User talk:Canterbury Tail/Historic Archive 7

Mea culpa. I had not spotted that. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 19:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Everdon Article
Hello Ben W Bell

I see on your recent edit of the 'Everdon' article you removed the Everdon.info link. You said: "Use only official website. Someone's personal fansite is not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Please stop adding the everdon.info site and please read WP:EL for the rules"

Everdon.info is the official village website, and NOT a fansite. Everdon.com is the old, outdated version. If you don't believe me, check out the Everdon.info website - it even states on the home page it is the 'official' site. I have also verified this by emailing the webmaster.

I am now going to undo the changes you made to include both links.

I don't mean to be rude, but please check out your sources before editing the article again.

Thanks

Everdon (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Help requested
These edits are clearly inappropriate for the article. However my revert parole only mentions being allowed to revert vandalism (except one a week). As I'm not sure if this is vandalism, please can you revert the changes to be on the safe side? Cheers, John Smith&#39;s (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive?
Hi Ben,

Are you aware you just posted this to an archive of the noticeboard that's more than a year old? No one will see it (it's on my watchlist because a banned user commonly edits that particular archive). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ben,

I am replying to you (finally after looking at the tutorials on how to reply to someone in Wikipedia), regarding the message you sent me on external links. Thanks for giving me the heads up. I thought it was okay to add the links since they were relative. In the future, I will go the the article page and select "discussion" (once again I had to go to the tutorials on how to do this, because I had no idea where the Talk page was for article pages) to request adding a link. Take Care.

TheTVGuy (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 21:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Northern Ireland
Could you take a look at this for me?Traditional unionist (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. What in particular about it is the issue? Just asking. Yes someone born in NI is automatically a British citizen, and can also be or (if they renounce their British citizenship) Irish citizens. Canterbury Tail   talk  22:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * First, that needs a ref and second, didnt we agree that everyone is born both British and Irish?Traditional unionist (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the laws don't state that. They state they are British with the option of also being Irish. British happens, Irish is voluntary and the option has to be taken. There was a long conversation about this on the talk page. RoI government cannot mandate citizenship on the citizens of another country, just the option of it. Canterbury Tail   talk  22:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I remember the conversation, I just must have remembered the conclusion wrongly!. Do you have a reference for the bit in brackets that padraig has chosen to contest?Traditional unionist (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Bardcom
You may be interested in WP:Requests_for_comment/Bardcom. Tb (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing this out. Canterbury Tail   talk  22:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

