User talk:Nate1481/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This 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.

Contents

syntax error help

Thank you for tweaking the syntax on my citation error at DahnMuDo. I thought I'd put that originally, but for some reason it kept producing a mysterious error, so I cut my losses and duplicated the citation. Forestgarden (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The Datsuns revert

Cheers for taking the time to elaborate on that. It's always good to learn a few more tips.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 12:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

links

Hi

I agree with the changes you made to the external links section (goju ryu article); however, for different reasons. All of the links you deleted pointed to recognized organizations; none of them was advertisement. The problem I see is that wikipedia is not a repository of links, and that list may easily turn into one. In any case, as I said, I agree with your choices, specially after reading the web page you suggested (guidelines). But what if I didn't agree? It would be nice if you posted the changes you do, so other editors are not caught by surprise. When I was classifying the external links, you were also working on the page, and there was a conflict. I couldn't save my changes. I checked the page and all the external links section had disappeared, so I checked the history of the page and saw no activity. I thought it was a problem with the engine or the internet connection, or maybe that I had messed up without realizing it, so I added the links again. I appreciate you took some time to reconsider your original position and instead of deleting all the external links you deleted only the most irrelevant.

Actually, I am glad to contact somebody willing to commit some time to goju info in wikipedia as I am.

Alfredo

Defendo Content

Hi Nate

Are you a moderator of sorts?

I added the defendo website as it is the offical home for defendo in the uk.

Also I thought it wwas relevant that Defendo has returned to the uk. Seeing as Bill Underwood was from here.

Nainova —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nainova (talk • contribs) 17:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


Ashida Kim

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Ashida Kim, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 06:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Dissruptive Editing by user Koonleg50 (talk · contribs)

Nate, just saw you put the tag up on Jee Shim Kungfu. I need sleep, I've been trying to control the disruptive edits of this guy since yesterday morning. Had a request for a 2nd intervention (he was blocked monday because of the previous one) since yesterday afternoon and no admin had responded to it yet. So I'm passing it off to you and any responding admins. Sleeeeeeppppp..... --Marty Goldberg (talk) 09:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

He's just been blocked again, so we should be good for whatever the block period was for. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 09:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

New Consensus needed at Talk:Branches of Wing Chun

Could use your input and opinion over at the "No Longer Affiliated Students" thread on the talk page. An anonymous IP wants to remove all "no longer affiliated" branch people from a particular branch listing. He's also contesting the current structure of the family tree and wants to allow more and more depth. My viewpoint on the depth is I agree with the current standard set up in the opening paragraphs on the article page. It represents an abridged family three, to a depth of 3. Any more and it would start turning in to a gigantic list, and violate list policies regarding WP:NOT#DIR. Likewise, my opinion is that while a person may not be affiliated with the current political organization of that branch/linneage/school, that does not strike them from the family tree. I've seen to many times in other locations (and attempts to repeat it here) where people are stricken from a family tree in a political move to discredit them as if they were never part of that tree. If we were talking about every day students, I could certainly agree with not including them, since they come and go. But this tree listing is composed of actual sifu's. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nate. I am the anonymous IP that Marty Goldberg is referring to. However, I'm not so anonymous. :). Please understand that I mean no disrespect to those that have edited before me. Please also understand that I have put a considerable thought into the points that I have made and that they weren't just written in passing. Please feel free to ask me any questions you may have. 68.5.147.32 (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your support
Thank you SO MUCH for your support in my unanimous RFA. Take this cookie as a small token of my appreciation.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive Box

Thanks! RogueNinjatalk 16:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


links to political parties on Merton borough

That was a link to every political party that *organises locally* that I've been able to find. Think it would be great if others could be added if they exist. I've checked the guidelines again, I believe these three links are relevant to readers and appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyFair (talk • contribs) 10:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly appreciate the suggestion that these links are spam. Please could you respond to the points I raise and explain why you disagree?AnthonyFair (talk) 11:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you that a links to political parties are not relevant to a discussion of the London Borough of Merton page, which discusses the political situation on the council. I accept that more needs to be done to find links (although the external links section is not necessarily meant to be exhaustive - from the Merton Connect page http://www.mertonconnected.com

The following groups are listed which categorise themselves as "political parties"

