User talk:User5802

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User5802 22:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Why do you allow external links to other websites in the judo article? -- Argument with wikipedia Editors resolved

Nate1481 you removed my external link to one of the biggest Danzan-ryu Jujitsu organizations in the US, but you don't seem to have a problem with there being a link to http://www.kodokan.org/ on the judo article. What is the deal? User5802 22:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll answer, since he doesn't seem to be around. You added a link, on a page about a person, to a page that as far as I can tell doesn't mention the person's name anywhere. Whereas the other link is to a page about the person, and he methods, etc. Unlike your link, it is directly related to the subject of the article, whereas your link is to a page that is only slightly related. Please see WP:EL. Gscshoyru 22:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Gscshoyru, you are completely wrong in your understanding of this dispute. I added NO link on "a page about a person". The page in question is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danzan_Ryu. This is a martial arts style not a person.User5802 23:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake -- the picture threw me off. Nonetheless, nowhere on that site is this style mentioned, so it's still indirectly related. Gscshoyru 23:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Gscshoyru, please follow this link. http://www.jujitsuamerica.org/links.php

Maybe you don't understand that Kodenkan Jujitsu IS Kodenkan Danzan-ryu Jujitsu. Please read the article in question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danzan_Ryu.

Kodenkan Danzan-ryu was originally the name of the style Danzan-ryu. Kodenkan was the school's name in Hawaii, similarly to the Kodokan was the primary school of Judo in Japan. But no one calls Judo "Kodokan Judo" anymore. Please respond.User5802 23:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... ok, fine, we'll do this the hard way... WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided numbers 4 and 5. The site pretty much exists to sell memberships, and it looks to me, and others, as if you're trying to promote the site and club. Also, at some point you claimed that it's the largest organization of it's kind. If such a thing is true, a mention in the article would be better, WP:CITEing a WP:Verifable source. And the site itself is not a verifiable source, btw. Gscshoyru 23:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Gscshoyru, you started by saying this was a problem because the website was not about a person. I proved that wrong. Now allow me to prove this is not a website with the primary goal of making money. First off, it's a .org, not a .com. Second, Willy Cahill is the coach for the United States Paralympic Games. How much money do you think he makes for that? You can see his photo in the very top middle of the website. Jujitsu America hosts $5 seminars open to anyone of any style. This organizations entire purpose is the spread and benefit of Jujitsu. I don't understand why you have a natural animosity towards this organization. Look at http://www.ijf.org/ it is linked in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judo. How does this link differ?

Now compare http://www.ajjf.org/blackbelts.html and http://www.jujitsuamerica.org/. These are the two biggest Danzan-ryu organizations in the United States. How many members do you think they get every month from their website? You can't be a practitioner of the arts by paying a fee, you have to go out and find a school. By not allowing this link to be posted in wikipedia you are interfering with the common person's ability to find a good Danzan-ryu school to train at.User5802 00:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Kodenkan Danzan-ryu was originally the name of the style Danzan-ryu. Kodenkan was the school's name in Hawaii, similarly to the Kodokan was the primary school of Judo in Japan. Jujitsu America is a major organization for Danzan-ryu, Kodenkan Danzan-ryu, Okazaki's style, The Hawaiian Style, or whatever you want to call it. They deserve a link in the wikipedia article about Danzan-ryu Jujitsu, the style they train in! Similarly the International Judo Federation has a link in the wikipedia article about Judo.
Gscshoyru, here is a small listing of where on the site "Danzan-ryu" is specifically mentioned.

