User talk:RogueNinja/Archives/2007/December
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Karate Article
Regardless of differences you can't just revert good faith edits made by other editors. I'm more than willing to discuss disagreements as I have in the past in this article. Please take your disagreements to the discussion page instead of reverting my edits.Melonbarmonster 21:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- You have to ignore or not know East Asian history to make a statement like that. Please take this discussion to the talk page of the Karate article. Thanks.Melonbarmonster 21:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Breaking
I saw your edit. I think it might be fair to say that traditional karate schools do not place an emphasis on breaking, but even traditional Tae Kwon Do schools do. How should we modify your edit in this light if you agree?
Now you are playing a smart guy
Everything that I maked in templarate you erased whitout saying to me, what are you doing are bad and I will stand in your way. Snake bgd12:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Request for Mediation
|
A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Karate.
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
|
- I've closed this mediation out as successful. Please see my concluding note at Talk:Karate/Mediation#Mediation concluded. Thank you for your participation.
- For the Mediation Committee, Daniel Bryant 11:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 09:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Karate Mediation
Can you respond to the mediator's request for consent? Thanks.melonbarmonster 06:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
re: More Fudokan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Fouders_of_Fudokan has been listed for speedy deletion, per WP:SNOW. All the other fudokan articles (Save fudokan itself, which is undergoing AfD, and Illia Jorga, which I will list after fudokan closes), have been deleted, leading me to believe that nobody would contest a proposed deletion of this template, so therefore I have CSD'd it.
Thank you, RogueNinja
- RogueNinja (talk · contribs)
- I'd say that if Fudokan is deleted, we can delete this template. Thanks, Fang Aili talk 20:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
What are you thinking that you are some smart guy
You think that i don't whach you. You are so wrong. If I see you again to try to delete my emproved acticle, than I when I become admistrator on wikipedia erased you as a user. OK so don't played whit me. Fudokan now has refernces, origis, and anyone how has a little brain will not deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snake bgd (talk • contribs) 10:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
Snowball speedy
Alright, I see where you're coming from. We don't really have a speedy criterion for that though - and this looks like a low-traffic enough page that proposed deletion, which has a lot more leeway (you can basically delete anything as long as nobody complains in the timeframe). (ESkog)(Talk) 17:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, reading the rest of your talk page, what you are saying makes more sense. I would have deleted this when Fudokan was deleted. Getting there now. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
KHDS-LP
As an administrator I determined that the article in question did not meet the speedy deletion requirements. It is a licensed station as supported by the standard external link to the FCC database that was included in the article. I believe that it is a valid stub. Vegaswikian 21:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Your MedCom Nom
Per the two oppose rule, your nomination to the Mediation Committee has been declined. Your nomination has been delisted and archived here. Please note that a new policy was recently enacted in which a user cannot reapply within 3 months of their last declined nomination. However, we recommend that you take this opportunity to use the comments made at your nomination to improve yourself not only as a potential mediator, but as an editor of Wikipedia in general. Thanks again for your interest.
The user Fang Ailitalk is let me put my article on my page
It is not you to decide if my article will be put on my user page,because other user have agread that if article is not adicvated to Wikipeida stanrds it shoud put in User page. And this last time that i write a message to you.Snake BGDtalk 13:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Mediation request
Thanks for getting to it! I'm actually not a participant, I just happened upon the situation and it looked like it could use some cooling down. Hope all goes well with it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
almost competitive reverting against a bot which makes it all that much more fun. Think it's actually reverted now.Slysplace | talk 00:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Infor Global Solutions
Your CSD template states: "If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself." I did not create the article and i intent to fix it which is what i stated in my edit summary. If you want me to 'only' use {{hangon}} then you have to state it in your template text. I'm removing it. If you choose to reinsert it, modify the template text.Pdelongchamp 02:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Humorous edit summary
This diff [1] made me smile a bit. ;-) Yamaguchi先生 02:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- That is correct. Yamaguchi先生 02:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
re: Snake BGD
According to this user in this message, you told him to host his deleted pages in his user space. Is this true? If so, I will not persue this apparent violation of WP Policy.