Conservative Constituency Office Merton Green Party Merton Liberal Democrats Mitcham and Morden Conservative Association Mitcham and Morden Labour Party South Mitcham Community Association The William Morris Meeting Rooms Wimbledon Conservative Association Wimbledon Labour Party

Would you support either the appropriate links or else if we could link to this list directly in some way?AnthonyFair (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I can't find a deep link to the relevant search results. Any ideas?AnthonyFair (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Judo Blanking

Thanks Nate. I have just put the following on the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism :

Though I am afraid he will simply do the same thing from his dial-up line, which keeps changing IP address. --David Broadfoot (talk) 14:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding revert on Ninjutsu

Hello. I saw that you reverted my edit on the article about Ninjutsu. Thanks for helping me improve this article! However, I re-reverted your edits, because I thought you might not have noticed that I added a reference regarding the eighteen disciplines which clearly states that they are relevant to the Togakure Ryu, from which Bujinkan inherited their training practices. Since Togakure is the second most ancient ninjutsu ryu known, I think it's accurate to claim the disciplines or a subset thereof are relevant for all ninjutsu schools. If you think this is wrong, please let us discuss it here instead of going into a revert war. Thank you! --dionyziz (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC).

Terry Pratchett FA nomination

Terry Pratchett has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Sent it to a 'review' by mistake! I'll submit it later today - I'll check all the links first, seems wise.

To Svetovid, Stephenb, Arwel Parry, Nate1481 (per [[1]]).
There's not been much discussion I know, but I thought what the heck- I've nominated it, lets see what feedback they give. I'm interested in what they say about the sub articles. I think it can get, with their advice, to FA. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

UFC 84

A discussion is happening right now on the fate of UFC 84. Because the outcome of this discussion could affect other MMA event pages and how/when they are created, your input would be greatly appreciated. The discussion is happening here. Thank you for your assistance! Gromlakh (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing your latest comments in WT:MMA, just thought you might be interested to know that there's a new UFC 84 article up. The redirect actually got deleted a day or two after the move, then User:MMAKing recreated a new article shortly thereafter with a bunch of rumors. Shockingly, it's back up at AfD again. Gromlakh (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


Atlantic Rowing Race

I changed the six occurances of "double" in the Atlantic Rowing Race article to "pair" in order that it is consistant throughout, as the article uses "pair" or "pairs" everywhere except for the very short section on retiring crews. I note you have changed them back to "double" again.

I am not a rowing expert, although I have seen the last 2 Atlantic races, but the organisers of the Atlantic Rowing Race [2] who also designed the boats, and built the kits, always refer to these boats as pairs, or as they would put it "Woodvale Pairs".

IMHO to avoid confusion, we should be consistant. This is an article about a specific race, not rowing in general, and as the race organisers refer to these boats as "pairs", this should be used thoughout.

Arjayay (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and link to the 2005 race. You are right, the 2005 race is consistant in its use of "doubles".
However, the 2007 race only ever refers to "pairs", I can find no use of "doubles". "Pairs" can be found in:-
  • the list of teams [3]
  • the progress [4]
  • the press releases [5] and lots of others
  • The various team web-sites e.g.[6]
The race organisers Woodvale also use "pairs"
  • when trying to sell the boats used in the race [7]
  • when listing entrants in other races [8]
I understand the boats can be rowed "either way", especially in heavy seas when oars might clash, and risk breaking, but my photos were taken in the calm of the marina at San Sebastian.
As the 2007 race only refers to "pairs", can I suggest that we use the race organisers terminology and use "doubles" for 2005 and "pairs" for 2007?
I have no idea what terminology the previous race organisers used, as most of these are "dead" links (I will check and remove in due course), but I am quite willing to accept "doubles" in the earlier races.

Arjayay (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the agreement - I'll change the 2007's, leaving the others, when I add the next finishers. I've e-mailed to ask Woodvale why they changed the terminology, but they are all out in Antigua at the moment. Will let you know if/when I get a response. Arjayay (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

You now have administrative rollback privileges, enjoy! east.718 at 17:19, February 14, 2008

Chan Tai San

you are being completely unreasonable (and silly!)

