User talk:Samuraiantiqueworld/archive 1

Gallery additions
Hello. We appreciate that you are expanding the articles on Wikipedia, but could you please be more careful with the formatting. You keep making edits such as this one that adds massive lines and destroys the pages formatting. Also please read WP:Gallery for the correct way to add a gallery. Thanks. Canterbury Tail  talk  12:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

A quick guide to editing Wikipedia
Take a CLOSE look at this: this is how you edit Wikipedia. Get it? Illustrations? Lack of unnecessary quote marks (""tessen"", ""gunsen"" - see, HERE I'm actually quoting - quoting you, so I am using proper quote marks to show you your own unnecesary marks!) and repeating how everything is "Japanese (samurai)"? Properly made references, with italics in the titles (example: The Book of Something), and capital letters in the titles (isntead of in "By"), and spaces after references? Without repeating the whole references repeatedly? Everything else? Christ, I mean, it's crazy I even have to tell you this. It's just... so obvious, and elementary! Now, MAKE THE COMMONS CATEGORIES OR PAGES, so you will then use Template:Commons - and that's all! Sorry, I couldn't explain it tou any in any MORE simple way than this. --Asperchu (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Medcab note
I have requested that Asperchu join us in mediation. I can't mediate between one person! -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Asperchu
I know nothing about the details surrounding this matter, but I thought you would find it interesting. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * On a related note, I have closed the medcab case you opened. With Asperchu gone, there is nothing to mediate. Enjoy! -- Scjessey (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Japanese armour
please do not make a mess of Kozan-do and Tosei-gusoku styles - they from different eras (during Sengoke Kozan-do become purely parade armours, and new-fashioned Tosei-gusoku - appeared) Idot (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * first of all if somebody writes on your page, you should answer on your page (the same if someone writes on my page I do not answer on page of writers) I moved disscusion to Talk:Japanese armour, please continue at that page (Idot (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC))
 * please calm down! and write to Talk:Japanese armour! not to my page! the discussion is about the article not about me! (Idot (talk) 06:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC))
 * PS I am wating for opinions of other people who wrote this and related articles (Idot (talk) 06:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC))


 * may you please help to improve description ? (Idot (talk) 06:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC))
 * I hope what I did works for youSamuraiantiqueworld (talk) 06:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Arigato! (^_^) Idot (talk) 07:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Kendo
Thanks for taking the time to find some references. However, if you think a page needs references, and you have the references, please just go ahead and add them. It seems a bit inefficient to first add citation needed tags, then list citations on the talk page. Please note that when you add citations you should write the information about the book, not just the googlebooks url. Also, for regulations, they change a little over time, so the most recent handbook from JKF is the definitive source (mine is a few years out of date). Francis Bond (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't get round to add any references, and thanks for yours! Francis Bond (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, I made some remarks re the kendo refs at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kendo.Kendo 66 06:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendo 66 (talk • contribs)

