| Revision as of 10:41, 6 September 2005 editUsagiM (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,218 edits →Genseiryu & WGKF: re:Jeremy and Splash← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:00, 1 October 2005 edit undoUsagiM (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,218 edits Moved to Archive Genseiryu KaratedoNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| == ARCHIVE == | == ARCHIVE == | ||
| # ]. | # ]. | ||
| == Me, and how to proceed == | |||
| Mario, | |||
| I am sorry you think I have little time for this. I am prepared to invest many keystrokes indeed if I think there can be a resolution to the conflict. The principal reason I expressed some disinterest in the anon's comment was its incivility. About me, about Misplaced Pages and about you. In general, if someone is mouthing off, I do not give them the time of day. If someone has something to say, and can say it civilly I'm prepared to listen. So you're comment is much more palatable, even a touch sarcastic around the edges. | |||
| Whilst I say I am prepared to invest time in this, I would also note that ] has also tried counselling both of you, but neither responded to the suggestion that you take this to ] or ] — this gives the impression you prefer to continue the fight. It is clear that there is unlikely to be a resolution via talk pages, and that the situation has largely degenerated to sterile reverting. Let me present to you the alternatives available, in order of preference: | |||
| #Come to an agreement via the talk pages, or your user talk pages; | |||
| #Try informal mediation; | |||
| #Take the matter to an article-based ]; | |||
| #Take the matter to a user-behaviour ]; | |||
| #Request formal mediation at ]; | |||
| #Take the matter to the Arbitration Committee at ]. | |||
| Options 1 and 2 show little sign of working. I suspect that, due to the specialist nature of the subject, option 3 would be unlikely to produce much other than alternative forum to fight in. However, it must surely be worth a try. Why not go list the article at RfC for a week or so and see what happens? | |||
| Option 2 remains open to you all however. If you can present evidence, externally verifiable, on this talk page to back your claims I would be interested to read it. It sounds as if there must be some way to present both sides of the argument in the same article. | |||
| Option 4 is on the way to an Arbitration. It will probably produce comments positive and negative on the behaviour of all parties involved. Reqeusts for Mediation presently have a considerable backlog, but one suppose that, if all the earlier options have failed that it would not be unreasonable to skip that part out. That leaves Arbitration. The Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) generally takes a dim view of edit warring on any article for any reason. It takes a generally dimmer view when all other avenues of cooperation have been exhausted without result. It does not usually determine content issues. So one possible outcome is that ''both'' of you are banned from editing either article (under any IP address or account) for a lengthy period; you will probably also be cautioned against making attacks in summaries or edit pages with the threat of blocks if you do. The ArbCom rarely decides completely one way or the other. I would advise that Arbitration be avoided if at all possible. | |||
| Can I invite you to file an article ] first, give it a week to see if comments are incoming, and take it from there? I will cross post parts of this on the ] talk page since that is where most of the 'action' is. -] 20:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello Splash! Sorry for the late reaction (although just 4 days later), but I first had to think about this, as you might understand. Now, I have written a reaction on the ]. From this you can already see my point of view, actually I believe I can speak for the whole WGKF organization: bringing this to arbitration would mean that both sides of the story would be looked at and a new story would be created with only those parts that we agree on, maybe a few differences would be pointed out, giving both sides the same amount of credibility. Now, that is too big of a problem, since there is no credibility whatsover to the story of GKIF, at least not for the part where the edit war is all about. All the differences they are bringing up have the sole purpose to destroy the other organization (that's us!), to slander my name and the name of some well respected men, and to promote the book of sensei Tosa. We do NOT want to participate in any of this, as you might be able to understand... Therefore, arbitration is not really an option to my point of view. | |||
| :I am thinking of an alternative. I do have an alternative but I will have to talk this over with my "superiors"/colleagues first... Thanks for your help and understanding! Regards, ] 13:23:06, 2005-08-21 (UTC) | |||
| ==..."ignorant and naive you are"... == | |||
| WTF, why are you saying something like that about me at ]? We have not yet crossed paths but I believe we will if you continue to make statements about me like that. I don't know you and I don't think I want to know you. ] ] 02:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I think you totally misunderstood the message Hydnjo... That's the problem with <u>written</u> messages, you can't look at somebody's eyes! I even made a smiley ;-) to show I was joking! What I meant was that only if you would attack Peter Lee (i.e. revert his "edits"), he would attack you back, saying "you are ignorant and naive"... This was just a conditional statement about Peter Lee, I would never do this myself!!! Sorry you misunderstood the message... Gotta be more careful with my jokes... -- ] 10:09:08, 2005-08-22 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm begging your pardon. I was totally off base having hastily <u>mis</u>read your statement at ]. I have also been mistaken while making a ''humorous'' comment and I know how that made me feel. I apologize to you for my harsh comments. ] ] 16:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Apology accepted and no hard feelings! Regards, ] 13:58:33, 2005-08-24 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit summaries again == | |||