The fact that Chan Tai San has appeared in over 50 articles around teh world, in a movie called "china's national treasures" and named "a living national treasure" should be enough "evidence" he is respected and well known. A simple internet search would lead you to HUNDREDS of references on him

THere is no online link to the movie, yet it exists! There are CLIPS of it but I suspect based upon your behavior you'd want a citation on that citation

There are no ISSN numbers for Inside Kung Fu magazine articles, despite the fact they are widely considered the #1 source for info on Chinese Martial Arts

How do you document "orphaned at 5" or "trained with Chan Sai Mo"? hmmmmm????

There is plenty of citation in the article and like I said, plenty of internet info on him. LEAVE THE ARTICLE ALONE. Do you really have nothing better to do? I note that you've been accused of this sort of behavior before? Nysanda (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply here --Nate1481(t/c) 17:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

very unprofessional and smacking of personal vendetta - very unbecoming of Wiki

I point out that you are unreasonable in asking for citations on article, so you then go and "edit" an article about me (which I did not write and thus is not "conflict of interest" by the way). Wow, childish and unprofessional! Nysanda (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting that you want to cite to me being "civil" yet I can clearly read the Wiki definition of "vandalism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VAND). My disagreeing with you and questioning your motives is clearly not, by definition provided by Wiki "vandalism". It's a two way street, isn't it? Nysanda (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

More observations on your style

I quote you from your last response to me "It was probably not the appropriate action"

It seems, upon review, this isn't the first time others have suggested that your style of editing appears to have ulterior motives? Perhaps, rather than blaming me, you examine why others, not just me, all seem to be coming to the same conclusions?

To me, it appears you were initially being unreasonable. Once I pointed that out, you then appeared petty and vindictive.

You have the advantage, I am new here. But it sure does seem like you are abusing the system here. I consider my comments relative to the issue at hand, WHY you are constantly re-editing entries which have already provided citations and which can be verified by simple internet searches. Questioning you isn't "uncivil" unless you consider yourself beyond criticism? Nysanda (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Good work Nate

I really like the way you have rearranged these diatribes! --David Broadfoot (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still have the audacity to question your edits

I guess you'll have to "re group" this latest "diatribe" as well. However, if we read through your responses, we see a definite pattern here. I noted that you INCORRECTLY tried to label my disagreement with you as "vandalism" and then cited the actual WIKI policy. you then were forced to admit it was not the correct thing to do. Now, you are saying "not that many" of your edits have been questioned, etc. Again, you originally inserted edits almost every three words. You inserted them in very questionable places (eg. "Chan Tai San studied several years" inseted citation? "Chan Tai San studied with Chan Sai Mo" inserted citation? "Chan Tai San was well respected" inserted citation? on and on). Honestly, this is a WASTE OF TIME, in my opinion, and you can condemn me all you want for saying it, you have a lot of spare time on your hands and are looking for things to edit. Why else attack an article that is already well cited and on a subject that results in HUNDREDS of hits with a simple GOOGLE search? I can understand asking for citations on "controversial" subjects and I can certainly understand editing vandalism, etc. "Nit picking" a completely valid article for the sake of "nit picking" to me seems utterly pointless. Maybe that's just me? Nysanda (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Grouping make it easier to follow, is this a problem? I have also move the section from my review page here to make it easier to follow. --Nate1481(t/c) 16:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