Bogu
G'day again. Just a note to let you know I reinstated Naginata as a category on the Bogu page as it seemed clearly relevant: Naginata Bogu are discussed on the page, and are similar overall. If there was some reason I have failed to grasp, please let me know and if convinced I will remove it again (thus avoiding an edit war). Francis Bond (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note! I think there was a time when people were less strict about adding references.  I must admit, I would rather have good non-referenced information than no information, as I try to assume good faith.  Of course, referenced is better, and not everyone is always as careful as they should be. Francis Bond (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Maintenance templates
Regarding mail (armour), there really is no need to tag every section of the article and have a banner tag at the head of the article. Just one tag is sufficient to place the article in all the right categories to attract editor attention. The issue of over-tagging has been discussed many times and the consensus is that it is a bad thing, tags should be kept to a minimum. See for instance Village pump (policy)/Archive 79.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  01:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not help add references on the various unreferenced and under referenced sections and remove the tags that way..like I did on the section on Japanese mail? This article has been tagged for a long time and not may editors are adding referenced material. I think if people are going to these articles for information they should be warned that the information may not be researchable or even accurate. Should I just remove the unreferenced information instead as allowed by wiki policy?Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I came to this article in order to add references and it had nothing to do with the tags, so please don't snipe at me about adding references. No, you should not remove information just because policy says you can - that is pointy.  Although if you genuinely believe the information is dubious then that is fair enough to remove.  My point is that you have a banner on every single main subsection.  You also have an overall banner at the top of the article which essentially gives the same information.  Tags are not a badge of shame for an article, in this case it is only necessary to tag the article once.  As sections become better referenced then would be the time to remove the header banner and tag individual sections or sentences.  Over-tagging articles is called tag bombing; please accept that this is against consensus as explained in the link to the discussion I gave you above.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  02:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not believe having one reference tag per section is "tag bombing". As a section gets properly referenced the tag can be removed and I am not sniping I am being honest.My way of thinking is....why worry about tags when adding some references will solve the problem and help make the article a valuable resource for information instead of an article full of questionable statements. I have noticed and appreciate your addition of references.  As someone who has used information in a wiki article only to find that the information was not correct I value information that can be traced back to the source allowing for verification. I see articles with "citation needed" on every couple of sentences so I do not see tagging each section as over tagging, everyone has their own criteria as to what the term "over tagged" means.  I see article after article with little or no references being added to on a regular basis with more unreferenced material.  "Tags are not a badge of shame for an article" no they are a warning not to continue to add unreferenced material and a warning that the material in the article might not be well researched and or personal opinion etc. I would like to see the article completely referenced and any help would be great, I think we are on the same side.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 05:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, we both agree that the article should be well-referenced. We disagree, I think, that excessive templating will help get this done.  We seem to be stuck here so I have opened an RfC on the article talk page to get opinions from other editors.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  10:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Plate armour
This was a rather interesting allegation. I have no idea about Japanese armour. This is probably connected to the fact that you didn't see me editing the Japanese armour article. Which is a very crappy article in need of attention by people who know something about Japanese armour. If, by any chance, you consider this to apply to yourself, perhaps you might be tempted to go there and work on the article.

In the meantime, did you notice how there is no European armour article? More specifically, no European armour of the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance? The reason for this is that this article is located at Plate armour.

When you say that in Japan, there were "helmets of plate armour", I will object to this claim not based on any technical point of Japanese helmets, but on the simple fact that you cannot say "this helmet is made of plate armour" in English. It's not what "plate armour" means. You can call these helmets "plate helmets", "metal plate helmets" or "multi-plate helmets", but please don't call them "helmets of plate armour". And, more to the point, if you want to write about kabuto helmets, may I recommend you preferably do this at the kabuto article.

Also on the topic of your edits to the "plate armour" article, if you feel that "Japanese plate armour" is a topic, we can very well place a disambiguation notice. I do not know if it is a topic. I only note that google books gives me all of two (2) results on this search string. This indicates, to my uninformed mind, that "Japanese plate armour" is probably not something that needs its own page. It can be treated perfectly well at the Japanese armour article, with proper cross-linking from the relevant bits at the Plate armour one. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 12:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, also on the topic of
 * "the protohistoric inhabitants of Japan (the Yamato) developed the ability to work bronze and iron and during the 4th and 5th centuries constructed very advanced iron plate cuirasses and helmet"

are you serious? Have you heard about a thing called WP:TONE? I suggest the proper way of phrasing this WP:ENCyclopedically would be something like
 * "iron plate cuirasses and helmets are known from Kofun period Japan, see tanko."