| Hi Mario! Please restrict your edit summaries to just a summary of what you have done to the article, and don't use them for propaganda. As you can see, I have adopted a policy of blocking those who refuse to enter discussion and prefer instead to continue this edit war. But I think that some of your edit summaries are inflammatory and don't help the situation. For example, in your most recent edit to WGKF you put ''Article 'cleaned up' to higher standard: this is the true story and the only story that is backup-ed by WGKF.'' where ''cleaned up'' would have done. All other discussion should be saved for talk pages. Thanks, ] ] 14:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah, sorry... Got a little carried away when I saw all the insulting language about me in the other summaries... This guy is really pissing me off sometimes, especially now he is hiding behind all the different ip addresses, in stead of showing what a 'man' he is and use ]!! BTW, I did write a message on the so-called 'research' on the ]... -- ] 14:46:19, 2005-08-24 (UTC) | |||
| == Blocked! == | |||
| Hi Mario! I have blocked you from editing for 24 hours for . You have been asked to refrain from personal attacks on many occasions. I am trying to persuade Mr Lee that his current behaviour is inappropriate and that he should join the discussion on the Genseiryu talk pages with the aim of working out a version of this article that both sides agree on. Your constant taunting of Mr Lee is not helpful in this respect. Yes he has attacked you in edit summaries, but go look at the talk pages of each of these IPs and you will see that I have blocked him every time. He is using an ISP that provides dynamic IPs, this means that his IP changes fairly often—this is not some trick that he is using, it is just the way that his ISP works. Because you have been more open to discussion regarding these articles I have been restoring ''your'' version each time it has been blindly reverted. But if you continue to rise to the bait that Mr Lee offers and respond with attacks against him I feel that my position is weakened. ] ] 04:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Okay, you are right Jeremy. I should not have done that. My sincere apologies! I thought too much about defending myself and my name and not about Misplaced Pages policy and the request to refrain from personal attacks. I was getting sick of all the personal attacks from ] all the time, where I never could say anything back. Now I got a little angry and wanted to say something back to him (actually lowering myself to his level), should have thought this over... I don't like it, but this time I deserved this block. After that, I will refrain from talking with Peter Lee at all (unless he is willing to discuss the 'hot' issues about ] and ], which I doubt!) and will be very brief in the summaries from now on. I learned my lesson! BTW, thanks for restoring the articles everytime. I did see you blocked ''some'' of the ip addresses, however as you noticed, these blocks don't really work, since he uses a dynamic ip... What can be done about that? -- ] 08:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :P.S.: In your revert of the talk page of Peter Lee, you also reverted the message "Genseiryu-Genseikan" (). This was not really an attack but a simple question. However somewhat meant sarcastic, it's an honest question and I don't see any reason to delete this one??? (maybe the beginning of the text was somewhat controversial, if so I can rewrite it after the block) | |||
| == Request for Comments == | |||
| This is to let you know that a ] has been filed which concerns your conduct. It also concerns the conduct of ]. You can find it here: ]. It having now been certified by the two relevant editors and having had the relevant evidence supplied, it is now open for comments. | |||
| Please provide a response as you feel appropriate in the assigned section of the article. Please keep discussion to the talk page. '''Please keep things civil''', and be aware that any member of the community is entitled to comment as they see fit. -] 03:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks Splash! I will look it over and think about it carefully. I will not respond immediately, I will think it over first. Unfortunately I have a friend over for the weekend and after the weekend I am flying to Jo-burg for a couple of days. So if I won't be able to write a response before Sunday evening (28/8) I will do that after I come back on Thursday... Regards, ] 20:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::You put your response in exactly the right place. It is indeed intended for you to write a) your account of events b) rebut evidence if you so wish and c) say how you plan to respond to the comments made. You may, however, say pretty much what you like there (within the usual constraints!). I remain faintly hopeful that Peter Lee will take a few minutes to write a response too. In respect of c) above, I'd be interested, if you are willing, in reading what ''your'' suggestion for the way forwards is. Clearly the articles cannot remain protected indefinitely, and clearly the warring cannot continue indefinitely either. If you do decide to suggest something (bearing in mind the suggestions made at the end of the summary above the certifying signatures), then please do make it in the RfC rather than a talk page. Thanks. -] 19:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Your site regarding Peter Larsen == | |||
| Osu Mario-San | |||
| We are several people involved in the Danish Karate Fed. who have read your site with interest. | |||
| I was present at the meeting where he was thrown out. | |||
| If you have any more info you like to share, please do. | |||
| You can write to me here: | |||
| post@mortensteen.dk | |||
| Regards | |||
| Osu | |||
| Morten Steen | |||
| Denmark | |||
| :Thanks for your reaction and support Morten-san! However, we have promised the Misplaced Pages community to avoid any comments about Peter Lee on the Misplaced Pages talk pages. But since we are in contact by email, we can exchange information to help eachother in our research... Osu! -- ] 17:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Categorization of ] and ] == | == Categorization of ] and ] == | ||
| You added a number of categories to both of these articles, notably '']'', '']'', | You added a number of categories to both of these articles, notably '']'', '']'', | ||
