User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2009/July

Adoption

I am seeking to be adopted on wiki, i would like to learn more of the ropes on here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deltarocks (talk • contribs) 14:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC) --Deltarocks (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not your own homepage

Stop everything revert to your unlogical writing. I know you are a strongness votary of Han chauvinism, but wikipedia is not your own homepage so you can't write any wrong stuff. --Jordanmiguelli (talk) 03:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jordanmiguelli

I am not Han or chauvinist. If you doubt the Chinese origins of Karate you should read the history and particularly the etymology sections of the karate page and supporting references. If you still think the page should be changed start a discussion on the talk page to resolve the issue. Oos!--Charles (talk) 09:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw your contributions and you seem changing every facts to wrong Chinese propaganda version. The original Karate is based on Okinawan te and influenced by some uknown Chinese martial arts but you are trying to twist the origin. Influenced ≠ Originated. Ratekatara (talk) 09:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have good evidence to support your opinions discuss it on the talk page.--Charles (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Evidence????? It's only your problem. Do you understand the word which is called "ORIGIN". Karate is OKINAWAN MARTIAL ART and created in OKINAWA. How can you change the ORIGIN of Karate to China?? If you want keep your style, Put INDIAN flag on Every single Chinese(IDIAN) culuture then. You are saying like Kung Fu is INDIAN martial arts. --Ratekatara (talk) 09:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Read the history. Okinawan nobleman were often educated in China. Chinese military advisers helped Okinawans fight the Japanese. Some of the katas are Chinese in origin. Stop pushing you narrow point of view.--Charles (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it is called "Influenced" and it's not called "Origin". You never see others logic.

>Some of the katas are Chinese

What is the name of the Kata called? Even those "influenced" evidences are wrote in after Meiji period. And do you know the name of the Chinese martial arts which influenced to first Karate? It called 昭林流 and 昭霊流. However, those two schools never existed in China.

And how about Taekwondo? In Taekwondo case, they took many method of Karate but you never put Japan flag in to the Taekwondo's Origin. Why? because you want just support the Han chauvinism. I disagree to put the Japan flag on to Taekwondo's Origin. Taekwondo is influenced by Karate but Taekwondo is Korean martial arts and it dosen't belong to Japanese martial arts. But if your messed logic is correct, we must put Japan flag on to Taekwondo's origin then. --Ratekatara (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Church Norton

Church Norton is right next to the Inner Owers at the entrance to Pagham Harbour, so if Aella couldn't see the settlement then he would have been blind. http://stream.port.ac.uk/environment/scopac5/epag/index.htm The Owers are a corruption of the Franch Les Ours (The Bears) http://www.rhs.ac.uk/bibl/wwwopac.exe?&qDB=catalo&DATABASE=dcatalo&LANGUAGE=0&rf=200108261&SUCCESS=false The Owers are actually a series of rocks not sandbanks.

Early maps show that Pagham Harbour did not exist then, which means Keynor Rife would have exited to the sea at Church Norton adjacent to the Owers! I did not say that Aella settled at Church Norton, I suggested that he established a bridgehead there. The fact Aldsworth established that there was a Romano-British settlement there and it possibly was a look out tower which means that the locals would probably have seen the Saxon ships. .--Wilfrid (talk)

This is all very interesting and plausible, but it is all speculation. Wikipedia deals in facts not speculation. It is fine to report what the Anglo-Saxon chronicle said about Aelle as long as it is made clear that this is unverifiable. As you said on your talk page, before removing it, we cannot even be sure that Aelle was a real person.--Charles (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Fact The Owers are rocks not sandbanks, check any chart or map. The Inner Owers are at the mouth of Pagaham harbour fact. Church Norton is part of what would have been Seal Island (Selsea) and the nearest settlement to the Owers, looking at erosion patterns they would have been the coastline in Aella's time. Keynor Rife empties into Pagam Harbour. Whether Keynor is the Cymenshore in the AS Charters, or whether Cymenshore is Cumenshore in the Charters of Selsey more specualtive. Please check your facts. I am now bored with this. .--Wilfrid (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.3.33 (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as the names Keynor/ Cumenshore/ Cymensora thought you might be interested in this response from the Inst of Name-studies. "None of spellings for the name Keynor has the consistent genitive singular -(e)s of Cymenes ora.  That and the generally-accepted location of Cymenes ora at The Owers make this problematic (though I admit the proximity of the two names is curious). Good wishes,

Institute for Name-Studies School of English Studies University of Nottingham" --(Wifrid (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.3.33 (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Did You Know question

Hello! Your submission of New Lipchis Way at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Art LaPella (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism Edit

Thanks for removing the terrorism edit in the Barbary corsairs page, I was told by my teachers that they were terrorists, so I assumed that this would have reasonable credibility. I will do some independent research, and if I find that they perhaps were terrorists, I will make a post in the talk page. Thanks for the correction! 98.19.144.17 (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologise if I reverted a good faith edit without explanation. It looked like the usual daily vandalism and misinformation that comes from unregistered users; consider creating a user account. I would be interested to know where you are taught. Bank robbers often cause terror among their victims but would not be called terrorists unless they happened to also have political motives.--Charles (talk) 09:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)