RV of motorways
Can I please point out that the RVs you have made are unconstructive as the Km values which were added have all been removed. This reduces accessibility and reduces the quality of the articles. In future could you please be more careful when reverting edits as not all of what has been changed may be necessary for removal.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Prohibition
Your use of "pointless" is un-necessarily uncivil. Maybe we just disagree on the size of the intro? Cut it down if you like, but the revert is uncalled for. Please see: summary style. Kaisershatner (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay yes I admit the use of the term pointless was unnecessary and probably highly inaccurate. Copying and pasting the intro from further down the article seemed rather odd to myself though and at the time seemed more like the work (not offense meant) of a vandal on a very heavily vandalised article. I'm sure we can figure out a way of figuring something out but it seems, only in my opinion, that the intro is of sufficient size to tell people the gist of the matter without covering the history in the intro. Canterbury Tail   talk  21:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, apology accepted. Since I'm new to the article I had no idea it was such a target.  My expansion was rather fast and that's why it relied heavily on the available text.  However, the lead section should summarize the contents of the rest of the article - I think it ought to define Prohibition in the US, mention the historical context, mention the Volstead Act or Amendments, and maybe some of the cultural aspects.  The body of the article should expand on these sentences in full paras.  Maybe I can help out with it tomorrow; signing off now.  Cheers, Kaisershatner (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Canterbury
Your recent edit summary was incorrect! Canterbury has had four railway stations over the years. If you read the section on railways tou will see that they are all mentioned. I've readded South as the fourth station after another editor changed it to third. Mjroots (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough I stand corrected. I didn't notice it in my glance through the article. Canterbury Tail   talk  14:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Bardcom
No - I have many interests, but I just stumbled upon this user's activities. So you're an admin. Well do something about his disruptive behaviour. 86.27.230.177 (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What disruptive behaviour. I've spotted no disruptive behaviour of late. Remember assume good faith. Canterbury Tail   talk  22:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's one from his latest rash of edits, and as you know there are many more. I say this in all seriousness, something must be done. We cannot have a situation where it's not possible to admonish an editor for fear of being accused of ad hominem attacks. The user's edit summaries do not adequately describe his changes. It's very difficult to AGF when someone is told time and time again to refrain from disruptive activities. I really am surprised that he's got away with it for so long. I would like to formally ask you, as an admin, to pick up this issue again, maybe reinvigorate the RfC, but please don't just stand idly by. 86.27.230.177 (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comment - altering another user's comments. I don't understand. I wasn't aware of this, and if I did so it wasn't intended. 86.27.230.177 (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * New handle Ben? Very nice. Didn't realise you'd become an Admin - no extra points in my book for that I'm afraid! Now, while you are asking Bardcom to stop editing "British" Isles articles could I ask you to do likewise? Please do not revert my edits on the "List of British (sic) Isles" page without getting agreement on the talkpage. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sarah, I've been an admin for as long as I've known you. You just never realised as I never considered blocking you, instead I prefer to talk to people (other than the obvious blatant vandals). And yes, I shall return the favour. Canterbury Tail   talk  01:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My God I don't pay attention, do I? I only discovered last night that The Deek was an Admin - I thought he was some regular Joe engaged in an edit war with some regular Joseph. Sarah777 (talk) 09:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Some admins make it clear they are admins, some of us like to keep it quieter. We all still do our work though. Happy editing. Canterbury Tail  talk  11:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Weeks (author)‎
Hi. :) Sorry to bother you with a problem, but I appreciated your help with Lulu (publisher) and hoped that you would be able to advice me with a similar problem with the same editor. After the problems with Lulu, I looked at the other, similar publishers (Xlibris, iUniverse and AuthorHouse) and found exactly the same problem. At the moment I'm planning to politely go through the advice under wp:dispute and see if it can be settled, and there is no rush either way. But this led me to Kevin Weeks (author)‎, and there I have a bigger problem. The article had previously been speedied after Qworty had tagged it, and as far as I can tell he was correct to do so. Then the author (who is also the subject of the article) rewrote it, adding references and a list of awards. Again Qworty speedied it. This time it was kept, but the admin prodded it as advertising. Again, I see no hassles with this. Unfortunately, it was then edited from this to this. That seemed excessive to me, so I rewrote the article. I didn't revert, as I felt that the concerns raised by the prod were valid, and left the tags in place as I wasn't sure if they had been fully addressed. Qworty then reverted back to the current state. At any rate, I really can't see discussion making much progress. I'm not asking you to intervene, as you have your own concerns, but I would dearly love some advice on how to proceed. My concern is that this is damaging to the process - editors should be allowed to work on the article (and by that I don't really mean me, but other editors addressing concerns raised in the tags), but I can't see that happening with the article in the current state. - Bilby (talk) 09:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - I have no concerns with the article being deleted, I'd just like the process to be fair to the original author, and I want to avoid edit warring. Aside from that, I'm staying clear of the other POD publishers for a bit, as other editors can probably take it up if need be. I can't see much to be gained by arguing, as Qworty's position seems to be intractable, but maybe time will help. - Bilby (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ferry Wharf
