Archive Genseiryu Karatedo

Welcome!

Hello, UsagiM, and welcome to Wikipedia! 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 Wikipedia
• 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 Wikipedia: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! 

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. – UsagiM 01:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) (this is just part of the answer copied from Gwalla's talk page!) -– UsagiM 19:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia's policies is that articles should not be members of a category and one of its subcategories at the same time. Check out Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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... – UsagiM 17:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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, – UsagiM 22:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This may be of interest to you: [[Category:Wikipedians who are pilots]]. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. Thanks for this information! – UsagiM 22:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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! – UsagiM 14:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UsagiM-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)[reply]

Hello Mofokuban,

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

Hi I wanted to let you know there is a conversation regarding you [[1]] here regarding your recent edits. Regards - 4twenty42o (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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... – UsagiM 08:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Vandalism, and in fact these edits comport with the Manual of Style, documented at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons). —Centrx→talk • 06:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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? – UsagiM 16:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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, Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Okay, noted. Thanks for the clarification! – UsagiM 20:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For reverting the blanking on my talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat... – UsagiM _{talk to me} 20:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MOS-JA, macrons are to be used in the titles of article where the Japanese name uses macrons, with the non-macroned redirect linking to the title with the macron (and not vice-versa). the exceptions to this rule are settled through discussion, and are very few. This system is being used in hundreds, if not thousands of biographical articles on Japanese subjects at present. Please see WP:MOS-JA#Article names. Please also refer to WP:MOS-JA#Names of historical figures. People born before the start of the Meiji period are always referred to by family name first. Please correct your numerous edits. --MChew (talk) 04:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit uncomfortable with your remark here. I did make a mistake with a historical figure (Itō Sachio, who was born just a few years before the start of the Meiji period), and I saw you already reverted the page move yourself (plus I changed my edits in the article itself), but I don't see any mistakes with other figures... I do not see why I have to "correct my numerous edits"... According Wikipedia:Japanese (in the part about names):

Names of modern figures[edit]

For a modern figure, a person born after the beginning of the Meiji period (1868 onward), always use the Western order of given name + family name for Western alphabet, and Japanese style family name+<space>+given name for Japanese characters. For example:

Junichiro Koizumi (小泉 純一郎 Koizumi Jun'ichirō, born January 8, 1942) is a Japanese politician …

Spelling, including macron usage, of the name of a modern figure should adhere to the following, in order of preference:

1. Use the official trade name if available in English/Latin alphabet;
2. Use the form found in a dictionary entry from a generally accepted English dictionary;
3. Use the form publicly used on behalf of the person in the English-speaking world;
4. Use the form publicly used on behalf of the person in any other popular Latin-alphabet-using language (French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, German, and Dutch, or variations); or
5. If none of the above is available, use the macronned form.

In the case I changed it from the macronned form to the non-macronned form, rule 3 was usually the appropriate rule to adhere to: the form publicly used on behalf of the person in the English-speaking world! I did not change any macronned form where there was no information on the person in the English-speaking world... I will have a look at the articles again and will revert edits, if it is was incorrect. I am pretty certain though that for the majority of the articles my edits were correct, because I did follow Wikipedia guidelines! If there is still an article where you think I did not follow the guidelines above, please mention that article to me (and why you think it's incorrect). I will then correct what I did wrong... – UsagiM _{talk to me} 12:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you took my remark as hostile - it was meant constructively, and there is no need to get all bent out of shape. Further up in WP:MOS-JA, the text states

Article names[edit]

Main pages: Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)

Article titles should follow all of the points above, with the following exceptions:

1. Article titles should use macrons as specified for body text except in cases where the macronless spelling is in common usage in English-speaking countries (e.g., Tokyo, Sumo and Shinto, instead of Tōkyō, Sumō and Shintō).
2. Where macrons are used in the title, appropriate redirects using the macronless spellings should also be created which point to the actual title (e.g., Tessho Genda and Tesshou Genda pointing to Tesshō Genda).
3. For proper names, redirects should be created for the Japanese name order which point to the actual title of the article (e.g., Genda Tesshō, Genda Tessho, and Genda Tesshou pointing to Tesshō Genda).