From review

  1. I am simiarly concerned that your personal biases seem to be affecting your editing! On the entry on Chan Tai San you seem to want "citations" every few words and on things that in many cases seem absurd (Chan Tai San was orphaned and raised in southern China, how exactly do we "cite" that? I've put up citations to over 30 articles about him, isn't that enough or do you perhaps think an encyclopedia has a reference to a single individual's entire life? No, I am beign serious!). Nysanda (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    They were paired with that {{nofootnotes}} asking that the sources be attached to statements. Also 1 (or maybe 2 on one paragraph) is not 'every few words'. As to referencing an individuals entire life it is possible (see Isaac Newton) or the statements should not be presented as facts but as reports. --Nate1481(t/c) 17:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    Your edits and comments increasingly smack of personal vendetta, or is a coincidence that now that I've disagreed with you you've chosen to try and edit more entries associated with us? Lame attempts to excuse what are clearly unreasonable demands to document pretty much every statement. Very childish, very unprofessional Nysanda (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    How? What vendetta where? I found the article as i said on your talk page while looking for sources, how on earth could I have know this was you? Different names, no info on you user page how!Nate1481(t/c)
    I disagree with you and you try and cite me for "vandalism". As I have stated rather clearly, by the WIKI definition, my disagreement with you is not "vandalism" which you have now admitted. I quote you "It was probably not the appropriate action" Apparently, I am not the only person who has questioned your motivations? Perhaps rather than blaming the messanger(s) you re-evaluate and ask why more than a few people have all said the same thing about your editing style? Nysanda (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    My final words on the subject. If we read through your responses, we see a definite pattern here. I noted that you INCORRECTLY tried to label my disagreement with you as "vandalism" and then cited the actual WIKI policy. You then were forced to admit it was not the correct thing to do. Then, you are saying "not that many" of your edits have been questioned, etc? Again, you originally inserted edits almost every three words. You inserted them in very questionable places (eg. "Chan Tai San studied several years" inseted citation? "Chan Tai San studied with Chan Sai Mo" inserted citation? "Chan Tai San was well respected" inserted citation? on and on). You attempt to denigrate my responses by calling them "diatribes" (nothing "civil" about that is there?). Do you not see a pattern here? In conclusion, the question remains, why else "edit" an article that is already well cited and on a subject that results in HUNDREDS of hits with a simple GOOGLE search? I can understand asking for citations on "controversial" subjects and I can certainly understand editing out vandalism, etc. "Nit picking" a completely valid article for the sake of "nit picking" to me seems utterly pointless. Maybe that's just me? Nysanda (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    Some people are capable of admitting they were wrong, you seem unable to do so. --Nate1481(t/c) 16:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. I am now frustrated and annoyed that you keep lying about me and questioning my motivations. Where did I refer to you comments as diatribes? Diff please. Oh look it wasn't me! One request per paragraph is not every few words unless your definition of few is more than 10. every 3 words WHERE? Diff please.

p.s. Did you know this review was voluntary and that I requested it? I am moving it to may talk page as this is not a review but a discussion, you are commenting on 1 or 2 sets of edit not on my over all contributions. --Nate1481(t/c) 16:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't being clear