Your username is "Samuraiantiqueworld". May I be forgiven for assuming that you are somehow particularly infatuated with ancient Japan? In that case it would be a good idea to check the tone of your prose for reflexes of your private enthusiasm. We ask the same from editors at political or religious topics, so if the "Samuraiantiqueworld" is your thing, this is where you need to watch your self. Did you catch me rambling about "the early modern inhabitants of Western Europe were able to create incredibly advanced steel, unmatched by anything that had been created since the very dawn of history"? I thought not. Its true, but it's not encyclopedic. Same goes for your eulogy on ancient Japan. --dab (𒁳) 12:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How would you know if the Japanese armor article is "crappy" if you do not have any knowledge of Japanese armor? As for the plate armor article there is no monopoly on plate armor by Europe, Japanese plate armor is very well known and the plate armor article is not titled European plate armour, so maybe you should start a article specifically on European plate armour.  The article is on PLATE ARMOUR and other cultures used and manufactured PLATE ARMOUR besides European countries and they have they own names for the plate armour they used, sorry if you do not have any knowledge of armour besides European armour but there is a whole world of armour besides European armour.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * if you aren't going to be reasonable, there is no point in us talking together, is there? Have you even looked at the Japanese armour article? It needs a lot of work. It consists of a very brief paragraph on "History", and the rest is just listcruft of terminology plus some image galleries. That's not what we usually take "article" to mean. I am sure that "there is a whole world of armour besides European armour". So instead of pretending you don't undestand what I mean that our coverage on Japanese armour is crappy, why do you not put your expertise to use and work on that topic instead of wasting my time with silly semantic games.
 * if you are going to argue semantics, let me point you to WP:UCN. I have shown that "Japanese plate armour" isn't a term in general use. Check out the 27,000 hits for the term "plate armour" on google books and let me know how many of them do not deal with European armour. That's simply how the term is used. Your source Oriental Armour is one of the extremely few that even use the term with reference to Japan. So, in the case of roughly a 2:27,000 ration, it is perfectly WP:DUE to take the unmarked term to mean the "27,000" item, and have the "2" item be linked by disambiguation note. I have never tried to suppress mention of Japanese plate armour in the article, but what you are doing is an irrational stunt to blow your pet topic out of proportion. WP:DUE. --dab (𒁳) 12:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should try reading the references provided, you do know what inline references are dont you? I do not notice a lot of references being used in the "plate armour" article, maybe you should start by adding references to the "plate armour"article.  What my user name is does not reflect anything more than your name does. Your knowledge seems very Eurocentric and I think they your maybe biased in your views. If the article on plate armour was meant to be only on European Plate armour the name of the article does not reflect this, and as such the article is open to information on ALL plate armours not just European plate armours.  Maybe you need to step back a bit and take a look at the big picture, if an uninformed reader of the article reads only about European plate armour in an article titled "Plate armour" they might reasonably assume that that only Europeans used plate armour and as we both know that is just not case and wikipedia is about providing ACCURATE information is it not?Samuraiantiqueworld (talk)
 * Why dont you try searching for "Japanese plate armour" and "samurai plate armour", your the one not being reasonable.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

In English, European plate armour is not usually known as "European plate armour", it is known as "plate armour". Go figure. That's possibly because English is a European language, but since we are writing this thing in English we have no choice but to accept whatever common usage we find in this language. Your suggestion that it is "Eurocentric" to write articles about European history is so misguided that I will not comment. Note how the Japanese article linked by interwiki is called ja:プレートアーマー. Do you think any Japanese in their right mind would describe ancient Japanese tanko armour as "プレートアーマー"? I rest my case. Tanko is as marginally related to the topic as lorica segmentata. Not because it's "non-European", but simply because it's cenntral to the article's scope. Can we please agree that it is not "Eurocentric" to say that we are here discussing the English-language version of ja:プレートアーマー article? I ask you again to please go ahead and write a Samurai plate armour article if you think we need one. -dab (𒁳) 13:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you insist on an edit war then this should be taken to arbitration, a large part of the article is unreferenced and you have removed referenced materialSamuraiantiqueworld (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You are really serious, aren't you. Arbitration, eh? Before I have even made a single revert to an earlier revision of mine? Yes, son, do take this to arbitration. In the meantime I will see if I can improve the much-neglected Japanese armour article.

