User talk:Marudubshinki/Archive 37

Thanks for the corrections in Gonnosuke's article

Hey dude. Just wanna say "thanks" for the grammar (and other) corrections on the Muso Gonnosuke article. English isn't my native language and I'm fairly weak with grammar. ^^ Besides that there aren't many peeps (other than me) that are doing any work on the article, so I only have myself to rely on for correct spelling & grammar. Anyways, thanks again dude. --Fred26 13:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. When I was cruising through the articles in that sector, I sorta messed up and ended up adding my information to Jo (weapon), not the main Gonnosuke article like I should've, so you'll probably want to merge in the data I added in this diff.

Also, there seems to be something messed up in the general linking of articles; I found it very difficult to get to Jo (weapon) from Muso Gonnosuke, and I'm not sure, but I think some of the articles may need to be merged. --maru (talk) contribs 16:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan. I'll get on it and see how we can proceed with a merge... actually I've never done one before, but I'm guessing we can't lift the text from "jo" word by word. One thing though, the sources I used said the Kaijo Monogatari were written in 1629. Yours says it was in 1666. I'm gonna go through the source where I found my 1629-date and double-check it. Also, I am under the impression that the Jojutsu article should have a different heading. I think Jojutsu should be an article regarding all the various schools of jojutsu, together with martial arts that has jo-elements, instead of a mostly Shinto Muso-ryu article that it is today. There are other known schools of jojutsu elsewhere like Hoten Ryu jojutsu for instance, not related to SMR as far as I know. Also, "jodo" is now a redirect to "jojutsu". Since Jodo is the new renamed version of jojutsu, I think the redirect should be from jojutsu to jodo instead. I don't think seperate Jodo and Jojutsu articles are practicable either. Any thoughts on that? Best Regards dude. ^^Fred26 06:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the Kaijo is 1666- I'll quote for your delectation from Kenji Tokitsu's Musashi book (in which I haven't found any errors yet), pg 67:

"According to the Kaijo monogatari, a document written in 1666, this combat took place during Musashi's stay at Akashi. Here are the main points from this text:

Muso Gonnosuke was a big man who travelled with eight disciples. He dressed in an outer garment of a loud color, and attached to his shoulder was a strip of cloth on which was written in gold ink: "The greatest adept in the while history of Japan: Muso Gonnosuke."

One summer day, Gonnosuke visited Musashi to ask him to fight a duel. He said, "In the past, I had the opportunity of seeing the art of your father Munisai. Today I would like to see the art that you have developed."

At first Musashi tried to refuse the duel, saying, "My art is not very different from my father's." But Gonnosuke insisted. Musashi finally accepted his request and went down into the garden with a piece of a small bow he was in the process of making.

Gonnosuke was armed with his usual weapon, which was a staff reinforced with stell of about four shaku [1.2 meters] in length, and he attacked him without even bowing. For a while Musashi treated his opponent lightly, then seizing an opening, he struck him in the middle of the forehead. His adversary fell immediately.

After this experience, Gonnosuke persevered. He took up residence on Mount Homan-zan in the Chikuzen region [Fukuoka]. He developed his art further and ended up founding a school using a staff of four shaku and two sun [1.28 meters] in length. He named his school Shinto Muso ryu, because he had previously studied the swordsmanship of the Shinto ryu under the guidance of Sakurai Osuminokami Yoshikatsu. (27, p. 174)"

I'm fairly sure the 27 refers to an entry in the book's bibliography, for another book called Miyamoto Musashi no subete (Everything about Miyamoto Musashi), editted by Okada Kazuo and Kato Hiroshi, published 1983 in Tokyo by Shin jinbutsu orai sha. I don't think there's an English translation.

As for your merging ideas: Jojutsu should definitely be an overview of the field, and Shinto Muso ryu content split out to the actual article. Re: Jodo- the generaly practice seems to be to set the article on the most common name. I don't know whether Jodo or Jojutsu is more prevalent, so consider it. As for whether merging is applicable: are they the same art, simply with different names at different time periods? Or have there been real an substantial changes? --maru (talk) contribs 07:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... well, I don't read Japanese either... all I know is Wayne Muromoto, and a lot more authors describe the Kaijo as being written 1629. I just did a search for "Kaijo Monagatari 1629" and got plenty more results rather than with 1666. Seems we have a pickle here. We got multiple sources claiming 1629, and your source claiming 1666. Should we make a compromise? Like an edit that sounds something similar to this: "Kaijo Monagatari" is claimed to have been written in 1629 according to at least one source, although others claim it was written later in about 1666. (or maybe the dates can be changed). As for the jodo versus jojutsu bit. I believe the phrase "jodo" was coined by SMR-sensei Shimizu Takaji as one of his methods of making it more modern, (just like iaido was coined by Muso Shinden-ryu founder Nakayama Hakudo). I know of old schools using the name -jutsu instead of -do. But I am under the impression that "Jodo" is more of a western-style word nowadays, as opposed to the japanese schools that generally seems to use more -jutsu. "Jodo" as a word is also most widespread in the west, and since this is a western-wiki maybe we should make it into "jodo" instead of the more koryu "jutsu".