www.jujitsuamerica.org/JATODAY/JUNE2004/JAToday0604.pdf

www.jujitsuamerica.org/links.php

www.jujitsuamerica.org/BIO/MikeLynch_bio.php

www.jujitsuamerica.org/events.php

www.jujitsuamerica.org/JATODAY/Winter2006/JAtoday4.pdf

www.jujitsuamerica.org/BIO/ScottMerrill_bio.php

www.jujitsuamerica.org/BIO/RonJennings_bio.php

www.jujitsuamerica.org/BIO/JoeSouza_bio.php

www.jujitsuamerica.org/pastevents.php

www.jujitsuamerica.org/JATODAY/OCTOBER02/JATodayOctober02.pdf User5802 00:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You've made your point about them being the same already. Prove that it is in fact, the largest organization of it's kind, and you can up it up there, ok?
Also, please note that if you're posting the link to help people find a good school, then you're violating the spirit of WP:NOT#GUIDE. Post the link because the organization is a notable organization of this kind (for instance, it's the largest). Otherwise, you might as well put up every school that exists. Gscshoyru 00:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Gscshoyru, the best proof I can offer to speak for the associations size is by looking on it's black belt listing.
http://www.jujitsuamerica.org/blackbelts.php
There are over 340 black belts listed there (I counted them.)
Another major organization for Danzan-ryu in the world is www.ajjf.org
They have just under 340 black belts and are probably the second biggest Danzan-ryu association in the world.
You can see their listing here:
http://www.ajjf.org/blackbelts.html
The ajjf probably also deserves an external link in the bottom of the Danzan-ryu article, but I just hadn't dared say anything about that until this point since I was getting so much trouble for just posting one legitimate link on the article.

This should be plenty of proof to back up the statements I've been making. I'm a knowledgeable and fair individual on the Martial Arts and could probably help settle any controversies regarding similar situations to this in the future. User5802 01:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Their own website is not a WP:Verifable source. You, personally, are also not really a verifiable source. Please read WP:V and WP:RS as to what sources you can and cannot include. If you want to include this, you need to have a verifiable source that explains why the organization is WP:NOTEable in terms of the subject of the article. Otherwise, the link doesn't belong. If you find one, though, then show me and put the link back up. Gscshoyru 01:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Only if the site is a reliable source. There are notable sites that publish false information, so the policy you mentioned doesn't exist... Also, it's not that I don't like, I think you're fine. I just think you don't know everything about wiki policy yet. This is fine, and hardly surprising, as you're new.
(After the edit confict): That's a verifiable source, though I'm not sure how that implies the organization is notable... but I think you've made your point. Put it back. Gscshoyru 01:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been resolved, and the external link for http://www.jujitsuamerica.org will be posted in the Danzan-ryu article of wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gscshoyru

Ok thx, Gscshoyru I'll put the link up. If I wish to add further external links in the future, or have questions on Wikipedia policy can I run them by you first? What is your ranking/responsibilities in the Wikipedia community? User5802 02:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Me? Officially, I'm just a regular user, like 99.9% of people. Unofficially, I'm a respected vandal-fighter. That's me. Gscshoyru 02:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, not familiar with him, just adjusting pages. 69.40.245.207 04:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to have caused such a stir, the link looked like 101 generic advert-links that get added to martial arts articles every week, often on tenuously related subjects. Hence my 1st reaction to a link is to remove it unless there is a reason given in the edit summary (e.g. saying large American association) Usually then look @ the link before I decide. might be worth labelling it as spsificaly a Danzan Ryu org or it will likely be removed again by someone else. --Nate1481( t/c) 07:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The old black ambient article

<removed so as not to breach GFDL- also note it made this talk page come up in article categories>

You may want to create a sub page to work on this just go to adn paste it in, easier to wrok on then keeping it as a section. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:User5802/Black Ambient" --Nate1481( t/c) 10:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jujutsu description

I just finished my response at Talk:Jujutsu, I would be happy to continue the discussion there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradford44 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chōjun Miyagi

Please see WP:DEFAULTSORT. If you include the {{DEFAULTSORT:Miyagi, Chojun}}, then, all categories are sorted by Miyagi, and it is not necessary to add it to each line. Regards. Neier 23:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Understood reverted to previous edit User5802 23:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This bastard modifies pages to include Ronin Goju Ryu

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G%C5%8Dj%C5%AB-ry%C5%AB&oldid=146380826

Trying to manipulate history and take advantage of the names of others for "Ronin Goju Ryu" User5802 02:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User5802 07:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kata infobox

After months of procrastination, I finally merged the Passai/Bassai articles. As for the kata infobox, I brought it up a while ago (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts/archive 5#Template for karate kata), but never implemented anything. How do these fields sound to you?

  • Name(s) of kata
  • Image
  • Image caption
  • Martial art(s) (ex. karate, taekwondo, judo, etc)
  • Country of origin
  • Creator(s)
  • Date created (approximate)
  • Level (beginner, intermediate, or advanced)

Is there anything else you can think of? I'll probably call it {{Infobox martial art form}} (to include kata, hyung, and poomsae). --Scott Alter 16:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advice.

