User talk:PublicLibrarian

Welcome!

Hello, PublicLibrarian, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! William M. Connolley (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting[edit]

Hello. Welcome. You may want to read WP:3RR and WP:REVERT and stuff; and perhaps discuss your changes on the article talk page: Talk:Kendo. Otherwise you'll end up blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear William M. Connolly

Be my guest--PublicLibrarian (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Kendo - Article[edit]

Dear PL, you wrote Kendo66': This article is substantiated - please read the literature to this article before further edit. I can understand that you dislike the context but you have to read more literature.)"

You attribute more than is fair to my thinking. Apart from the article that you refer to being quite obscure, you can have any form of kendo that you want. But please don't denigrate the more mainstream version of kendo. Some of what has been written by you and user 90.184.244.234, plus in the submission for a new sports kendo page and on the UK and Danish websites, is just plainly - wrong.

I've been doing kendo for 20 years. I trained in Australia with Japanaese sensei and also in Japan. It is my observation that your idea of the AJKF kendo 'style' is not consistent with what I have been taught. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendo 66 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Kendo 66 12:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Kendo 66 12:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kendo66

I wrote following to you concerning the article 'Traditional Kendo':

This article is substantiated - please read the literature to this article before further edit. I can understand that you dislike the context but you have to read more literature.'

My comments are furthermore:

The term 'kendo' when used to refer to both classical and modern forms of swordsmanship presents certain conceptual and definitional problems for although the term kendo is recorded as early as the mid-seventeenth century, its use was by no means common or standard until the creation of the modern form by the Dai Nippon Butokukai in 1912. The distinctive feature of modern kendo being protective equipment (bōgu), a bamboo sword (shinai), free-style training and refereed competition is the result of a transitional development in traditional kendo during the mid and later Tokugawa periods (from the mid-eighteenth century). (Dann, Jeffrey (1978): Kendo in Japanese Martial Culture. Ph. D. thesis. University of Washington, USA; p. 22.) The majority of the modern kendo is standardlised by All Japan Kendo Federation, but there are still various kendo groups in Japan which are independent dojo registered within the All Japan Kendo Federation. Therefore it would be incorrect to simplify all kendo as modern kendo. The minority group which is not standardized represent a vital model for many dojo whether they are traditional or modern in their concept. (Dann, Jeffrey (1978): Kendo in Japanese Martial Culture. Ph. D. thesis. University of Washington, USA; pp. 171, 266.)

The article 'Traditional Kendo' is an article about traditional kendo and NOT about All Japan Kendo Federation (AJKF) kendo style (modern kendo). If you want to read more about AJKF kendo style you may visit the article about 'Kendo'. I recommed you edit the article kendo only because you have no knownledge about Traditional Kendo at all.

--PublicLibrarian (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear PL, I agree with the above. I know very little about your style of kendo. My contributions have been to the kendo that I know of. When I have edited the Traditional Kendo page, it has been only to remove POV or inaccuracies directed at what you describe as "modern" kendo.Kendo 66 01:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendo 66 (talk • contribs)

Reverting[edit]

Please don't revert changes with no explanation, especially when the previous change gave a reason for their edit. If you think it should be changed for some reason then justify it.

e.g. Why are you changing "based on" to "promoted as"? Are you disputing that Kendo is based on Japanese sword-fighting? If so, you need to show some evidence.

Why did you claim that HKF is independent (as if it mattered) and then remove my correction that it is affiliated with the FIK? Either independence is unimportant, or we should correctly state who is affiliated with whom. Francis Bond (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear BOND

For you information I am using explanation when it is necessary only. I am NOT using explanation when people vandalizes the article.--PublicLibrarian (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy there, it is very helpful to other editors if you use the edit summary all the time, especially when reverting vandalism. Thanks! —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 22:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am using explanation when it is necessary only. I am NOT using explanation when people vandalizes the article.--PublicLibrarian (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy again. The point is that other editors don't know that you are reverting vandalism - so your blank edit summary makes them study the change even more than they would otherwise. At a minimum, could you please put "rvv", which stands for "ReVerting Vandalism"? Thanks! —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 23:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mrand, Ok I will put 'rvv' in the 'Edit summary'. Best regards --PublicLibrarian (talk) 09:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Move Tab'[edit]

Please note that articles should not be moved via cutting and pasting by by using the move tab, which is located at the top of most pages. Using the move tab moves the edit history with the article and so stops the history from being split up, which could be confusing and lead to editors not receiving proper attributed for their work. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Guest9999

Thanks for the advice.--PublicLibrarian (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I've tagged the new page to be deleted so the that old one - with all the content and the edit history - can be moved there in its place. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Samurai. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.Canterbury Tail talk 18:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.Canterbury Tail talk 18:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]