Please don't move articles that defy conventions without asking. How you think that to be the "correct" name when you don't even know about the article, I have no idea. Please ask before you act. Reply here. JRG (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, no need to be so short. I moved it to what I thought was the correct name as the article starts with Greenwich Ferry Wharf, not Greenwich ferry wharf. If the former is not correct then I'll change the article to the latter. If you're going to create such articles it helps to avoid confusion by having the capitalisation correct and not inconsistent between the article name and the first line. Many people would have moved that article, not just myself, due to the capitalisation of the name in the article itself. Same for some of the others you've recently created. Also a lot of these ferry wharfs you have created or edited are inconsistent in their references as to the names. The article titles imply that the ferry wharf is part of the name but the Sydney Ferries site just calls them by the location. If the ferry wharf is not actually in the name then it should really be put in brackets afterwards and not added to the name of the article as per the MOS. Also some of the references call them just Name Wharf with a capital W in the Wharf. Canterbury Tail   talk  14:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We have conventions for wharves and railway stations which do not reflect the MOS style - simply because mostly the wharves and stations are the names of suburbs and would require disambig pages for each one. So rather than have that where needed and be confusing, we use the same "X railway station, Sydney" or "X ferry wharf, Sydney" style to avoid confusion. That's the way things are done; not the way you say and assume. Have a look before you act, (or alternatively, just ask). JRG (talk) 02:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, no need to be short. In which case can you kindly make the capitalisation consistent on the article names and article leads as otherwise someone else is likely to do the same thing. Canterbury Tail   talk  21:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus for constituent countries
As your edit at Editors where can I see this consensus for using the one name over another? I believe you, I'd just like to see it so I can acknowledge it for future editing.Wikipéire (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. Reasonable question. The consensus comes out of WP:UKCITIES, and has subsequently spilled out to mean everything relating to the constituent parts of the UK. It's reasonable enough as people get UK, Britain, England etc mixed up. Canterbury Tail   talk  20:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks.Wikipéire (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. It's nice to have a consensus one way or another on the issue. Take care. Canterbury Tail   talk  02:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you take a look again?
Hi, my edits are being blindly reverted by our old friend, user:86.27.230.177, without reasons, references, or research. Given your previous experience dealing with him, could I ask you to intervene please? Thank you. --Bardcom (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't make ad hominem attacks on editors like you have done here. Please comment on the edit, not on the editor. You will note I've given a reason for my edits and in some cases I suggest that they are taken to Talk. Please can I ask you to take these issues to the relevant Talk page in each case. As you know, British Isles and its use is controversial in Wikipedia (though not in many oother places), so again I ask you to discuss changes that might result in its removal, before going ahead. Thanks (copied to Bardcom's Talk page). 86.27.230.177 (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you please sort this stuff out yourselves. This sort of nobodies right petty sectarian fighting is the reason I left Northern Ireland in the first place. This is the sort of thing where if I get involved again I'll end up being called a British protestant bigot by one side or a republican catholic ner do well by another and getting stuck in the middle being told I'm wrong on both sides for different reasons. Note that is a generic and over the top response by myself not necessarily aimed at you two in particular, but all the Irish/British/Northern Irish fighting that takes place constantly on Wikipedia. I left the British Isles :) and still can't get away from it. I'm really not in the mood for it at the mo. Come back when I'm feeling less tired and grouchy. Canterbury Tail   talk  21:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the fact that I was asked by you to not make any edits related to the British Isles for a period of one week, I would have hoped that you would have respected the fact that I kept my word and would have had time to examine my edits and discuss the matter (as was the reason given by you to ask for me to desist for one week). The same anon IP editor has engaged in much the same behaviour as before.  As an admin with prior knowledge of this issue, I contacted you expecting intervention from someone who has the necessary background information.  While I may not like your response, I respect your decision to not get involved. --Bardcom (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ignore me, I'm just in a grumpy mood right now. I know the matter wasn't discussed, and I acknowledge that you did desist for pretty much the week as agreed and hold nothing against you for that. Canterbury Tail   talk  01:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ireland
Maybe the Republic of Ireland calls itself "Ireland" because it claims the whole island. However, 26/32 counties is still a fraction. The Republic of Ireland is no more "Ireland" than Northern Ireland is, or the Republic of China (Taiwan) is China as a whole.