And if there is a significant difference between Jojutsu and Jodo today I haven't made any connections yet. Aikido and aikijutsu, for instance are two seperate entities, eventhough Ueshiba named his art Aikijutsu in its early stage. Iaido and Iaijutsu is in the same situation. Some japanese ryu train in Iaijutsu, eventhough Iaido is equally correct. (Iaijutsu are linked into iaido-article by the way). I believe that unless we decide to split the articles into "jodo" and "jojutsu", and treat them as a seperate entity with their own distinct history and modern representation, the term "jodo" should be used as it is the most frequent used term in the Western-world. (sorry for long message) Oh by the way, I'm already starting to incooperating some of the stuff you've written on Jo_Weapon into Muso Gonnosuke article. I'll use the above mentioned material as well. --Fred26 07:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In circumstances like this, 'tis best to source assertions, so I would write something along the lines of "Kenji Tokitsu dates the Kaijo to 1666, but Wayne Muromoto and some other authors give dates of 1629...". Incidentally, what did Muromoto write, anyway?

I'd agree with Judo. Easier to type anyways.

And I'm glad to help with Gonnosuke, especially since you're doing the writing. :) --maru (talk) contribs 01:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, yeh it's fun to write about Jodo and Gonnosuke. :) As of now I'm concentrating on SMR-article for the simple reason it needs alot more work than the Gonnosuke-article. Anyways, I'll use the above type of expression regarding the Kaijo in the Gonnosuke-article. I've also done an inquiry on E-budo.com forums regarding the age of the Kaijo. If anything solid turns up I'll notify you. I'll start on the major revamping of jojutsu/jodo as soon as I manage to scrape together some info on the various Jojutsu-schools and current status. --Fred26 10:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

Just to answer yer question about what Muramoto wrote in one of his articles I used as a reference: "However, the first records of such a duel is found in the Kaijo Monogatari, written in 1629. The gist of its version was subsequently published in the Jodo Kyoshi." Now obviously Muramoto might be mistaken of the date or maybe there is something else that he forgot to mention. Like that the scroll was created in 1629 but was kept through the years and added upon until at least 1666. It's up for personal interpretation I guess. Hm... maybe he is registered at e-budo.com forums... I could send him a PM and ask him to be a bit more specific. If he is active there I'll send him a PM. I'll let you know. (I still haven't gotten a reply on my Kaijo inquiry on the main e-budo forums by the way). --Fred26 06:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article where? Online or in an anthology of some sort? (And good luck at e-budo.) --maru (talk) contribs 14:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh in an online article at www.furyu.com. [1]. I've sent him a PM at the forum regarding the issue but I prolly wont get a reply until tomorrow due to the Time-zone difference. --Fred26 14:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit! I cant seem to move the article from jojutsu to jodo. There is a jodo_disambiguation page blocking the way. :P Can you do anything about it? --Fred26 10:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved jujutsu to jodo, added a disambig tag, and updated some links. --maru (talk) contribs 20:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement on trumpet

Is this an advertisement?

A recent book, Sound The Trumpet: How To Blow Your Own Horn by Jonathan Harnum covers a wide range of material, particularly for students without access to individual instruction. The trumpet is not an instrument that is easily self taught. As with other wind instruments, it is easy to develop improper technique which inhibits a player's success and can even prove injurious.

