User talk:Cap j

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, per ruling of administrators, Jimbo Wales and/or the Arbitration Committee. See the block log.

Welcome!

Hello, Cap j, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

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:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Dr Debug (Talk) 00:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] My proposed clarifying note to the Shotokan page

"==Notes==

This note was disputed; the two competing versions are shown below -- see Talk:Shotokan (See the Change History if necessary: from the end of Feb. through the beginning of Apr. 2006 -- discussion page content might be removed to reduce its size).

1. This transliteration is a homonym with a different meaning elsewhere of "short sword" (see shoto). The Kanji from Funakoshi's original text (of [1]), however, has no similarity. The Kanji for shoto, "pine waves", is (松涛). The first character is (松), which means pine tree. The second character (涛) is a Kanji variant of (濤), which means large wave. The Kanji for shoto, short sword, is (小刀). The first character is (小), meaning small, and the second character is (刀), meaning blade.

1. Shoto is also a homonym of Shoto."

Edit summary: Added back Note 1. It is I who have legitimacy. "Please try to avoid reverts and deletions wherever possible" (-Wikipedia help pages)

Revised - Cap j 02:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

(Belt Colors:) It is not true that this system was adopted in order to give Western students a sense of progression over time.

[edit] Common Terms

Term Kanji Meaning Implications/Karate relevance
Karate 空手 Empty hand
Dojo 道場 Place of the way Building or room for Karate training
Shihan 師範 Model Teacher
Sensei 先生 Teacher
Gi 衣 or 着 Uniform
Kyu 級 Level Pre-black-belt; colored belts are often used
Dan 段 Grade Degree of black belt - 5th is highest wrt technique
Rei Bow
Osu 押忍 Aknowledgement
Yoi Ready
Hajime Begin
Yame Stop
Mawatte Turn
Narande Line up
Kihon 基本 Basic One or a combination of several techniques
Kata 型 Form An extended combination of techniques based on a theme
Kumite 組手 Sparring
zanshin 残心 Remaining mind Awareness that one might be attacked at any time

Revised - Cap j 03:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


"1. Not to be confused with shoto meaning "short sword"; confusion about the derivation of "Shotokan" may occur otherwise. The Kanji for shoto, "pine waves", is (松涛). The first character is (松), which means pine tree. The second character (涛) is a kanji variant of (濤), which means large wave. The Kanji for shoto, short sword, is (小刀). The first character is (小), meaning small, and the second character is (刀), meaning blade. Any literate Japanese reader who saw "松涛" would not mistake it."

-intended to be put in a "Notes" section above "References" on the Shotokan page, marked as a note in the Introduction, at the end of " since "kan", "館", means "house." ", as " since "kan", "館", means "house" (See Note 1.). " —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cap j (talk • contribs) 8:09, 6 March 2006.

(Please add any of your Shotokan comments to the next section.)

[edit] Talk:Shotokan

See Section # 6 Translation clarifications

There is no story to clear up, it is ignorance. First debate is encouraged. YOU have to show evidence that there is something here. Show me a reference that backs up your story. Will you answer that? This is the debate. Leave the page alone until you show your point. I am listening. ron Southwick 00:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

CapJ - Thank you for the grammar correction. According to the rules I have read, if an entry is not sited [that's "cited"] then it can be deleted. Shall we continue this on our talk pages instead of the Shotokan page? What do you think about the idea of a Karate Myth page? ron Southwick 02:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

  • My proposed clarifying note to the Shotokan page

"1. Not to be confused with shoto meaning "short sword"; confusion about the derivation of "Shotokan" may occur otherwise. The Kanji for shoto, "pine waves", is (松涛). The first character is (松), which means pine tree. The second character (涛) is a kanji variant of (濤), which means large wave. The Kanji for shoto, short sword, is (小刀). The first character is (小), meaning small, and the second character is (刀), meaning blade. Any literate Japanese reader who saw "松涛" would not mistake it."

-intended to be put in a "Notes" section above "References" on the Shotokan page, marked as a note in the Introduction, at the end of " since "kan", "館", means "house." ", as " since "kan", "館", means "house" (See Note 1.). "


CapJ,

I did not say that I wanted one person to agree; I said I wanted a verifiable source (according to rule one. {1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.}) The debate is not whether we should delete it; the debate is why it should be there. In the first paragraph about Shotokan Karate the explanation, including the kanji, is given. Unless you have a published reference on this story I see no reason to address it?