I appreciate that the British State has an interest in maintaining the fiction that NI and RoI are separate countries, as opposed to parts of the same nation ruled by two separate states, like Korea.

In the same fashion, lazy journalists continually refer to the EU as "Europe", when large chunks of Europe (esp. Russia, Norway, Ukraine, Iceland) are not in it. --MacRusgail (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but your point here is? Canterbury Tail   talk  21:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup templates
Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "Unreferenced", "Fact" and etc., are best not "subst"ed. See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards,


 * Sorry, force of habit. Canterbury Tail   talk  23:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Northern Ireland
Hi,

I'd like to take the opportunity to advise you on two matters which, being a member or former member of the Northern Ireland WikiProject or it's sister project on Belfast, you might be interested in the following submission about a recent terrorist attack Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to ask for your help in reviving the Northern Ireland WikiProject. Given that there are only a small number of Wikipedians from Northern Ireland or interested specifically in the region, the project needs all the help it can get.

Cheers, --Setanta747 (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Pop'n Music songs
Thanks for not deleting the following page. I know there's sandbox but I still working on it. Thanks. Fireblaster lyz (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I shouldn't have done so, it's not a reason to speedy delete and article. I realised this and put it back. Happy editing. Canterbury Tail   talk  16:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Haha. (: Luv ya man. Lol. I am currently working on BEMANI articles and been trying to improve on them since Feb 08. I already requested a Taskforce, but its a little slow. ): Fireblaster lyz (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Coptic Orthodox Church in Canada
Please see the article's discussion page. Thank-you ~ Troy (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you think this would be any better, I could make the external links look like this:

____________ Church, Location


 * ...on my sandbox. Just a thought. ~ Troy (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What if the links weren't there — would it still not comply with Wikipedia policy? And what if some of the more important links were just in the external links sections — would that work out? ~ Troy (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A bit better, but detailing all the churches like that just isn't encyclopaedic. DEtailing how many there are and where they are maybe, but not the details as they stand with priests, addresses and the like. The addresses are a complete no no. WIkipedia isn't a copy of the Yellow Pages or the like, but an encyclopaedia. Canterbury Tail   talk  23:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if you're still wanting to make major revisions, can you please try that out on my sandbox? ~ Troy (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, I have started the first phase of editing my Sandbox. ~ Troy (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"British" Isles page protection - strong protest
Ben, Why did you lock the article with both the tag and reference to the geographical term reflecting the position of the British pov edit-warriors? Perhaps you might now lock the Great Britain and Ireland article in it's current (see time) format as I am 100% certain it will shortly be attacked by the same warriors. The absence of any Admin protection while that battle raged is duly noted; especially the failure of several Admins (not including you) to take any action to protect it. Does British pov merit a higher lever of protection from the Wiki-Admin "Community"? Sarah777 (talk) 07:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I locked it just when I though the edits were getting out of hand. The locked version does not indicate support for it in any particular state. It is simply locked to stop the edit war until consensus is formed. I paid no attention to what state it was in when I locked it. If it is in a pro-British stance then I apologise, but that's the luck of the draw with no intentions behind it. Canterbury Tail   talk  21:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, seeing as it's yourself Ben you have a rather good record of neutrality so I've no problem WP:AGF. But I note the other article was attacked just as I predicted. Perhaps now protect it. Sarah777 (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello! Have a peek at Great Britain and Ireland. Why does some minor warring on "British" Isles lead to protection, while massive disputes on GB&I doesn't trigger a single Admin to pay any heed? (If I were cynical, which of course I'm not) I would probably suggest they were waiting for the "right version" to protect. Either way what I see here is war raging and no intervention at all. Can I expect the same indifference if I make a (long overdue) resolute attempt to correct the name of the Republic of Ireland article? Sarah777 (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Canterbury GA attempt
User:RyanLupin nominated Canterbury at WP:GAC yesterday, I've given it a review and placed it on hold for approximately seven days. As you are the user with most edits to the page, I thought you'd like to be notified of its progress. It requires a lot of work to reach GA, frankly more than I think can be done in a week, but it might be possible if several users collaborate. I've left comments on the article talk page if you're interested in having a go. Nev1 (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by pre-warned 66.121.215.213
Have you seen this? I noticed him as he is voting here - I've struck his vote, which I think is acceptable in the circumstances. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry - as has been pointed out to me, it was May 2006!! I thought it was May this year, and you "last warned" the IP in April. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

List of INFORMS Publications
Hi, Ben,

My 5/29/08 List of INFORMS Publications posting, along with pages for our scientific society's individual journals, was blocked and removed with reasons given as conflict of interest, copyright infringement, and blatant advertisement.

