User talk:Nlf7

Sources on the Shinsengumi

hello I am the writer of the article on Ichimura Tetsunosuke, and have added minor facts to several other pages. I was just wondering what your sources on the Shinsengumi are. I personally do not use websites for my research, as I find them to be unreliable. Instead my research on the Shinsengumi has come from a printed book. The note about March 5 was my mistake. The date given in my book is May 5 and I accidentally typed March I suppose. But I would be very interested to know your sources. Wolf0fmibu 18:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Yes, I agree with you 100%, websites are generally unreliable. I've always checked the references before including a website in my research. By doing so, I've also came up with a list of books to buy and have bought quite a few of them. I currently have about 20 books and dozens of websites on the Shinsengumi. Most of the sources are in Japanese. I don't read Japanese that well so I've been reading them rather slowly. Nlf7 22:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that's impressive. I'm wanting to minor in Japanese studies and hope to be able to do some research in Japan in a few years. The book I'm using is Shinsengumi by Romulus Hillsborough. Any opinions on the accuracy of this book? Wolf0fmibu 23:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've also bought "Shinsengumi: The Shogun's Last Samurai Corps" by Hillsborough, but I haven't had the chance to read it. I'll let you know my opinions on the accuracy of this book later. Nlf7 00:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shinsengumi

Thank you for yor advice. Could you make the template so that a lot of users may edit it easily?　--HaradaSanosuke 15:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New contents have been inserted to several articles on the Shinsengumi. (History templates haven't been used before.) Seven 17:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Nlf7, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Ton e 16:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helpme

Even though I've been using Wikipedia for years, I've only decided to become a Wikipedian a few days ago to correct the source of some incorrect claims.

I've done quite a amount of editing in the past few days. I've found some editors to be somewhat irresponsible, proving information without checking the facts first. I've left messages on talk pages following the guidelines.

However, I've been told by Wikipedian [jni] that such messages are meaningless (our conversation could be found on [jni ]'s talk page. ) Am I supposed to stop leaving messages on talk pages? Aren't we supposed to follow the guidelines? Is there nothing I could do to keep people from writing stuff that they think is true, (instead of writing stuff that is true)? Nlf7 11:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jni has some very good points. Importantly, while Wikipedia:Check your facts is a good idea - it's not a policy, and the policy certainly isn't to visit every user you can and complain. So yes, stop leaving the messages. Concentrate on building the encyclopedia instead.--Commander Keane 11:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your record carefully. I've left messages only on the pages of those responsible for providing wrong information. I've NOT meant to complain, but to provide them with accurate information and in order to keep them from reversing the edits I've made.Nlf7 12:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make the accurate change with a good edit summary. If they revert, drop a note on their talk page and discuss on the article's talk page. That's how things are done. It's unlikely they will revert (or even notice) and thus it's a waste of your time, their time and Wikipedia's resources to tell someone every time you correct a mistake. --Commander Keane 12:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. Is proving accurate information a waste of our time? Isn't that better than spending time on writing unchecked "facts" or wasting time on reading them?

I could've easily deleted all their information without explanations. Instead, I've taken time to find a way to keep as much as possible. For example, in regard of the Kondo article, instead of deleting "he was beheaded as a direct result of being falsely accused of the murder of Sakamoto Ryoma," I've re-written it to be "in NHK's drama series, he was beheaded as a direct result of being falsely accused of the murder of Sakamoto Ryoma." Since I've never watched the drama series, I had to do a little research before writting it in. I've not only made changes but also provided a little information on the drama series, haven't I??? Nlf7 12:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to articles are clearly beneficial and we appreciate them greatly! Please continue. I was speaking of telling people on their talk pages. Often they will have forgotten the edit, (since it was made long ago) so telling them is of little use. But by all means, continue to improve articles!--Commander Keane 12:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree with Commander Keane here, there are lots of people in Wikipedia some edit an article for minor things, some edit lots of articles over long periods of time and others concentrate on specific areas, I'd only worry about telling people of changes if they have editted the article quite recently (less than a month say) and I think my edit might be controversial. If I'm making big changes or possible controversial changes I'd mention it on the articles discussion page too. Improving articles is certainly more than worthwhile. --pgk^(talk) 13:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was thinking that, if someone made changes on my edits, I'd like to know it and the reason. (Obviously, in my case, I wouldn't forget an edit I made...) Last question (I promise), should I delete all the messages I've left on other's talk pages? Nlf7 13:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete the messages, that may further confuse (since they will still get the messages banner etc). The way to keep track of your edits it to use the Watchlist. This is the accepted way that editors monitor changes to what they have written (and why there is no need to inform them). --Commander Keane 13:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(the following message is for Commander Keane) Commander Keane. there is NO need for you to reply to this message immediately.