Thanks! RogueNinjatalk 16:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- That link didn't work for me, but yes I did userfy one article for Snake bgd so that he could finish it. (It had been speedied as empty.) If his articles have since been AfD'd, they should stay deleted. Cheers, Fang Aili talk 13:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Then again, there is some grey area here. Usually if a user is a Wikipedian (and not a single purpose account), I personally would allow extra leway in regards to what is allowed in that user's space. But if the person is just using Wikipedia as a webhost, then I'm more picky. But that's just how I play it. --Fang Aili talk 13:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I see that you are asking --Fang Aili about my article
Nevermind i don't wont to insolt you, but what i want is how to prove to you that Fudokan is legal school. Tell me,and we could stop this fight. Snake BGDtalk 11:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Question
Though related to the subject of the mediation.
Based on the references that Smee provided, in your view, LGAT is NPOV.
I am willing to accept that you have come to that conclusion but I'm unclear how you arrived at it and am not sure you understand my claim that LGAT is fundamentally a POV label.
If a term can be defined by anyone who uses it and then applied to any organization they want; and if no universally accepted scientific definition applies against which a test can be run to qualify a company...
Wouldn't that be the very essence of POV/Opinion?
Meaning, the definition of the term and thus an organization's qualification to be included as LGAT, is completely dependent on the pov of the author. I'm not saying that articles are violating WP:POV, because they are technically citing referenced sources.
Maybe I'm using the wrong wording? Opinion/POV?
For example, there is a very scientific qualification to be a dog. Everyone knows what a dog is and a strict scientific test can be run on an animal to determine its dog status. I can write a book and claim that my cat is a dog, but I would be dismissed as a nut, because, although I am entitled to my opinion, it is absurd to make such a claim when it is scientifically unsound.
In contrast, with a very vague definition of LGAT, any author can label virtually any seminar/training organization as LGAT. One definition includes seminars which are unusually long in duration. It fails to define unusually long and some of the companies cited as LGAT do not have long seminars.
If it isn't fundamentally a POV term, what is it?
Perhaps an even more insightful question is: What would be an example of a term or label that is not NPOV?
Your thoughts are appreciated. Lsi john 00:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- thank you
Thank you for the time you spent with the mediation.
You may archive this section at your convenience.
-Peace in God Lsi john 15:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
makiwara
yes, the link did have a section on makiwaras, actually - and it included information that was not in the article. How do you make the website jump down to that section initially? Tkjazzer 18:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
website interview section: http://www.okinawankarateandkobudoinstitute.com/seikichi_iha.htm
Interviewer: Sensei, it appears that you favor using the makiwara punching post. Can you tell me a little about its use?
Sensei: There are two kinds of makiwara. One is called a Shuri-makiwara and it stands to the height of the instructor's breast bone. The other is called a Naha-makiwara. The Naha-makiwara was mainly used by goju-ryu practitioners. It stood as high as the instructor's solar plexus (the bottom of the breast bone).
The shorin-ryu practitioner would stand up in the kihon dachi (basic short stance) and throw the punch at the board. The goju-ryu practitioner would punch from a shikko dachi (square stance).
The dojo usually had two kinds of makiwara. One was a soft/pliant makiwara and the other one was usually a stiff/hard makiwara. The soft one was used to develop speed and form while the stiff one was used to develop power. Both had to be used. If they were not, then you would develop problems with the shoulder. Nowadays, most Okinawan practitioners use only the Shuri-style makiwara because the Naha-makiwara is too difficult and hard to use.
The soft makiwara is off center about five inches. The measurement is from the tip of the thumb to the tip of the forefinger. By punching the soft makiwara, you end up with the board in an upright position -- this way you make sure that you are using the correct knuckles. Tkjazzer 18:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood my proposal about makiwara and hojo undo. Could you please read my additional comments in the discussion section of Talk:Makiwara and update your explanation. Thanks. --Scott Alter 00:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Nurse Anesthesia
With all due respect, please do not edit the Nurse Anestheist page unless you are a nurse anesthetist or have correct information. Please use the talk page first to add suggestions. Nurse anesthetist do administer all types of anesthesia and cases, including neuro and open heart. I have worked as a CRNA for 17 years and myself and other CRNAs routinely do these cases. Limitations on practice are subject to the hospital's policy and the CRNA's credentials. I have been to conferences and met CRNA's that only do neuro or only do CABGs as their full time practice. Eclipse Anesthesia 00:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I trained at a large metropolitan hospital where CRNAs were the primary providers of cardio/thoracic anesthesia. Please don not edit pages without expertise in that topic.Aestiva 14:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you think that this template is still needed on the karate articles? I had removed it from Shorin-ryu when I began expanding the bottom navigation bars for all of martial arts. The {{Karate schools}} template encompasses all of the styles listed in {{Major Styles of Karate}}, and is already on every page listed in the Major styles template. Also, the placement of this template at the top of the article detracts from the actual content of the style. I would like to see the "Major Styles of Karate" template completely removed, since the "Karate schools" template is already in its place. --Scott Alter 19:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree in uniformity - so all or none should have it. But I have a couple problems with keeping it:
- Placement - Putting this at the top of each article detracts from the actual content of the article. I like the infobox to be first, but pushing this template down makes it out of place (when among content solely about the page you are on).