I am the INFORMS Director of Communications. I posted these pages relying on the model of our sister society IEEE in their List of Publications at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IEEE_publications. The IEEE page also appears to have been posted by a society staffer in a nearly identical way to mine. Please let me know how I can apply the guidelines so that INFORMS, like IEEE, complies.

Thanks.

BarryList 14:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"Made-Up" Irish language translations
The tone in your message sounds as though you believe that someone randomly pulled the name out of a hat. Your argument that "they have no official names in Irish" holds no water whatsoever as you well know! Nowhere in Northern Ireland has an official Irish language version. If you insist that "Aerfort George Best Chathair Bhéal Feirste" should not be placed as an alternative name on the George Best Belfast City Airport", then you must also forward exactly the same argument with the vast majority of Wikipedia articles for places in Northern Ireland which display a Gaelic language alternative. Similarly, the Derry/Londonderry article mentions the fact that the city is refered to as "Maiden City, Stroke City" even thought neither of these two are official, nor are they translations. It is ludicrous to suggest that midway through a travel update on RnaG that the presenter would suddenly used the "official" version. Most of the (government errected) road signs on the approach roads to GBBCA read "City Airport". D.de.loinsigh (talk) 11:25, 22 June 2008

G7...?
Just wondering, but you recently tagged Unbreakable (Mychildren Mybride album) and Mychildren Mybride for speedy deletion under CSD G7. In neither of these cases did it appear that the author had requested deletion. Did you mean to put in CSD A7? -- lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Doh, yes I meant A7. Sorry about that. Canterbury Tail   talk  20:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Duncan Hawthorne
Thanks for the tags on this article. I have tried to improve it from my own knowledge (I have known Duncan since before he left Scotland), but am really struggling with the language and the tone of the article as it has been created. I am fairly certain as created it was a copy of an article in a business magazine / directory - or equivalent. I will try to improve as appropriate, however is it not easy. --Pencefn (talk)  14:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Having seen your revision comment on the Cobalt-60 article reverting a comment by User:Brad Razner, I had a look at his edit history. Most, if not all, of his edits are Bruce Power related. The image warnings, and the banners on the Bruce Power article do not seem to have had any effect. He removed recently when tweaking the article. My own personal knowledge means that I have to be very careful to keep on the right side of WP:COI. I would appreciate it if you continue to keep a watch on the edits made by this editor, and on the Bruce Power (and related) articles. --Stewart (talk) 07:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Images of Duncan
The first two images of Duncan that User:Brad Razner uploaded have now been deleted. There are two remaining, which I have tagged under WP:PUI. Both appear to be the same image as before and it is not clear that the uploader has the authority to apply the licensing the images have. --Stewart (talk)  07:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Coptic Orthodox Churches in Canada
Please see this for my comment on what I think should be done. It's probably better overall than the current article, which remains untouched—for the moment. Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

McDonalds lawsuit 1964
In regard to McDonalds lawsuit 1964, I would question whether it was an appropriate candidate for speedy deletion. The article did not mention any person's name and was so vague that nobody could even look up the facts, if any, relating to this incident. Please note that I am not asking for reinstatement or relisting of the article, because it was a sure deletion candidate anyway, but I would have recommended letting the Articles for deletion/McDonalds lawsuit 1964 discussion play out. Also, the AfD should have been closed once the article was deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My very bad. I didn't notice the AfD discussion. Apologies. Entirely my fault. Sorry. Canterbury Tail   talk  15:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Special Air Service
An article that you have been involved in editing, Special Air Service, has been proposed to be merged into another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. -- Deadly&forall;ssassin  14:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

John Dundee
Re your edit in March 2008 - you removed Northern Ireland and replaced it with Ireland stating that 'Northern Ireland' did not exist at the time. This is in fact incorrect, the Act of Partition was July 1921, John Dundee was born in Northern Ireland in November 1921 - after partition. Please reinstate, Northern Ireland - thanks