There has been considerable debate on the WP:MOS-JA talk page as to what is meant by "common usage" and consensus up to now has generally limited macronless spelling to words that have come into day-to-day English usage, as per the above examples. Very few of the authors whose family name is Itō are household names outside of Japan. Noe Itō is a typical example of an author whose name may appear in specialized literature, but would hardly be known to a typical person on the street, and her name appears is several different transliterations in print. Although not an author, Tesshō Genda used in the above WP:MOS-JA example is another. All Japanese family names 伊藤 are transliterated Itō under the modified-Hepburn transliteration system which Wikipedia has chosen to standardize on, and per the above, unless the person in question is either a name most people immediately recognize (i.e. Junichiro Koizumi), or has chosen to publish consistently under an alternative transliterion (such as Itou, Ito, Itoh, etc) by which they are well-known, it seems that the section in WP:MOS-JA specifically pertaining to "Article names" should take precedence over the section you quoted. This, at least, is my position, and I hope that you do not feel in any way affronted or upset if you do not agree. The wording in WP:MOS-JA could certainly be improved on this topic and the topic of macron usage in general, and we could take this whole issue to the discussion board at Wikiproject Japan if you do feel really strongly about it and want to see what the general consensus is. --MChew (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that WP:MOS-JA needs to be improved. It seems contradictory to say in "Articles" that "Article titles should use macrons as specified for body text...", where a bit further in "Names" it states (for modern figures) to "Use the form publicly used on behalf of the person in the English-speaking world". So, what if the article IS a name??? Most Japanese people that write their name in romaji, don't use macrons (which is revised Hepburn romanization) but rather use traditional Hepburn romanization and sometimes they don't even use Hepburn but the Nihon-shiki romanization. Macron are not common for Japanese. It seems more logical for them to write Itō (in hiragana: いとう) as Itou, or don't write the u at all (Ito).

But I think this will always be a discussion, also about "common usage". One (Japanese) person can be very "famous" for one person, simply because he is familiar with this field of subject, while this person doesn't ring any bell for another one who is not active in that field. Have you ever heard of Shukumine Seiken? Okay, no macrons there, but just as an example: for me and everybody else in my karate school a very "famous" person, but I'm sure you have never even heard of him... Another example (with macron!): Chōjun Miyagi. He is all over the internet (20.000+ hits) as "Chojun Miyagi" and everybody in Goju-Ryu karate will know him. Yet, here on Wikipedia he's written with a macron, so he is not considered "common usage". Not that I disagree with the use of the macron, I prefer the revised Hepburn system myself! But, who is going to decide which name is in "common usage" and which not? In the end, with Itō, I made it easy: I googled the name (in romaji) and the one that came out most, I figured would be "common usage"... But again, MY personal preference is to use the revized Hepburn system at all times. But that's just me (and you, 'coz I do understand that you also prefer that system?) and I also just have to follow Wikipedia guidelines. But if they are not 100% clear, then what??? Then you get discussions like this... Unfortunately... Happy holidays! – UsagiM _{talk to me} 16:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we may know something exists, but we need a reliable source to know that something is relevant or discussed within a subject. Wikipedia uses secondary sources (such as newspaper articles, journal articles, etc) to determine which parts of a topic are relevant or important enough to discuss in an article. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me explain the point: We know that there is a boardwalk/Wendy's/Lutheran Church in X town - We know it exists. The question is -- "is it important to note in the article?" - If you want you can start a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities and they can explain whether it is important or noteworthy to mention. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities#Kemah.2C_Texas_and_marinas - I am aware that people go to the Kemah Boardwalk (which has its own article), but the Kemah Boardwalk Marina is not managed by the same people as the actual Kemah Boardwalk is - The marina is a separate entity. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Sjeng (Name), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.maastrichtuniversity.nl/web/file?uuid=89fd5cc5-f994-40c2-94fb-bfc5bd529c88&owner=1aca1e32-087d-4a2a-8758-6d4b6c570875.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody should rewrite this bot... Don't know how he comes up with this message, but I created the article myself. Mainly by translating it from the DUTCH wikipedia!! – UsagiM _{talk to me} 16:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sound like a good guy!

Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Exactly WHAT is this about??? --– UsagiM _{talk to me} 19:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, UsagiM. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]