Also, please note that I have given a reference to my kanji work on the kata. That is a verifiable source. I disagree with many of the translations of the forms. They are misleading but because they come from reputable sources, at this time, I cannot change them.

ron Southwick 13:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

CapJ,

Sorry I missed your other note. I would be more than happy to help you create a Martial Myth page. I think that would really help to educate people. That would be the place for your story, note, not at Shotokan. It really does not belong there. Let me know. ron Southwick 13:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

CapJ,

Could you please remove the POV. I made a POV Dispute tag on the Shotokan talk page. ron Southwick 05:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

CapJ,

I will write you tonight. I was not going to change anything without you involved. We can work this out. ron Southwick 21:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

CapJ,

Sorry, I did send that note to Walter before I talked to you. Also the intro has been changed a bit.(Not by me) I was going to add a note but I thought I would talk to you first. I do not agree with saying “not to be confused with”. The only thing I would support would be a [NOTE 1] after “shoto” and the note – Note 1 – Shoto is a homonym of shoto {link}, something to that effect. You might be able to word it better.

Now onto your remarks ( I will not address your personal attacks) – I consider this info to be Karate 101. Any search would have easily verified the information. People will not be searching for shoto but shotokan. If you would have gone to some of the web sites listed on the page you would have found the “pine waves” information. You continued to replace the info after being asked to verify it, which you could not. When you were proven wrong you still wanted, what I believe, to justify your ignorance by including it anyway. You appeared to have an agenda. Educate your instructor and it will end there.

As for a Karate Myths, there are some urban legends pages, we should start there.

I would love to start with a clean slate. If we could work together and fix up this page that would be great. ron 04:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I only categorize martial arts. I don't really add any content plus I've never taken shotokan.--Dangerous-Boy 05:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Basic logic: Putting something in a Wikipedia article that is documented, even for undocumented *reasons*, is not the same as putting in something that is undocumented.

Some content from the Shotokan Talk page (for reference in case it gets deleted from there -- see the history there)

Re "short sword", there is no dispute about the facts that I want to post (latest version of my clarifying note can be found on my talk page). I think it is unreasonable to require documented proof that the mistake is being made or that ignorance exists out there; is this not the "primae facae" (excuse my Latin) reason for writing an encyclopedia in the first place? It's too harsh to expect people to come to realizations with minimal information, aside from Ron's initial evaluation of me. Another example of a clarifying note, aside from Chaise Longue: Gravitomagnetic#Fringe_physics. There is no documentation to prove that the fringe physics is *actually* being confused with the real thing, just that it exists. Similarly, "short sword" is a valid meaning of "shoto" and I can find no documentation to prove that it is *actually* being confused; I have only my personal experience that up to about thirty people have probably been confused by the homonym. The documentation for what I actually want to post is not disputed.

If there is no longer any dispute about the above, I'll add them back in. How does one flag a content dispute as opposed to a POV dispute? Cap j 16:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to point out that Ron said that "An edit war is not what I wanted." Cap j 00:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ron, Matt, my logic is unassailable and I have finally managed to make it explicit. You don't have any good rebuttal, therefore the note should stay in. (Earlier point written on Ron's talk page: it's good to have input from "new users" about the sources of their confusion -- we're writing this for people who don't know, of course -- this is well-understood in the computer manual field) I have to point out that you two do not own this article. I don't suppose it matters if you delete the old posts here; people can easily read the history. Cap j 20:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Not putting information in to help newcomers (since the experts learned it themselves the hard way) is like saying "Encyclopedia?? He can walk to school like I had to!" Cap j 20:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to say it is you who are unreasonable, given that you didn't have a problem with it until bad feelings developed. "Every single other person": you and Ron. This is the homonym that causes a problem here: Shotokan, the very article title. No, we don't need to put in a note for every other little thing. Please yield to sweet reason. Cap j 00:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I previously refuted the "many homonyms" argument with the point that this addresses the most important word in the article. I have the legitimacy here (It does not give you legitimacy just because I took a break from the argument for a couple of weeks, at Walter's suggestion). You're not supposed to delete peoples' additions, but work with them in a collaborative way. I have taken pretty much complete input from you in modifying my note and if you look back in the change history you can review that I took the input quickly enough. Just because you got mad over a little back-and-forth isn't sufficient reason to abandon rationality; there pretty much never is such reason. Wikipedia:Staying_cool_when_the_editing_gets_hot -- see point 7. at the top ("Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle."). Also, on Wikipedia:Wikiquette, "Principles of Wikipedia etiquette", second last point, it says "Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible". You will find advice liberally located throughout the Wikipedia help documentation saying not to "edit-war". Once again, you have no good rebuttal to my logic, but rather when I finally made it explicit by saying that "Putting something in a Wikipedia article that is documented, even for undocumented *reasons*, is not the same as putting in something that is undocumented," you (Matt) and Ron just clammed up about it because you can't answer it.Cap j 17:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


CapJ, In a last attempt to be civil, I have addressed the following issues: The note and the addition of terminology relevance. These answer your call for a rebuttal and why these cannot be used in this article.