It is off of the trumpet page. --The ed17 20:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I've added a template warning it sounds like advertising to that section of the page. --maru (talk) contribs 23:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

? (re: source of assertion)

You asked where a certain piece of info came from in this edit. The dual-wielding of double-bladed vibrostaves came from the fact that Exar Kun often used his double-bladed lightsaber with one hand. Therefore, it might be possible to wield two this way. However, I'm not sure 'bout that, so thats why its only a rough draft ;) --M ^o P 02:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You probably already know what I'm gonna say, but if there isn't any source, it sounds implausible (and very difficult- a single double-bladed weapon is hard enough to wield in two hands (did you notice in TotOR that Kun only switched to a single hand temporarily, usually switching back to two hands as he actually struck?), and two doubles? Nah.), and so we probably shouldn't include it.

While we're talking about the article, did you incorporate everything the Wookieepedia article had? I'm fairly sure I saw some tidbits and external/internal links a while back in it that would be good to have. --maru (talk) contribs 02:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Wolfe

What's the reasoning for your having reverted the listing of Gene Wolfe's Innocents Aboard to Innocents Abroad? While the spelling for the original linked page uses abroad, it now forwards to the aboard spelling. A look at the cover should be enough to demonstrate the correct title. --Kiddeath talk 19:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it before, and it linked to Abroad, so I thought it was correct... Now I think I may have confused it with Messr. Twain's Innocents Abroad. I've fixed all the links to the article now. Sorry about this. --maru (talk) contribs 03:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A favor

Maru: Could I ask a favor of you being that my account was taken over again? Could you check my email? This is User: Xchrisblackx

You mean emails sent to you through Wikipedia? I'm fairly sure admins can't get a user's mail- privacy concerns &etc. Incidentally, you seriously need to improve your computer security if you've lost your account a second time. --maru (talk) contribs 01:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links vs. references

Regarding your revert at Guard (computing): It seems I have to explain this to you: References are references and external links are external links. A reference is something that has been used as a source for an article, and it can in addition be available on the net and thus linked. An external link is like wikilink but not inline, like a see-also but to an external site. Please see Wikipedia:Cite_sources#Further reading/external links before trying to once again show how you're more right. --TuukkaH 18:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I would appreciate it if you could be a tad more civil and not say things like "before trying to once again show how you're more right." Thanks. --maru (talk) contribs 01:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to say that I too would appreciate if you could be a lot more civil? I feel you just say you don't understand unless I'm explicit. To explicate here what I consider uncivil this time: Editing several pages I've recently contributed to in a manner I've complained about and that we're still discussing. Going to revert war instead of asking for clarifications first, and putting a message in the edit summary, including a link to a random guideline. This in a case where you were wrong. --TuukkaH 14:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

How would I add an image to the Wykon page from the school's wykon page? --The ed17 18:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of picture uploading and inclusion is a deep and involved one; I don't have enough time to explain it, and I could do it as well as Wikipedia:Images anyway. --maru (talk) contribs 01:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clone Wars

I moved the article because Star Wars: Clone Wars and Star Wars: The Clone Wars were moved by someone who feared readers might be confused on what is what as far as the Clone Wars pages go. So I thought I might as well move Clone Wars to help them out. BUT, I say that all three be moved back to their original pages because they do not have the exact same titles. That would be the only situation where differences should be noted in the titles. --The Wookieepedian 23:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those reasons aren't particularly good. This sort of thing is exactly why we have disambiguations at the top of the articles. I think I'll move'em back. --maru (talk) contribs 01:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. :) --The Wookieepedian 02:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (88/3/1), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you require assistance, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an administrator. Once again thank you and with kind regards Gryffindor 16:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! May adminship not be a diabolical genie that gave you exactly what you asked for... :) --maru (talk) contribs 18:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marmot

Disrespect_to_Taccloo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Soiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The_Suassage_Factory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sammy_the_turd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Apology_Accepted (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These are MARMOT sock, he is talking to me about it on irc. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for asking, but why are you bringing these socks to my attention? They've already been indef blocked, one and all. --maru (talk) contribs 18:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They werent blocked when I was checking. Sorry for the troble. You cant blame me the anti-vandal system is so efficent. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not totally efficient. I've been running into a bug lately wherein if you go to a username-with-spaces-in-it's contributions, and try to click on block log (or block, as well), it truncates the name at the first space. A pain in the rear indeed. --maru (talk) contribs 19:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... maybe a small modification to the Wiki itself would fix this. A simple   -> %20 conversion should do it. (Either that, or to an underscore--whichever the Wiki prefers). --SheeEttin 00:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sho' nuff. But I haven't heard anyone else complain of it, so I'm guessing it was either fixed or peculiar to my own self. --maru (talk) contribs 04:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was fixed. Jedi6 -(need help?) 04:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]