| '']'', '']'' and '']''. | '']'', '']'' and '']''. | ||
| Line 108: | Line 31: | ||
| ::::I took out ] because ] is a sub-category of ]. I took out ] because ] didn't really fit in with the other articles contained in that category. I added a full-length explanation of my category changes to the ] article. | ::::I took out ] because ] is a sub-category of ]. I took out ] because ] didn't really fit in with the other articles contained in that category. I added a full-length explanation of my category changes to the ] article. | ||
| ::::] 21:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC) | ::::] 21:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC) | ||
| == Genseiryu & WGKF == | |||
| Hi Mario! I have unprotected these articles—however Splash and I will be watching closely for any return of the anon IP vandalism. I think that it might help if you would agree to not edit these articles for a short period of time (say, a couple of months). Of course there is no way that I can force you to do this but I think that it would show good faith on your part. ] ] 00:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :And I second that. -] 01:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi Jeremy and Splash! Of course I'll do anything to help the Misplaced Pages community. I will try not to touch the articles for a while. In stead, I will put my energy and time in editing and contributing to other articles... Regards! -- ] 10:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:00, 1 October 2005
Welcome!
Hi UsagiM! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Misplaced Pages community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Misplaced Pages page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing!
BTW, be careful with that help page. By putting a {{db}} template on it, you've marked it as a candidate for speedy deletion. An admin who isn't paying close attention may delete it as "deletion requested by author" by accident! — Gwalla | Talk 01:07, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you Gwalla for letting me know about the {{db}}... Didn't know it would be such a problem. Thought they would understand. But I have changed it now. -- MarioR 01:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) (this is just part of the answer copied from Gwalla's talk page!) -- MarioR 19:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
ARCHIVE
Categorization of Bundestag and Bundesrat
You added a number of categories to both of these articles, notably Category:Political science terms, Category:Germany, Category:Government of Germany, Category:Politics of Germany and Category:German law.
Please note that one of Misplaced Pages's policies is that articles should not be members of a category and one of its subcategories at the same time. Check out Misplaced Pages:Categorization if you want to read more about that. That article also goes into detail why it's in general not too good an idea to have an article use too many categories, especially if the categories are related.
I hope this makes some sense and will help you with your future categorization efforts. sebmol 03:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, so what you mean is that the mentioned articles (by the way, also Rechtsstaat and Judiciary of Germany) have a Category:Germany and at the same time also the other categories (which you mentioned), which are on their part also a sub-category of this Category:Germany... Am I right? So, either all the sub-categories should be removed or the main category... Which of these you suppose would be best??? Thanks for the clarification! BTW, I don't really see the problem (yet), but I will read the mentioned Wiki page about that. Maybe it'll become clear then... -- MarioR 17:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- P.S.: I took the liberty of wiki-linking some part of your message. Makes it a bit easier, don't think you'd mind...
- That's exactly what I was trying to say. I would try to be as sparing as possible with categories on an article, especially if the categories themselves are related. In other words, it would be appropriate for Bundestag to be in the category "German Government" (or some equivalent) and maybe in another category "National Legislatures" (if one exists).
- It is also often common for an article to be in a category named the same as the article IF there are other articles that explain parts of the main article. "Bundestag", for example, is in a category called "German Bundestag" where that category also contains other (usually more detailed) articles about the "Bundestag". That way, the main article doesn't get too long and there's a one-stop page where you can find everything about the Bundestag you ever wanted to know.
- I'm going to redo the categorization of Bundestag so you can see what I was trying to express.
- sebmol 18:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Alright, I also removed category:Germany from Bundesrat of Germany. However, I do not fully understand why you also deleted Category:Government of Germany and Category:German law. I mean, the Bundestag has everything to do with the government and with the law. Why not put in these categories as well? Because of an overflow? I don't think that is such a problem, some items (articles) do belong in several different categories, nothing to do about that... If it's really an overflow thing, then there are just too many categories and maybe some categories should be removed! Don't you agree with me? Regards, MarioR 22:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- P.S.: I also must add that the system of categories is not really transparent. It's difficult to see which categories are also a sub-category of another category. You can only see by checking it manually... That can be a time-consuming job...
- I took out category:Government of Germany because category:Legislative Branch of the German Government is a sub-category of category:Government of Germany. I took out category:German law because Bundestag didn't really fit in with the other articles contained in that category. I added a full-length explanation of my category changes to the Bundestag article.
- sebmol 21:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)