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)
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)
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)
I went and added the canonization rumor parts to the article, with the clarification that there are no historical documents to prove it.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)
Hi Stone-turner,
Thanks for helping with Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. Here's an invitation to visit Wikipedia: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
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)
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)
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)
You may not realize that you have added ref list in the middle of the article [1]. I have fixed it for you. BTW, could you please see if my revert [2] 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)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
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
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 05:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Stone-turner. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Stone-turner. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)