Funny how as soon as I brought up the "プレートアーマー" bit this turned from "I am right" into wikilawyering. Ah, and here's another good one. Have a look at the image search for 板金鎧. --dab (𒁳) 13:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Lets try to use REFERENCES in your improvements to the Japanese armour article.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Congratulations! (^_^) Idot (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Arigato! (^_^)Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Saddles
Please read the wikipedia MOS. You need to take this issue to discussion and stop reverting the article. Montanabw (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Saddle. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. causa sui (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Japanese saddle
I like the section you added on Saddle. I've seen a few examples in museums and antique shops and they definitely deserve their own mention. Asian saddles, or even Japanese style saddles, is an interesting enough topic that it could warrent its own article, though that's a lot of work. David Straub (talk) 07:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A separate article would be a good idea, as it allows expansion not easily done in an overview article. For example, we have McClellan saddle and Australian stock saddle as examples, as well as the more common western saddle.  I'd fully support an additional article.  It's not that much work to create a start-class article.   Montanabw (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
causa sui (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for proposing a short-term solution
I appreciate your suggestion of an alternative image at Horses in warfare while this is discussed. A wise suggestion. I didn't want to edit the page myself. BusterD (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * While I do not think the jousting image is the best, I do not like the other proposed images either, the image should clearly portray HORSES IN WARFARE, there are a lot of images in wiki commons and I think an image that will portray the article subject in the best light can be found and agreed on by the interested parties.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The image at that article has been stable for several years, and it was the one selected when the article acheived GA status. A random user who has never edited the article needs to respect a longstanding consensus and use the bold, revert, talk process to suggest changes. Samurai is right that the image needs to be horse-focused, but compounding the problem by adding yet another random image against consensus is not the solution.  Discussion in good faith is the solution.   Montanabw (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as you've posted similarly at the article in question, I will answer there. Montanabw (talk) 05:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not require an editor to have edited previously in order for an edit to to be taken seriously, and just because an image has been used in an article for a long time does not make it the best possible image available for the article. The problem is not compounded by temporarily adding a suitable image while the problem is being discussed RATIONALLY, it acts as a less confrontational image until an appropriate image that can be agreed if found. The editor had a good rational in replacing an image of jousting as there are many images on Wikipidia commons which have representations of the use of horses in warfare. Jousting is not warfare. Unfortunately the editors choice of replacement images was not a very good choice and did not clearly represent the subject of the article. Taking a TIME OUT and going through the images available for use and asking for a consensus would be the proper way to deal with this problem.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 04:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Montanabw, you have made a big deal because I dared to add a FEW sentences of REFERENCED text about Japanese SADDLES with an inline link to approved Wikipedia commons images in an articles titled "Saddles". When I see a PATHETIC mess like Equine conformation with just four references in the entire article, and many, many links to EXTERNAL IMAGES, not Wikipedia commons images with copyright approval but completely external images, many which are dead or do not link to anything that has to do with the article I have to wonder about your motives. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not just being territorial here but whether you like what I am doing or not I am not your enemy or your real problem....I would be embarrassed to have my name attached to a mess like Equine conformation and these UNREFERENCED horse related articles are not what Wikipedia is about, either the information came from a book or publication that can be referenced or it is PERSONAL OPINION but the information had to come from some were and as you are well aware one of Wikipedia's main functions is to provide ACCURATE and VALIDATED information.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Samurai, please look in the mirror. You are accusing me of the very things you are doing, do you see that? Your PROPERLY referenced material isn't being removed, it was copyedited. The rest was your wrong placement of links and your constant attempts to keep re-adding a link to a category in commons that was the issue. It's not a source -- read the Wiki MOS on sources, it's quite clear that you don't source wikipedia from other wikis. As for the rest, I'm not going to defend an article like Equine conformation -- it's not an article I started and I've wanted to clean it up for years, but it needs to be a joint project and all I've had time to do there is put out brushfires, at best. In fact, welcome to the sandbox I created for rewriting it from scratch, if you can help, it's "my" sandbox, but I'd be glad for some actual work to assist. Go for it: User:Montanabw/Conformation_sandbox
 * You have "wanted to clean it up for years" but you have done NOTHING about it, since when do you need a "joint project" to fix an unreferenced article? Where is your effort to get that "joint project" going? What about all those UNREFERENCED sections in the saddle article, isnt that against Wikipedia policy also? Your worried about a few sentences I wrote when you have REAL problems to work on. I say we just drop this and concentrate of what we were doing before this ridiculous confrontation got started, its just not worth our time and effort.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 06:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Boy, you just don't assume good faith in anyone, do you? I have over 1500 articles on my watchlist, and I am not going to fix every last one of them like I am a genie released from a wiki-bottle. I've been here five years and edit almost daily, probably at least 40 or 50 articles appear on my watchlist, half of the time doing nothing but vandal reverts.  Perhaps you failed to notice that  I also have created over 100 new articles, having brought over a dozen to GA or FA status.  How many have you written?  What have you done besides criticize and attack everyone else? Frankly, you can get to work and help, or you can just stew in your own juice as far as I'm concerned.   Montanabw (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Samurai, your behavior at Horses in warfare attacking me is really quite personal and over the top. If you have an issue with me, talk to me. Otherwise, focus on the article itself and please show some respect to your fellow editors. You may also benefit from reading User:Gamaliel/Tips. Montanabw (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Samurai, your behavior at Horses in warfare is really quite over the top. If you have an issue with me, talk to me. Otherwise, focus on the article itself and please show some respect to your fellow editors. You may also benefit from reading User:Gamaliel/Tips. Montanabw (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Time for a kitten
 BusterD has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