In your 2nd message, you indicated that it was unlikely others would revert or even notice the changes made to their edits. In your 4th message, you said that since the way to keep track of one's edits was to use the Watchlist, there was no need to inform them of the changes made.

Would others be aware of the changes made to their edits, or wouldn't they?

For a long time, I'd seen inaccurate information or nonsense on a number of articles and had seen people in disputes because of such inaccurate information. I was here when some of the mistakes were edited into the artcles. I didn't wish to get myself involved in hope that editors would realize their errors and correct them eventually. However, the "chain reaction" continued and I finally decided to edit the articles myself. To avoid disputes later on, I left messages on the talk pages of selected editors. (I won't do that again, of course.)

I believe that you would be able to understand the reasons for my concern. In any case, I won't spend any more time on the issue. I apologize for any inconvenience, Nlf7 04:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your statement and don't really have anything more to say.--Commander Keane 04:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution on Shishio Makoto

Character section for Shishio Makoto. It displayed some of his strengths and his fierceness in battle, while stating some of the events that turned him into his mummy-like state. As a contribution I added that putting aside his truly marvelous skills, in the Kyoto Arc where he becomes the nemesis, he faces heavily injured foes. Kenshin, Sanosuke and Saito had vicious bouts each with the top three Juppongatana, plus Kenshin had to fight Shinomori Aoshi before his encounter with Seta Sojiro. Sagara Sanosuke beat Anji the Destroyer, but recieved various Futae no Kiwami (Anji's ougi) which crippled him considerably. Hajime Saito destroyed Usui's Shingan technique along with his life, but not before getting deep wounds on both legs. Himura Kenshin had two near death matches with both Shinomori Aoshi and Seta Sojiro, where he had to pull his ougi (Amakakeru Ryu no Hirameki)to beat both of them, draining additional energy aside from his wounds. Finally, Shinomori Aoshi, who fought Shishio to buy time for Kenshin, had taken the full impact of an Amakakeru Ryu no Hirameki. Shishio knew all of this and took full advantage of the situation. In fact, he was beaten as the 15 minute time limit got way beyond him, not for the strength of his opponents. This is not made up; check the series or the manga. This is no meaningful insight; these are facts that were brought up. I'm not stating their will to fight or shishio's lust for power, just bringing a perspective that wasn't present in the article and is present in the manga and series. The bouts are real, the opponents are real, and the injuries inflicted are real. 66.50.84.156

It is worthy mentioning according to what source? it cannot be discarded that he fought against heavily injured opponents, according to what source? If it is worthy mentioning according to you and it cannot be discarded according to you, then the contribution is based on personal interpretations.

To tell you the truth, I'd have kept part of your most recent contribution if you didn't repeatedly edit the articles (regarding Jin-e and Shishio) not only with facts, but also with inaccurate info and personal interpretations. Therefore, I've learned to basically revert your contribution that's not all based on verifiable facts.

In an interview contained in Kenshin Kaden, Watsuki said that he was too into the character of Shishio so he had made Shishio the strongest of Kyoto Arc.

Udō Jin-e is not the only character that has a decided advantage over Kenshin (in his wanderer personna). In addition, Kaoru isn't saved by Kenshin. She overcomes the Shin no Ippō by herself.

Saito, for example, is another character that has such a deiced advantage over Kenshin.

