User talk:Stone-turner

Hosokawa Gracia Circumstance
I see that you are new to Wikipedia and may not completely understand its principles on distribution. As stated within the respective discussion page of Hosokawa Gracia, the image that I represented was a part of the video game culture; and as such an image allocated a greater sum of controversy to the article itself by being included, this is the reasoning as to why it should exist and remain in like manner, as opposed to being removed and making the article worse off. Understanding these circumstances is truly vital, and by following them you will have my regard. User:Exiled Ambition 31 March 2008 (EST)

Hosokawa Gracia canonization
For starters, relax. Your commentary comes off as very confrontational, and that's absolutely not necessary. Secondly, I seem to have made the mistake of not delving deeper into the stuff I read, which seems to be incorrect as of later readings. Mea cupla, and I have no problem with the information being removed.--ip.address.conflict (talk) 03:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably from this page, where I read it initially (though I forgot to link it as a citation). A second search turns up this page as well, which goes so far as to call her a Japanese saint.  Hope this helps.--ip.address.conflict (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. The first writer gives no sources, and the second quotes the first. Maybe someday the "original" will turn up.--Stone-turner (talk) 04:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Still, there is a way to do things on Wikipedia, and a way not to. If it is only a persistent rumor, then label it as such. Unexplained removals and edit warring will not get you what you want. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I went and added the canonization rumor parts to the article, with the clarification that there are no historical documents to prove it. Hopefully, this should put an end to the whole thing.--ip.address.conflict (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Invitation
Hi Stone-turner,

Thanks for helping with Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. Here's an invitation to visit WikiProject Japan. There, you can meet other Wikipedians working on articles related to Japan. You'll find lists of new articles, projects, and links to resources such as


 * Manual of Style (Japan-related articles), with decisions the community has made about how to format articles
 * Template:Newest Japan-related articles, where you can list the articles you create so the community can see them
 * Portal:Japan, a collection of resources on Japan

You'll also learn about WikiProject Japan, a template you can place on the talk page of any relevant article, and find instructions for assessing articles.

Hope to see you there!

Best regards, Fg2 (talk) 10:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hebrew calendar
Hi, you're right that I should have fact checked. The reference said it was based on the EJ and it sure reads like it was copied from another source, based on the tone and how its not integrated with the rest of the article. As much as I love rabbinic teaching, its not the appropriate style for an encyclopedia. I also made sure that everything it says is mentioned elsewhere. I'd like you to reread the Principles section and see if the extra content is necessary or not. Cheers, HereToHelp (talk to me) 17:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for writing.
 * When I first wrote the section "applying the rules," there was nothing about the postponements in the article. The section I wrote explains why are there varying year lengths, and the basis on which you determine them for a particular year.


 * You said everything it says is mentioned elsewhere. It certainly was not when I wrote it, and the later additions have not covered the material. Without it there is hardly any "why." Why do we need six year lengths? If the molad in a common year falls on a Tuesday after 9 hours and 204 parts we need to postpone. Why out of a whole week just those few hours and only for a common year? Why are the 3rd and especially the 4th postponements rare? etc.


 * I really should have put the section nearer the beginning of Principles. Now, the logic is somewhat unclear. The natural order for the Principles section is this:


 * Leap Year


 * The reason for the Rosh Hashanah postponement (starting with the paragraph "At the innovation of the rabbis")


 * Then the section I wrote, which explains how the calendar rules follow naturally from general calendrical principles with the ecclesiastical need to avoid Rosh Hashanah on certain days: Why you need 6 year lengths; why there are critical times like Tuesday after 9 hours, etc. I don't know why you seem to think it is particularly rabbinical teaching. It is elementary mathematics of addition, subtraction and multiplication of time.


 * Next logically is the rabbinical summary of the requirements in the above section, the teaching about the four gates. (By the way "9th hour" and "parts" should be explained.)


 * Next, how do you integrate the 6 year lengths into a system that tries to fix the month lengths as much as possible (unlike lunisolar calendars as the Babylonian, Chinese, etc)? That discussed in the section "Deficient, regular, and complete years", though it is false that the need for "deficient, regular, and complete years" is caused by the postponements. We would need them anyway.
 * The sections on the days of the week on holidays and the time of day follow from the above.


 * Perhaps I could be clearer in what I wrote, and if you have any suggestions tell me, but the existence of the four postponements is clearly dependent on the matters I discuss, not the other way around. Stone-turner (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for suggesting that I take a look at Ansei purge; and yes, there is an error in the writing about "Ansei no taigoku" in Japan Encyclopedia. --Ansei (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Japanese calendar
You may not realize that you have added ref list in the middle of the article. I have fixed it for you. BTW, could you please see if my revert is appropriate. I did it for consistency with the rest of the article where ō is used throughout. --Taweetham (talk) 06:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking out the ref list. I used it in the editing stage to check the footnotes and forgot to take it out.

For oo vs. ō: While strictly speaking tooka might be better, tōka can be considered standard. The long vowel in tooka like in several other words (toori, tooi, ookii) is written as oo in kana, while most long vowels ō represent the kana ou. However, the difference is almost never expresses in romanization, and my J-E dictionary uses a long mark for all of those. This usage is especially noticeable in proper names using a long o. Certainly no one writes "Oosaka." So your change was better. --Stone-turner (talk) 09:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=565284345 your edit] to Chinese calendar may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "A brief contemporary history of the Chinese calendar" Orion, Jahrgang 56, Nr. 287, 1998  Helmer Aslaksen, [http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/calendar/cal.pdf The mathematics

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)