BusterD (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

re sections in Armour
Have a look at the example here CITESHORT

Then these
 * 1982_British_Army_Gazelle_friendly_fire_incident
 * HMS Cardiff (D108)
 * Frank_McNamara_(VC)

GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It does not matter if some other articles are not formated properly, I can show you many examples that are done the opposite way, if they are references then put them in the reference section, otherwise they appear to be "further reading" they certainly are not notes and they are not inline references.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I offer you 3 Featured articless to show how it's done, and you show me a bunch of start and C-class articles as a counter?. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please stop changing the sections in Armour. The established usage in that article is WP:CITESHORT. ( Hohum  @ ) 11:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
( Hohum  @ ) 13:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sai
Alright, but I'm not sure what referenced info you're referring to. I was only trying to remove unnecessary info about the cabang being used in silat, since there's already an article for that (see tekpi). But please stop insisting on the "tjabang" spelling just because that's the spelling used by Draeger. This is an English-language article, so we should be using either the official Malay/Indonesian spelling (cabang) or if you prefer, the British colonial spelling (chabang). Cabang is a common word in Malay, and I can assure you that nobody in Malaysia or Indonesia spells it the Dutch way anymore. Morinae (talk) 12:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

In case you don't know, there were historically a couple of different romanisation systems for the Malay language; one created by the British colonists, and another by the Dutch. The Dutch would use the letters "oe" for the "u" or "oo" sound, and would use "tj" for the "ch" sound. Thus the word chabang was spelled by them as tjabang. The reason why some Americans are more familiar with the Dutch spelling is because silat was brought to the States by Dutch Eurasians. After Malaysia and Indonesia gained independence from the Europeans, a more accurate official spelling system was put into place by the authorities, and in this system the word is spelled as cabang. As I said, this is a common Malay word, so I can easily verify it with countless dictionaries and other references. To put this in perspective, it would be as if I asked you to prove that "branch" is spelled B-R-A-N-C-H. But for you to say that "other spellings can be included along with tjabang" sounds quite biased, considering that the word is always spelled as cabang in Malay/Indonesian. Do remember that if the Dutch "tjabang" spelling is to be included, it is simply an alternative while "cabang" or "chabang" is the standard. Morinae (talk) 12:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed no referenced material, I simply re-worded it. And I did a lot more than change the spelling of a word in the silat weapons article, so reverting was unnecessary. Morinae (talk) 13:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