From Vol 7, Act 52

Kenshin: . . . Udou Jin’eh was twisted from the beginning, but you weren’t. In the days of the Bakumatsu, even though you were vicious, if you fought, it was by a fair and honorable challenge. Attacking an enemy’s friends to scare him, setting your dog on him and using that opening to take hostages--such cheap tricks would have been beneath you.

From Vol 7, Act 53

Saitou (thinking): . . . Since he’s settled here he’s fought Zanza, the Oniwabanshuu, Shinomori Aoshi and Raijuuta all in a short time. He’s learned to accept victory by awakening the strength of the Hitokiri that sleeps inside him. It’s as I thought. When he picks up the sword, although he doesn’t know it --little by little he’s reverting to Hitokiri Battousai.

Kaoru (thinking): It’s the same . . . it’s exactly the same as with Jin’eh . . .

From Vol 7, Act 57

Kenshin: ...But if, as in the fight with Saitou, I have already returned to Battousai . . . In my days here, while my heart was at ease, I felt like I had changed from the Hitokiri to an ordinary swordsman . . . But the fight with Saitou forced me to realize it...

Kaoru: ...No matter how close you were to Battousai, you were still Kenshin! The time with Saitou and the time with Jin’eh were the same!

Kenshin: . . . With Jin’eh, I became Battousai in order to save you, and your voice was able to bring me back. But with Saitou, I became Battousai only for the sake of the duel. Therefore even your voice couldn’t reach me. The difference is crucial. Seven 23:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki dates

Wikipedia has a prefered format for dates which I am sure is the yyyy-mm-dd. I am trying to refind the place where it says that - do you have something which says otherwise.Peter Rehse 07:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it mm-dd-yyyy??? Isn't the yyyy-mm-dd format for Japanese/Chinese/Korean articles?

I'll double check on that. Seven 07:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking because I was merrily changing dates - heaven forbid I was making a hash of it. I just refound Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) which does not exclude what you changed it to. However, I was told that wikipedia prefers the complete date.Peter Rehse 07:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check 1.9 Dates of birth and death section.

Yes, in 1.7 Incorrect date formats section, it does say: Do not use numbers to express a month, except in ISO 8601 format. Always express a month as a whole word (e.g. “February” not “2”). Seven 07:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that sorts that out - I made hash. Thanks for pointing it out.Peter Rehse 08:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! :) Seven 08:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Shinsengumi

"Further Reading" is not the same as a reference for an article, but regardless, someone did a great job in cleaning it up. --Kuuzo 06:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I changed "Further reading" to "References and further reading" (since those two books could be used as references for the article. Seven 06:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template for Rurouni Kenshin

Hello, err do you think its better if we updated the current character template or made a new one? I ask this as the minor characters, such as Makoto Shishio, Himura Kenji and Seijuro Hiko are not listed anywhere in the template. They are of fair importance, so I'm just asking your opinion. I'm still quite new to wikipedia and I'm not so good at templates, so do you know where is the location of the existing one located? Thanks.--Hanaichi 13:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the Rk minor character page.

To comply with Wikipedia's Manual of Style guidelines on page names I have moved Rurouni Kenshin minor characters to List of Rurouni Kenshin characters. Just so you know why I did that=). I have also added several pictures of the Juppongattana.--Hanaichi 12:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo.

Sorry to bother you again, but I have to ask and you might know about it. Why is the Rurouni Kenshin characters name all in Jap format, with family name then given name, instead of eng? --Hanaichi 09:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The policy dictates that people in Meiji-era should be written as family name + given name. Seven 22:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Second Samurai X OVA is non-canon...

...so why aren't you allowing people to indicate that? It's non-canon, hell it changed many aspects of the battles that were in the canon manga. So why are you keeping it as 'canon' when it clearly isn't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperSaiyaMan (talk • contribs) 14:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article is Himura Kenshin, this info doesn't have to be repeated. Additionally, such info shouldn't be written in the section title. Anyway, I've moved that down to a paragraph in the section.Seven 16:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{help}} If an article is translated from the foreign language version, it has to be listed on the bottom of the page, right? Seven (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes. -Go od sh op ed 03:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think so too. Can anyone else confirm it? Seven (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]