Samurai discussion
Ben, I have nearly 30 years experience studying Samurai. My comments are backed by the research of translators such as Steenstrup and Wilson who have spent their entire lives researching this material. Wilson received awards from the Japanese government for his works in 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Scott_Wilson

Allow my comments to stand. The poster above mine was full of disinfo


 * You must never edit or remove the comments of another editor. You are quite free to reinsert your comments, but not to remove those of another editor which you did in your edits. Canterbury Tail   talk  18:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not remove any comments. i inserted my own. To avoid controversy, I have created a new section. Be advised that there is an active movement to discredit aspects of Japanese history. Whether the reason be envy or some other, the historians pretend to be fans of Japanese culture and create this myth that the Lords had no contact with each other and did not share methods or philosophy. In reality, Japan was homogeneous from early times the writings below prove this:


 * --Remove stuff I'm not interested in reading-- This edit shows you removed another editors comments and replaced it with comments of your own. Canterbury Tail   talk  21:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

-I spaced the editors reply out and placed my replies in between, if this is against the rules, my apologies.

Ben, there have been bizarre attempts to change these pages: Someone removed the dictionary definition for Bushido which states that it developed in the Muromachi Era and replaced it with statements saying it developed in the Tokugawa (Ebo) period. Keep in mind that this is the largest Japanese dictionary.

"According to the Japanese dictionary Shogakukan Kokugo Daijiten, "Bushidō is defined as a unique philosophy (ronri) that spread through the warrior class from the Muromachi (chusei) period." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.40.77 (talk) 04:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you did space it out then please accept my apologies, it appeared that you had in fact removed part of the comments. And with the fact that neither you nor the previous poster sign your comments it is a mistake easily made.
 * When you mention the Shogakukan Kokugo Daijiten I presume you're referring to the 日本国語大辞典 or Nihon kokugo daijiten. If so I'll also presume you know that while it's a highly respected and premier dictionary from the point of view of the complete meanings and usages of Japanese words, much of it's etymological and historical information is often called into question by many parties. Canterbury Tail   talk  11:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Shogakukan Kokugo Daijiten is not the only dictionary which defines Bushido in this way.

I would like to incorporate the quotes of the actual samurai in the article, please unlock the editing on the article. It is pretty hard to deny Samurai emphasized death, honor and loyalty and bushido when there are statements like this:

Having been born into the house of a warrior, one's intentions should be to grasp the long and the short swords and to die.

If a man does not investigate into the matter of Bushido daily, it will be difficult for him to die a brave and manly death. Thus it is essential to engrave This business of the warrior into one's mind well. Considering that the man who wrote it was co-commander of all of the forces in Korea 1592-1598, he had considerable influence. Let the Samurai speak for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.40.77 (talk) 06:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

ok Ben, the guy accidently admits that i was right:

-Ultimately I am criticizing the logical outcome of your arguments and evidence. If you do not change your mind, then in light of the evidence presented by both of us I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. Your sources are great, and worthwhile, but readers need to be aware that many of them were written at different times and under different circumstances (Take Hojo Shigetoki's Rokuhara dono gokakun vs. Imagawa's Imagawa-jo), thus making generalization is precarious at best. For Shigetoki, for example, he was one of the upper crust (he was the Rokuhara Tandai, or deputy, and as rensho, or cosigner, of the shogunate's council of state) in the early Kamakura period, and was writing for his son for the purpose of helping him navigate the world of the courtier and upper-class warrior, in which etiquette and proper behavior were absolutely necessary. He was not writing for all warriors in his clan; conversely, Kato Kiyomasa did indeed intend his words to be heard throughout his land, but we cannot assume that all warriors followed his injunctions. He would not have taken a direct hand in their behavior; he couldn't, since the demands on his time would have precluded such behavior, especially since he commanded all those men in the Korean invasions.


 * Regarding Shigetoki, One letter was to his son, but the bulk of his text was for his entire clan:

William Scott Wilson: "Hojo wrote this to his son, Nagatoki, but the whole was for all the members of Hojo's clan."