As per your request, I will now provide a few references for the cabang/chabang spelling. My sources are dictionaries because, in this case, I hope it is sufficient proof that cabang is the official spelling for the word. Any other doubts you have can be assuaged by translating "branch" into Malay/Indonesian on any online translator. If you still insist on the "tjabang" spelling as standard simply because it is the spelling you came across first, that is pushing a POV. By the way it's rather hypocritical of you to tell me "this is the English version of Wikipedia" considering that you're using the Dutch spelling of a word which was spelled as "chabang" by the British. And just to let you know before you misconstrue it as vandalism again, I will remove the unnecessary mention of the chabang and its use in silat from the sai article. That information belongs in the tekpi article. Since you seem to like the "tjabang" spelling so much you may add it as an alternative name in the tekpi article, but leave it out of the sai article which is about the Okinawan weapon. Morinae (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are mistaken. I provided four references, and three of those were books. As I already mentioned, two of them were dictionaries. How are those not valid sources? I do agree that text on web pages are not reliable and I usually don't use them as references. Morinae (talk) 07:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I never said I "don't like" that spelling, I only said it should be given as an alternate rather than as the standard. Alternate spellings should generally be confined to their own articles (in this case, the tekpi article). This is a common practice with words for which there's more than one spelling. If "tjabang" was a well-known word in the west, that would be understandable, but the fact is that most English-speakers have never heard it. Unlike nunchaku or katana, you won't find mention of the cabang in any English dictionary. Therefore, i feel it would make more sense to use the more common chabang spelling in the sai article, and more so on the silat weapons article since all the weapons are listed by their native Malay/Indonesian names and not English ones. Rather than argue, I suggest seeking the opinions of others on the sai article's discussion page. Morinae (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so familiar with those terms you mentioned, but perhaps you misunderstood what I said. Let's take as an example the Chinese sword or jian. As you probably know, it is written as jian in the Hanyu pinyin and as chien in the Wade-Giles system. The latter is very well-known. If you were to search for instances of its use, you would have no trouble finding hundreds of books which use the chien spelling, or one of its variations. In fact, that might even be more common, considering that the Wade-Giles system is older. However the Hanyu pinyin is the standard romaisation system used for writing Mandarin words in English, so jian is the spelling mostly used in English writings including wikipedia articles. Does it mean that every mention of the jian must include the alternate spelling? Similarly, it's acceptable to mention kenpo (in the accepted Hepburn transliteration) without including the equally well-known spelling of kempo. As I've said before, I'm not rejecting entirely your use of "tjabang". I'm only saying that it shouldn't be used unnecessarily since it is, after all, just an alternative.

Mention of "senbon" on the Shuriken page
Hello Samuraiantiqueworld --

I'm active over on the English Wiktionary, helping mostly to add to and maintain Japanese entries. An anonymous IP user recently added the term 千本 with the content shown in this older version of the page, describing something used in acupuncture that is also a sort of ninja weapon. As far as my ken goes, and as far as what I can find online, this 千本 just means one thousand long slender objects. Poking around here on Wikipedia, I found mention of senbon on the Shuriken page, and found that you'd added the term in this edit. Do you have any source for that, by chance? Is this something that only shows up in fiction, or is there a real-world instance of an acupuncture tool or ninja weapon called a senbon that you could point me to?

-- TIA, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 17:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello, I uploaded the image to commons [] and labeled it as a "shuriken", another user removed shuriken and substituted "senbon", I replaced "shuriken" and left "senbon" after doing some research. If you search for "senbon needles" or "senbon shuriken" etc on google image and web search you will find some examples. I have found some references that refer to senbon as "one thousand needles". "Senbon" seems to be used in manja a lot.[][]

Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Question armor
Could you possibly explain why you do not follow Japanese dictionaries, international (Hepburn transcr.) etc.--Seibun (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why you are making edits with out explanations? Other editors are having problems with your edits I see, you should be using the talk page when you are having differences with other editors so that you can discuss changes.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Kura (Japanese saddle)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Kura (Japanese saddle), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://tpu.bluemountains.net/keyword.php?w=saddle.

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 Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Kanabō, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Truncheon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Your input would be welcome
Hi Samuraiantiqueworld,

Off the back of that big list of AfDs the other day, I've recreated two articles (from much older deletion discussions) which do look as though they meet the notability criteria: Bugei Juhappan and Bajutsu. They're only start-class at present. You've got a lot of experience editing articles in this field, and I've always respected your contributions; if you're not busy and fancy expanding these two, you'd be most welcome. Cheers, Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 11:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I will add then to my watch list and keep an eye out for any relevant info or references, its a good idea to have a comprehensive list of accurate terms and I have no problem with some of the lessor known terms being listed until the time when they may be turned into articles if it comes to that.
 * Thanks! Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 10:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Japanese (samurai) weapons and equipment.
Template:Japanese (samurai) weapons and equipment. has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 06:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Tanegashima (Japanese matchlock), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Commodore Perry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Copy-paste moves
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Jafeluv (talk) 08:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)