Rules of Wikipedia-

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

The note that you want to add is not needed, as we have discussed, because it is not relevant to the subject of Shotokan, or karate. Anyone that can read would discover this in minutes. The majority wins here, only a minority believes this. According to the rules of Wikipedia:


  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

You say that we have not refuted your argument, well here it is. This clearly falls in the third point. If you disagree please help me to understand why, using their rules.


The addition of a “karate relevance” section to the terminology is a violation of the following rules:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not:

  1. Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term. An article should usually begin with a good definition; if you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings of individual numbers.
  2. Lists of such definitions. There are, however, disambiguation pages consisting of pointers to other pages; these are used to clarify differing meanings of a word. Wikipedia also includes glossary pages for various specialized fields.
  3. A usage guide, or slang and idiom guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., should be used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used in order to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate.

For a wiki that is a dictionary, visit our sister project Wiktionary.


That is the rebuttal. If you disagree please help me to understand why, using their rules.

Thanks ron Southwick 13:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You should not justify your own ignorance by including this note. I would dare say 99.9% of the people in Shotokan know this. Also the place for “competing” versions is on the talk page NOT the article itself. We will take a POLL to see if it should stay. I will set that up.

ron Southwick 16:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

CapJ - Maybe you should start a page on Osu, then I will add the kanji transliterations. ron Southwick 17:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, how about a page which actually transliterates martial arts terms, i.e. kung fu, osu, shodan…etc. So many are misused and you know how I love kanji/hanja. ron Southwick 17:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

My replies can be found on User_talk: Southwick Cap j 23:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

That was a serious mistake CapJ, contacting the University. Southwick 14:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serious personal attack

User:Southwick, via email to me, alleges that you have contacted his employer via email accusing him of academic dishonesty. If you have done so, it is a very serious matter, a breach of the Wikipedia Policy of no personal attacks. Southwick and I have brought this matter to the attention of Wikipedia administrators, who may take further action. Sincerely, Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated reverts on Shotokan

Hey -- you haven't violated this rule, but I just wanted to make sure you know about WP:3RR, because you're one revert away from violating it if you do so in the next couple of hours. Also, an anon editor has suggested mediation on the edit dispute, see Talk:Shotokan... I'd suggest you do it.. you and the other editors are all obviously acting in good faith, and just need some neutral, honest outside input. Mangojuice 16:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Howdy. I have been asked to look at some issues regarding edits as related to a content dispute with User:Southwick in the Shotokan article. I noticed you posted here regarding an email you claimed to have recieved from Southwick. In your note to User:Wsiegmund you didn't include the email addresses, claiming they were snipped, I suppose to protect others from having their privacy invaded. Is the wording as you posted exactly as it was recieved by you in email? I would need some kind of proof that this is the case. I will be on and off line for the next couple of days, but often enough I can check back here or on my talk page if you prefer.--MONGO 01:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the reason I am asking is because I responded to this complaint on the Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard, in which Southwick complained that you contacted his place of employment in regards to a content dispute in the aforementioned article. I then saw that an editing associate of mine (User:Wsiegmund) had gotten a snipped email that you claim came from Southwick. Southwick responded to my the email I sent to him after I responded to the Personal attack invervention messageboard and told me that you had indeed contacted his place of employment, so I know Southwicks email address already, unless he used a different one to email you. You can email me by going to my userpage and clicking the e-mail this user link on the left of the screen...I think you need an email as well to do this, so you may have to set one up...a temporary one will do. As the respondant to Southwick's complint, I keep all emails and personal information confidential. As I said, I need proof that Southwick sent you the email you claim he sent. Thanks for your time.--MONGO 03:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked you from editing for a minimum of 24 hours. I have seen all the evidence and you haven't been straight up with me. I have posted my action for review here: [1]. I will be asking for a longer block. Feel free to email me or any admin if you dispute this action.--MONGO 05:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

In many ways I was just as pigheaded about this as CapJ. I did not realize that this could get so overblown and go beyond Wikipedia. I have learned a lot from this and apologize to those who had to go through it, including CapJ. ron Southwick 14:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/p/User_talk%7ECap_j_a572.html"