is. This is important to notice, to see the truth... He lied, because he DID do another revert AFTER he had been warned by Frmatt (see ). Frmatt's warning came at 05:51. His next revert (way over the 3 times he already had done) came at 07:31, which was again reverted back by you, 4twenty42o. Just thought I should mention that, before his block is suspended prematurely... In all fairness, I was unblocked for the right reason: I STOPPED reverting... Didn't I??? --MarioR 19:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

But you are right about staying away from his talk page. I am only getting all kinds of nasty names thrown towards me, for telling the truth... That is how he reacts everytime when he is told the real truth. He can only react in an agressive, angry, nasty, name calling way, which goes beyond any reasoning. I will therefor never ever react to him on his talk page again, and keep it to an absolute minimum elsewhere. He is not worth it anyway... --MarioR 19:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. you did stop. But taunting someone and being generally uncivil is not the way to approach any situation. If he chooses to act that way he will be permanently blocked from editing. I can absolutely guarantee that his behavior is not going unnoticed. I implore you to stop with the cynicism and allow the Wiki process work its magic. If you feel that admin intervention is necessary, there are ways to handle that. But inflammatory comments by either of you will get you blocked for much longer than 24 hours. - 4twenty42o (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Err... Excuse me? Taunting? Being uncivil? I only stated, that Peter Lee was lying about not having reverted anymore after the warning (a text he simply copied from MY talk page and used in his own benefit). I even prooved it, didn't I? And, it was you who reverted his last revert, so you also know as a fact that Peter Lee is lying. Pointing this out is in no way taunting or being uncivil. He on the other hand is again calling me names (see his talk page, last edit). Talking about uncivilized behaviour... At least I am telling the truth AND I am backing it up... But I do thank you for your given guarantee. And I hope in all honesty that the Wiki process will work "its magic". Beautifully put by you, but I still have to see it... --MarioR 20:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk Page

Mario, you deleted most of the content of the talk page here. Please be more careful. I've undone your change so you'll have to copy-paste your responses back in. --NeilN 13:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That was of course not intentionally. Was working on the section, but at some point had to restart my computer. I think that messed things up (I think the section became the whole page after the restart) and I didn't see it. Sorry and thanks. -- MarioR 13:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)