Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:23, 15 August 2009

Welcome!

Hello, Nysanda, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Midorihana_{(talk)(contribs)} 06:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Chan Tai San

1. Asking for ONE source per paragraph, especially where there is a claim that the individual if well known for something, is entirely reasonable.
2. The tag at the top asks if someone could associate the list of sources with specific claims, the citation requests are pointers to areas that need sourcing.
3. According to the wikipedia policy on Verifiability "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." so currently the page could be deleted, as none of the claims are sourced.
4. Did you actually read the edits? I asked for more information on the sources, as right now it is a list that tell people nothing. An ISSN is a unique reference number for periodical publications (as the ISBN is for books), if if is a number one magazine it is very unlikely that it hasn't got one, as most publications that are on general sale,even for niche markets, have one.
5. Did you look at the resolution of that discussion? What happened was sources were added for various bit & I helped tidy it up including formatting the sources.
6. No-one said sources had to be on-line, they are the most common but if you read WP:SOURCES they are not even prefferd.
7. If you don't want something edited wikipedia is not the place for it.

--Nate1481(/_c) 16:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to read WP:Civil too.

I found the article while looking for the magazines you were using a references, I had no idea it was about you (exactly how could I have know?) but that article is suffering from exactly the same problems as this one. --Nate1481(/_c) 17:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You repeatedly removed reasonable tags, that could be considered vandalism. It was probably not the appropriate action but I am getting frustrated here, as you keep refusing to read or heed. wp:V --Nate1481(/_c) 17:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

My reference to the policy on civility was to draw your attention to the line "Comment on the actions and not the editor" After you decided to refer to me a childish.

You keep insisting I am be in unreasonable and biased. As I tried to point out, the whole article could have been put up for deletion, what you do not seem to understand is I am trying to improve the article, sourcing is the norm here, not an insult. I marked places that should be sourced in-line, using the links/sources at the bottom as I assumed someone more familiar with the topic would do a better job. If I was being vindictive as you clam I could have easily gone through your contributions list, putting all of them up for deletion, but that would be petty and would not help improve the encyclopedia. I have been trying to help you improve one article and then found another while doing so.

You say I have acted in a vindictive way before, please look more closely, what proportion of my edits have included disputes like this? Not that many, and of those, the majority ended amicably. For example look at the articles on Rhee Taekwon-Do where I and some others helped an editor who wanted to write about there style an linage write articles that have been recognised as up to the good Article standard. Where there have been disputes it often stems from the fact I regularly look at short or newish Martial arts related articles for improvement, often their are one or two editors who wrote the bulk of the article and are surprised when it is edited, on other occasions it has been written and abandoned. Nate1481(/_c)

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) 15:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not may no. look here as a portion of my total less than 0.1% is what you are disputing. So yes not many.

Have there been no biographies you could site just a title & ISBN number! The article is NOT well cited, it has some general sources but if you want to check a particular statement you would have to search all of them. Google is not a source, I have not once questioned the notability of the individual which is all google (may) show, "Chan Tai San" gives 505 results "Hélio Gracie" gives 8,470, so not that good a measure. As there were potenial sources I asked that they be attached to claims. Do you get the point? I am not "nit picking" I making a reasonable request.--Nate1481(/_c) 18:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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) 21:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That's nice, I have a MSc, this is not about qualifications. I had to write a dissertation where any factual claims had to be linked to a numbered source, that is all I'm asking for. Now will you stop carting out the same strawmen of persecution, it's getting tedious--Nate1481(/_c) 09:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi! A lot of this article seems to be copied from http://www.nykungfu.com/GMCTS.html. The presence of this copied web material put this article in some danger of deletion ( see Misplaced Pages:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal/Blatant_copyvio_material ). I would suggest that you re-write the text so that it is not a direct copy and include references back to the web site to satisfy Nate's suggestions above. jmcw (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I did NOT write the article in question. He just happens to be my (deceased) teacher and I feel the need to protect his article from what appears to be unwarranted "edits". IN FACT, the article in question was written by the OWNER of http://www.nykungfu.com Not sure what the WIKI policy is, but one would assume the person who wrote the original article (and owns the rights to the work) has the ability to post it, no? Nysanda (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually he's trying to help you, he was advising that that article as it exists is at risk. --Nate1481(/_c) 10:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Nate1481