I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't being clear. I thought that when I said "this will be my final words" and when I didn't respond to you this morning after your posts then, that you would have understood. I am no longer interested in discussing this with you. I'm sorry, I disagree with you. That doesn't make my comments diatribes, it doesn't make me unreasonable, it doesn't make my posts "vandalism". I have professional academic training in the importance of citations (I have a MA degree in East Asian Studies and ABD in American History) and I simply don't agree with you, your methods or your "world view". So please feel free to do whatever it is you want to do now. No need to send me new messages, you won't change my mind. Bye Nysanda (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nysandra, you claim that you "have professional academic training in the importance of citations", then can you please explain how it is that you only managed to provide one direct citation by way of footnote (purporting to support the claim that Chan was "recognized by the People's Republic of China as one of its 'Living Treasures'") yet that footnote did not appear to have anything at all to do with that claim. Also, it is a big stretch to claim as professional citing what you have done which is to simply list magazine issues with no page number references, no ISBN, and no reference to the body of the article. As you added those magazine references into the article, you must have the magazines at hand (do you?). If you have the magazine articles, then you should add that information. Your performance in the one in-line citation markedly detracts form any presumed credibility you may have had for the rest of your claims and sources. With respect to your claim that notability is supported by "HUNDREDS of hits with a simple GOOGLE search", on the contrary, the small number of hits in itself indicates non-notability, especially when one looks into the pages resulting in those hits. I urge you to gather some of those pages and post them as in-line citations where appropriate. If you can't make a credible start to support the article with the Google citations that you have referred to, nor provide the ISBN and page number references in-line within the next 24 hours, or I will list the article for deletion due to lack of credible, properly cited evidence and non-notability. I note that there is an issue with comprehension in general, as evidences by numerous false claims made above, for example that Nate called your responses "diatribes", that he wants "citations every few words", that he is engaged in a vendetta against you, etc - all incorrect. --David Broadfoot (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear lord, yet another example of why it is impossible to take this at all the least bit seriously? Let's quote you now - "you please explain how it is that you only managed to provide one direct citation by way of footnote (purporting to support the claim that Chan was "recognized by the People's Republic of China as one of its 'Living Treasures'") yet that footnote did not appear to have anything at all to do with that claim" - OH REALLY NOW? Let's see, the clip is from a movie called "China's Living National Treasures", produced by the government of China and with Chan Tai San appearing in it. If you can't understand teh significance of the clip that certainly says a lot about you (and this process) doesn't it? Nate asked for a published biography? Let's play a "game", please cite a published biography on Wang Lang, Chang Dung Sheng, Chan Hak Fu, Hwang Kee, Chung Duk Son, or Young Shul Choi (HINT: all are very important figures in the martial arts world yet none have a published biography). I could go further, there wasn't a published bio of Mas Oyama until a few years ago (2006 I believe). The only published work on Helio Gracie is produced by his own family and wouldn't stand up to pure academic scrutiny. You want to list the article for deletion? FINE! Go ahead an suggest it! I noticed this was attempted with several martial arts entries, because most martial arts figures can not stand up to pure academic scrutiny. However, most (Marvin Perry being but one example, do NOT get deleted because if you really want to apply these standards you'd have to delete 95% of the martial arts entries on here. In conclusion, as I said, very hard to take you seriously when you post stuff of this sort Nysanda (talk) 06:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
"The only published work on Helio Gracie is produced by his own family" Err no. He is mentioned in most of the hundred of so books on BJJ so that is simply wrong. I asked for a biography as an example. You keep saying he's really important, well most important people have had at least a bio-piece in a magazine, if not a full blown book. I did initially ask that you just link the references at the bottom of the article to statements in the text as citations , I didn't ask for a new one, but you just said that it was really hard, so I suggested possible sources, I had never heard of the guy before this article so wouldn't know where to start looking. --Nate1481(t/c) 09:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
As to deletion, not really. The article unlike many has POTENTIAL, if it can be sourced, but that needs in-line citations. Also you may not that my point on the Marvin perry AfD was that it needed sources, oh look it got them and was kept! --Nate1481(t/c) 10:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Helio Graice is indeed mentioned in many BJJ books, written by Rorion Gracie, Renzo Gracie, Rodrigo Gracie, etc, note they all seem to have the same last name GRACIE. I also note that you didn't address my point about others like Chan Hak Fu and Young Shul Choi. For the record I did not call Chan Tai San "really important", just noted that he is "notable" enough to merit the wiki article. He is notable enough that one of the Inside Kung Fu articles was a COVER STORY about him, and as I've said (and the list suggests) he's been covered in a lot of publications over the years. Just because you have never heard of him doesn't mean much, that is not an insult, just a statemetn of fact. Do you know who Hwang Kee, Young Shul Choi or Wang Lang are? - FINAL NOTE - I am glad to see that at least you understood the significance of posting the clip from "China's Living National Treasures" movie. Nysanda (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh for cry out loud, yes there are lots of books written by the family, there are also lots that are not you can't find either! There are also other things, I could have picked any of a dozen artists Helio just came to mind, Eddie Bravo, Chuck Liddell , Kano Jigoro, Ken Shamrock, Masutatsu Oyama, Dan Inosanto I could go on, it was an example not the whole point! If there was a cover story would it not be simple to add the details of the magazine, such as the publisher (ideally the ISSN if present) and the date?--Nate1481(t/c) 16:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion copied here following across multiple pages is a pain. --Nate1481(t/c) 16:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I am asking you a favor

Since you seem reasonable and also seem so far to have understood my point, can I ask you a favor? The movie clip from Youtube that I posted, it is a clip from the movie "Living National Treasures" and features Chan Tai San, ie the clip is evidence that CTS was in the movie along with the other "Living treasures". The anology I feel would be like doing an article on Ronald Reagon, mentioning his was elected president and then linking to a clip of the innauguation. You didn't seem to object to it, I do not understand the objection to it? FURTHERMORE I have put up the cover from the IKF article http://www.angelfire.com/ny/sanshou/ctscover.jpg where they repeat the claim. That citation was also deleted. To delete citations without reason strikes me as "vandalism". Certainly unreasonable. Might you interject into this? Nysanda (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)