- Definition - What exactly is "major"? People constantly are adding other styles to this template, but who is to say which ones are valid and which are not?
- Redundancy - This template includes 8 styles, while the "Karate schools" template (on all of these pages), includes 18 styles.
- More redundancy - Many of the individual pages contain internal links to other styles within the text of the article.
We should move this discussion to a more public location to elicit more feedback. Maybe Template talk:Major Styles of Karate or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial Arts. --Scott Alter 04:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, it seems like Aikido is having a similar issue with Template:Major styles of aikido. This template was recently removed from use. --Scott Alter 16:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
SDS-PAGE
Would you please tell me why you keep deleting the passage about "anomalous migration of proteins"?
hi, you reverted my edit to the article on karate. I humbly admit I am not a native speaker of English, and thus my command of this language is not excellent. However, you could have polished the sentence, instead of eliminating the whole information (which as I believe may be interesting to people training karate). While I myself have been training karate for over 10 years, I do realize that its origins are a point of a major debate. Many point to wushu/kungfu as being "the original" and this ambiguity should be reflected in the article.
some more readings in this old discussion.
Pundit|utter 02:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
In this revert you deleted not only the new section on some Kenkojuku style, but also a valuable link correction from Gi to Gi. Please, be more careful the next time you use TW. When keeping articles clean, it is easy to cut good edits out as well :) Pundit|utter 15:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
per kenkojuku - it does not satisfy the criteria for PROD in my view. You are welcome to start AFD, but I would suggest giving the courtesy week for the author to look for references and external resources to support the article - after all I expressed my doubts on notability of the style only yesterday and the author is a newcomer to Wikipedia, who may need some time to learn about the policies and improve the article accordingly. take care Pundit|utter 17:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. A7 is importance criterion, and this is exactly what I suggested needs establishing, when I added a proper tag, requesting proving notability. Kenkojuku has dojos in different states. Also, it is more notable in google than shotorenmei or "North American Karate Do Federation", not to mention "American Shotokan Karate Federation". It definitely does exist, is a particular shotokan school with dojos in more than one state, and (better than some others) does derive from Funakoshi's direct student who, at first glance, is notable. The only concern is how notable his own federation is, all in all. I am not sure if I will vote to keep it, but I believe it is justified to give it a chance to add valid external sources for now. Taking into account the given doubts, definitely not an SD or PROD anyway. Pundit|utter 18:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
re: Citations
If one article (Karate in this case) draws on material from another article (Japan, which is well cited), is it possible to cite the article on Japan, to get rid of criticism about having uncited material?
Thanks! RogueNinjatalk 17:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- I do not think so. I tried to find the relevant bit on a policy page, but could not. But because Wikipedia is ever-changing, it's not a good idea to cite one page to support another. This is why schoolchildren are not supposed to cite Wikipedia. If Japan article has solid sources, why not pick them up at the library and use them to source karate? Cheers, Fang Aili talk 22:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
btw, you may be interested in the template I created - it is more general than shotokan (after all, ...there is only one karate...). Pundit|utter 17:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- oh, silly of me not to mention - they mean "karate-do" :) Pundit|utter 17:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Mycobacterium aurum speedy deletion declined
This is obviously an article about a strain of bacteria. It needs improvement rather than deletion. Thanks. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 18:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
F90 Gundam Formula 90
Hi. Please be sure to start a new page when starting a subsequent AfD nomination. I did it, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F90 Gundam Formula 90 (2nd nomination). Thanks. --Alfadog (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
shotokan
It seems you had difficulties in reading the second part of the sentence. it said ...one of the oldest traditional Japanese karate-do organizations in the United States as well as one of the largest Shotokan organizations led by a non-Japanese director.. The author meant the fact, that there are not many older or larger shotokan organizations run by non-Japanese. Anyway, the dubious sentence was not a justified reason to cut out the whole paragraph. The justified reason is here - so that you know for the future, if the user keeps on adding to the article. Pundit|utter 16:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)