Today, appears to be more reasonable than I had previously suspected, who knew? Had spare time so I attempted with my limited WIKI skills to cite more specifically the Chan Tai San article. Nate put it in WIKI format (which I don't know how to do) and left it at that. Others still apparently have axe to grind? If they want to delete Chan Tai San article now, that's on them. Nysanda (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't have an axe to grind but rather we try to keep the quality level of the martial arts articles at a certain level. I think the editors that have been 'encouraging' you have had good will: they have just wanted citations. A hard-ass editor would question the article as original research or as a personal memorial ( both of which are ground for deletion). A hard-ass editor would question the copyright status of the web citations and the scans. Because there is sooo much totaly unsubstantiated claims in martial arts, we try to set a standard that keeps out the worst but allows the recent, smaller martial art topics. I'm sorry that the experience has been unpleasant for you but we thank you for using your knowledge to bring another better article to Wiki martial arts. jmcw (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you weren't who I had in mind :) "Because there is sooo much totaly unsubstantiated claims in martial arts" is along the lines of what I was saying, ie that the field does not really have the sort of literature that a hard academic review would demand. Nysanda (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we are trying to sift out those with NO references from those that have some references ( even if they are not up to academic standards). jmcw (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. (1) We are only asking for a level of rigour quite a deal below that Misplaced Pages actually demands. (2) Extraordinary claims require a higher standard. Such claims must be removed until a suitable reference can be produced. --David Broadfoot (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if you are curious, take a look at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Martial_arts or Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Martial_arts to see some of the 'machinery' of Wiki martial arts. Your contributions would be welcome. jmcw (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The project notability criteria may also interest you, these are not an offical wiki guideline (yet) but they are headed that way.--Nate1481(/_c) 17:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Kung Fu forum

Are you lkfmdc from the Kung Fu Magazine forum? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, lkfmdc is David A Ross - the same person who posted here regarding Nate being "unreasonable" "retarded" and "an anal retnative f-ck" and "a tool who thinks he is god" who "keeps putting in 'citation' buttons like every three words". Where Ross makes it clear that he believes that the readers' ability find "hundreds of Google links" is a good substitute for proper citations, and that the wiki editors "defy common logic".

David A Ross then starts on me by calling on Kung Fu list members to "support chan tai san... one of the wiki-ots wants to delete the entry... get this, according to him, since much of CTS's material is in Chinese (uh, doh! he's Chinese from China) and HE can't read it....." WRONG again... for one thing, I never said I wanted to delete the article because much of the material is in Chinese (and I challenge you to cite where I said that, and anyway only one item was in Chinese). I note that we are STILL WAITING for you to tell us at exactly what point into that video the supporting statements are allegedly made. In short... --David Broadfoot (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've read that post. I asked because I'm a fellow Kung Fu mag member. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you got me, I made a typo... I am not perfect and you caught me (end sarcasm). However, you seem to have missed a pile of forum members who agreed with me, not only in regards to the Chan Tai San article but to WIKI in general. Every exchange here, the entire experience, has confirmed the opinions I initially entertained when people tried to delete the Marvin Perry article. I will say that Nate turned out to be different than I initially perceived him to be, and a few others in the discussion I'd say I have NO ISSUE with what they wrote. Others? Well, you can't love everyone (but I know you must have a special place in your heart for me!) LOL Nysanda (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Not just a troll, but a sarcastic troll. Who cares how many forum members agreed with you, especially given that they were feeding off your complete misrepresentation of the facts, and your "us-and-them" attitude fired by your persecution complex. And you seem to have missed the forum members who nonetheless disagreed as evidenced by them posting to the contrary, asserting in bold face, large point size that "Sources and citations, in regards to research and reliable information is a standard that should be maintained." And "Nate the anal retnative f-ck" has already ably countered your baseless argument about the Perry article. --David Broadfoot (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The above probably wouldn't pass the "civil" guidlines would it? Oh, you called me a "troll", I'm hurt, boo hoo (yeah, that's sarcasm). Forum members agreed with me because they've read the discussions and because they've had experiences here. The Marvin Perry discussion is archived so anyone interested can read it. There are some gems in there. Not everyone on here is "bad", I already said I changed my view on Nate and others in the discussion on CTS I had no issue with what they wrote. THOSE sorts of people kept the Marvin Perry article even while others screamed to have it deleted. Thank G'd for that experience, I saw how to save the CTS article. Nysanda (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism to article David Ross (martial artist)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to David Ross (martial artist), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. I refer to these unencyclopaedic edits quoting a non-verified source. Would you have us simply believe any Misplaced Pages editor who claims to be the subject of an article? I agree with your edit comment - you are being "silly". --David Broadfoot (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)