 * The reason I printed them is *because* they *are* different and and they are from social classes different from Kato. I am demonstrating that one moral code sometimes called Bushido or the Way of the Warrior spanned geography, clans, all social classes of Samurai, and It was consistent over several centuries. Shigetoki stressed loyalty, especially to one's master and kindness to the people. Several other warriors over the next centuries did too. The writings reflect the influence of Confucianism, Buddhism and Shinto and they even mention the texts by name. (Samurai Term papers with footnotes) I have actually seen people claim "the origins of Bushido are obscure", when in reality there are often footnotes.

-In any case, I have made my argument. I don't want to disparage you anymore, as it is clear that we have differing viewpoints. All I want is for readers not to be misled by the multitudes of fluff out there that would have us believe that warriors were all striving to be honorable and were enamored of literary images; maybe they were, but the truth is that they failed more often than they succeeded in enacting that behavior. '''This argument threatens to get bogged down in the details of chronology and class and demands much more time than I am willing to give it. In the end I am willing to concede that from the Sengoku period on warriors were more likely to behave in ways conforming to ideals, but for the first six to seven hundred years of samurai history this is simply not the case.'''


 * If you wish to make changes to the article then please discuss on the article talk page, placing your arguments and discussions on my talk page won't achieve anything with regards to editing the article. Drastic changes need a consensus, community agreed reliable and verifiable sources and be encyclopaedic. If you can achieve these things then there is not reason the article cannot be altered. Canterbury Tail   talk  11:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

1. If the Shogakukan Kokugo Daijiten's accuracy is called into question, I would like to know by who and what sections. i would then like to notify the editors of the dictionary for their opinion and have any inaccuracy corrected. Please provide your source.

2. You locked in an inaccurate definition for the word samurai. I am an advocate of accuracy. The statement below is not correct because the warrior writings refer to themselves of followers of either Bushido or "the way of the warrior" from early Sengoku period onwards. I attempted to post the actual words of the warriors stating that they followed Bushido and someone reverted the article. You locked it in an incorrect state. I expect you to rectify this or I will take this to a higher level. Experts on Japanese in Japan say that Bushido started in Muromachi period.

'''For most of samurai history warriors rarely described themselves as followers of Bushido. The term was not prevalent until mid to late Edo period. Until then, many warriors wrote kakun, or house laws, which they desired to promulgate among their own clans. Families such as the Imagawa had large numbers of followers and broad influence in their respective areas and so their ethical code spread across their realm and was widely quoted by others due to their fame, but by no means were any such kakun standardized for warriors across Japan.[3]''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.40.77 (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Discuss the change on the talk page of the article and I'm sure it will be changed if verified and accurate. Canterbury Tail   talk  22:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You locked in an inaccurate version without any discussion or mention on the talk page. Why does my changes have to pass scrutiny?


 * If you think I am going to end this here, you are wrong. I am going after Hurst, Conlan and Friday academically.  I will post copies of this all over the internet and all of the Japanese history forums.  I will reduce their book sales and I will definitely make sure they are NOT invited to give their opinions on Japanese history on the History channel.  I will give you proper credit


 * The article was locked due to edit warring. Locking of an article does not indicate approval of the version that is locked, it was only locked to prevent further disruption. The article can be edited by registered users whose accounts are not newly created. It is simply a method of preventing the edit warring and nothing else. It is not an endorsement of the version, and does not agree with one position to one side or another. Any established editor can happily edit the article as it was anonymous editors who were fighting over it on what is a highly vandalised article. Canterbury Tail   talk  19:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you are saying, ok got the acct.