Hello, nice to meet you! :) Well, in order to have a user banned, you have to report him to WP:AIV, where an administrator will block the user. However, you must make sure that users you report have recieved a "final warning" (which generally refers to a {{uw-vandalism4}}, or a {{uw-vandalism4im}} warning), and that they actually vandalized after the warning (watch out for the times, they can get confusing if you have a non-UTC time set in "my preferences"). That's all there is to it really. If you have any other questions, or I wasn't clear, feel free to send me another message. · AndonicO Talk 20:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Anytime. :) · AndonicO Talk 00:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Let's see if the others like the suggestions... · AndonicO Talk 10:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Masaaki Hatsumi

Put my opinion done, then implemented it as an example, what do yo think? --Nate1481( t/c) 10:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Vandalize 69.121.18.144

I believe that your request to ban 69.121.18.144 is rashly unjustified as vandalism by commercialization. As stated by the Vandalism page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism "For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism—it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated." The comment left by a user of the IP address 69.121.18.144 on the Jujitsu page constitutes a first violation of vandalism by personal opinion and should not be considered by any stretch of the imagination to be corrected by the banning of the entire IP address. I politely ask that you remove your request for banning immediately. Thank you. 69.121.18.144 23:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] September 2007

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Gscshoyru 23:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the report!

I reported the anon guy to the administrators (I'm not an admin myself, ho ho ho). FYI, you should check out using Twinklefor your editing/watching, it makes reverting/undoing/reporting to admin a cinch! Thanks, Rahzel 13:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: user 216.119.8.2

No Idea, I thought it was my archive bot that remove that discssion. --Chris  G  01:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jujutsu linking

Hi, rather than revert all your hard work myself, I thought I'd let you know that terms in articles should only be linked the first time they appear (exceptions exist for multiple linking in navboxes or infoboxes). So you may want to give jujutsu another look. Sorry, Bradford44 17:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, there's no rule that says exactly this. I guess this is just one of those things I've been told over and over again and I just assumed was a rule. The only rules about frequency of internal links is at WP:MOS-L, which suggests that the maximum number of times for the same link is once per section, not once per article. By the way, I'm always more than happy to be challenged and to discuss anything. :) Bradford44 21:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your AIV report

Thank you for making a report about 167.206.140.11 (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! Sandstein 15:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Same thing with 121.45.218.12 (talk · contribs). Please do not report users if they have not vandalised after the final warning. Thanks! Sandstein 15:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Further to the above, I would note that AIV states reports should be made when, "The vandal is active now, has been sufficiently warned, and has vandalized after a recent last warning, except in unusual circumstances." Some of your recent reports have been too "stale". Also, since ip addresses may be used by different people the potential block may effect good editors and not the vandal so admins are extremely reluctant to act on old cases. If you are concerned by the edits of a registered user, over a period of time, then you should bring the matter to the Admins Noticeboard (Incidents).
I would agree that anti vandal activity is to be encouraged, but it is important to use the correct procedures and forums. Thanks. LessHeard vanU 15:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I responded to all of these messages within the users' discussion boards with my thoughts, please feel free to continue the discussion below User5802 16:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Take the examples of racism to WP:ANI, not AIV. AIV is for fast responses to current vandalism, ANI has the time and many more individuals to consider other serious complaints. LessHeard vanU 16:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. The instance of the other ip is due to the statement at AIV I included above, especially "...after a recent last warning." Recent is usually taken as being the last 24 hours. This is important as an ip may be allocated to another editor, and we do not want to block a good editor for something a vandal did 2 days ago. Even when an ip talkpage is full of warning and block notices it doesn't mean that that is the only editor (the good editors don't create warnings). For that reason an ip should only be blocked (and only for a shortish period) when they are vandalising. LessHeard vanU 16:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
As far as I am aware no (non free node) ip address has ever been permanently blocked, even those who are registered to a single institution. Even if an ip address is fixed there is the possibility that it will be given to someone else should the original owner change ISP, and in the case of institutions it is very likely that several people could edit from the address so we don't want to restrict them. In a few cases (usually schools and the like) they have been blocked for up to a year (or more), since the vandalism is simply too much hassle, but they can be quickly unblocked if a responsible concerned individual contacts Wikipedia promising to look out for the misuse. In most other cases we block the ip for a little while, and then again if it returns. It is a pain, but it comes with the territory. LessHeard vanU 21:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martial arts school and organization templates

Mostly, I think the most significant part of the koryu infobox is the ability to list the arts practiced by the ryu, because almost all koryu schools were comprehensive, or nearly so, with different mixing and matching of skills taught. However, the utility of this is pretty much limited to Japanese koryu. Bradford44 21:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Yoshida family

I do know the Yoshida family, but only those who are artists. I do not know Sukuhei Yoshida or any extended family members who might live in Kumomoto. Mitakadai 18 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitakadai (talk • contribs) 16:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)