Letter written by someone who was really present at the time:

Sir Francis Xavier Letter 29 January 1552

"There are two kinds of writing in Japan, one used by men and the other by women; and for the most part both men and women, especially of the nobility and the commercial class, have a literary education. The bonzes, or bonzesses, in their monasteries teach letters to the girls and boys, though rich and noble persons entrust the education of their children to private tutors.”  29 January 1552

'''I have at least a dozen anecdotes just like this one. Are you happy now? I am going to bury those fake historians who tried to portray pre Tokugawa Japanese society as uneducated. Say good bye to booksales and careers.''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.40.77 (talk) 06:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Jersey criminals
I agree that technically Jersey isn t a nationality. I ll relink the Jersey criminals page Mayumashu (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

RE:Reversion
Ok, thanks for that. Go raibh maith agat. Derry Boi (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oíche mhaith, codladh sámh agus n-éirí an t-ádh leat!Derry Boi (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

lulu
Hi -- Re your revert to my edit on lulu (company), the reason the link is to lulux.com is because WP's spam filters are automatically disallowing links to lulu.com. I've requested that the blacklisting of lulu.com be removed. I'm going to re-revert, and I'll open a section on the article's talk page.--76.167.77.165 (talk) 01:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I realise it is, but you still can't reference out to an incorrect reference, especially one of those domain stalking sites. Canterbury Tail   talk  01:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

re: Not a Directory (Coptic Church in Canada)
As I am hoping that the issue is resolved, I have removed the "yellow pages" directory—but I did start the list of Coptic Orthodox Churches in Canada to compensate for the removal and keep a balance. I plan on making that a featured-list, but there's still a little work to be done on that.

Unfortunately, I was forced to downgrade "Coptic Orthodox Church in Canada" to a stub-class, however, I plan on expanding it soon enough. If you have any suggestions, you may contact me on my talk page. Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That all seems fine to me. A shame the actual Coptic church article has gotten so small. I'm sure we can expand upon that with some history and details of the size of the congregation Canada wide. Canterbury Tail   talk  10:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Block
Thanks for blocking the IP quickly - but why was it not indef-blocked like all the other socks? Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No evidence that that IP is actually linked to sockpuppetry. Only edits today and it's not for sure it's not just a vandal. Canterbury Tail   talk  12:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Lough Neagh
Lough Neagh is in Britain. The political definition of Britain is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the geographical definition of Britain is the British Isles which includes Ireland. It is an informal name in the political context and an alternative one in the geographical. Christopedia (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is in the political Britain yes, however the geographical definition of Britain including Ireland? No, never come across that one before. British Isles includes Ireland, Britain does not. Canterbury Tail   talk  11:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:82.198.140.206
Can you take a look and clarify which edit(s) he was blocked for? As far as I can tell it's mostly good faith edits, but maybe I'm not seeing what you did. – xeno  ( talk ) 19:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * He was blocked as a persistent vandal who has been warned in the past for vandalism, and has subsequently continued. The main edit in question was this one whereby he changed the county from County Londonderry to County Derry, a very common item of vandalism on Wikipedia to push a particular brand of POV. Canterbury Tail   talk  19:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. cheers. – xeno  ( talk ) 20:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Tibet (disambiguation)
Hi, Ben W Bell :) I found you reverted my contribution in this way. though I think it is not proper. so, I'd like you to put it back. You might not know, according to Wikipedia's Tibet entry, Tibet WAS once an idependent kingdom. (FYI: It has a citation.) and Historical Tibet refers to the kingdom. and you might have already known your 'IS'-Tibet was explained at the other entries in the disambiguation page. if you yet believe your reverted version is proper, I'd like to ask you why. Thanks :) --Carl Daniels (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I missed the word historical. My bad, I've rectified it. Canterbury Tail   talk  20:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :) --Carl Daniels (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Vovin Article
Good day sir, I noticed you have removed several alterations from an unidentified user on this page. If you find it interesting andhave the time please view his or her talk page where I have posted a message. 204.210.111.188 (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:199.64.72.252
Can you ban this User_talk:199.64.72.252 guy Gnevin (talk) 07:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC) ?


 * Yup, he did it again. He's been temporarily blocked for a week now. Lets see if they come back. Canterbury Tail   talk  11:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

An IP you blocked
Shouldn't the block remain in place? Even if it is a shared IP, it has still been the source of a great deal of vandalism.  Enigma  message 23:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

IP is back
See Gnevin (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Dealt with. Canterbury Tail   talk  15:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

...what was that....?
Ben, what was that "advice" about? I doubt I said anything that anybody could conceivably regard as problematic. I was stating a general and widely acceptable principle. If you have a problem with that please explain why? Sarah777 (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)