JJL's User talk page

Previous discussions: /Archive 1

Welcome to my talk page. Please add comments below. JJL ( talk) 20:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Please note that the consensus at Mito Umeta's AfD was "delete" NOT "redirect." Therefore, your recreation of deleted material was inappropriate. All links to the page were removed, and "Mito Umeta" is an unlikely search term for people looking for "Oldest people," which is one of only three results if one were to search their name. Please respect Wikipedia's consensus in the future. I have taken the liberty of removing the recreation, please do not recreate it in the future. Cheers, CP 07:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Philip Rabinowitz (runner), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Philip Rabinowitz. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 03:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I was in the process of moving the contents of Philip Rabinowitz to Philip Rabinowitz (runner) to make way for a Philip Rabinowitz page on the better-known person by that name. They shouldn't be similar now. JJL ( talk) 03:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The article that was there first has precedence. If you want to create a disambig. page, that's fine, but don't just delete the article that was there because you feel that your person is more important. Disambig. is fine, but changing "the" Philip Rabinowitz will require more consensus. Cheers, CP 04:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I didn't delete it. I did consider a dab page but the runner seemed of clearly secondary notability. JJL ( talk) 12:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Well I disagree, so I'm changing it to a DAB page. Cheers, CP 20:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply

That's fine. You might change the links intended for the mathematician as I did with Philip Rabinowitz (runner). JJL ( talk) 20:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply

You changed the content of the JD article mistakenly. A JD does not require any study of history or philosophy at any university. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 21:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, that's what I edited it to say ("requires little or no study of the history and philosophy of law") [1]. Are you sure you could back up your claim about any university? JJL ( talk) 22:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

[2]According to David Mitchell, "All taught Japanese-influenced systems.

1. Don't Copy & Paste "One" sentence. It is POV sentence. We need whole article. You omitted whole article.

2. I doubt it is real book source or not.

3. Don't delete other proven source. Manacpowers ( talk) 04:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

In response: 1. Putting in the whole article (in fact, it's a book) would be a copy violation and senseless. 2. This is easily verified (e.g. through Amazon) with the info. provided. 3. I don't know to what you're referring here. JJL ( talk) 16:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

One more

The Overlook Martial Arts Handbook by David Mitchell [3]

first, We did not confirmed whole article from given source. This book writen about karate. Author is an Englishman and a well known karate- and budo exponent and teacher. [4]

This book written by karate teacher.(Originally Karate-POV book) not taekwondo book. also David Mitchell can't represent to all martial arts. Manacpowers ( talk) 05:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm afraid you have to actually view the source. Discounting anything written by someone who isn't already a TKD believer is precisely the problem. Please look at the book. JJL ( talk) 16:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I have very little experience in AfD matters, and am asking for your input before nominating an article for deletion, because, quite frankly, I do not want to be seen as someone who capriciously nominates articles which do not meet AfD standards.

If you have time, please take a look at this article. It was created by the person who—as the intro asserts—is the very person who coined the term. Most of the edits are by that person. Most, if not all, of the sources link back to this person. I mean, at best it appears to me to constitute OR, at worst, self-promotion. But maybe I'm seeing it wrong. What do you think?

I selected you and many other editors pretty much completely at random; I picked one day's AfD archives, and clicked on the talk pages of the first two or three dozen editors' talk pages I came across. I hope that in using this selection method, I will get editors who are well-versed in AfD policies, yet who also represent a good cross-section of AfD philosophies. I will monitor your talk page for your response. Thanks. Unschool ( talk) 07:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

It's certainly a well-written article (compared to the average) but I see many problems: WP:COI as you mention but also WP:RS (where are independent third-party sources covering it?) and WP:CRYSTAL (has this theory/proposal been accepted by anyone yet?). This is basically an essay on his theory, written by him, and I would agree that it should be deleted. If you want to take a more careful route you could mark it for WP:PROD first. Good luck! Please leave me a note if you do list it as having looked it over now I'll certainly want to comment there. JJL ( talk) 16:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

1. On the contrary, David Mitchell book is 'nonsense'. He is karate teacher. and his book is almost karate book. originally karate-pov book. also he can't represent to TKD. It is not trustworthy source.

All taught Japanese-influenced systems? first of all, Fighting style is very different. as i know, only 17% TKD techniques similar with karate. 13% are kung-fu. other are original technique.(derived from Song Duk-ki, the tekkyon master) mainly derived from tekkyon's kicking technic. so 'heavily influenced from foreign' sentence is nonsense word.

2. Kukiwon is world TKD headquarter.

Which one is the more trust worthy? 1. one karate teacher's karate POV book 2. official TKD headquarter. millions of kukiwon dojo and TKD teacher

3. Please, away your book from this article. He is not TKD scholar. He do not work for TKD. and his claim did not authorized from TKD organization.

4. also Your edit is violated wikipedia policy. Wikipedia:Content forking. and we did not confirm from whole article. Your source is unclear. but my source is clear.

5. if you keep David Mitchell's stupid claim(i still doubt it is real or not), it will be must actionable to attach 'hoax' tag. Manacpowers ( talk) 19:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

There is no need to copy your comments here. I am reading the TKD Talk page and responing there. JJL ( talk) 19:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

You did not prove any readable source. first of all, Fighting style is very different. as i know, only 17% TKD techniques similar with karate. 13% are kung-fu. other are original technique.(derived from Song Duk-ki, the tekkyon master) mainly derived from tekkyon's kicking technic. so 'heavily influenced from foreign' sentence is nonsense word.

and Karate is not Japanese made. It is invented by china. karate was carbon copy of chinese Tang arts. even karate learned korean never say karate is orgin from japan.(they called as "Tang soo do". They did not called as "空"手. They called as "唐"手.) they say it's origin from chinese "Tang" dynasty martial arts. it's not japan's.

also chinese encyclopedia said,

" 空手道,是由距今五百年前的古老格斗术和中国传入日本的拳法揉合而成的。那时，在硫球上层阶级间，暗中参考中国的拳法创出了独特 的唐手，即最初的'空手道'。"

they say it's origin from Chinese Tang dynasty arts.

Chinese and Korean same said like that.

origin of 空手道(karate) name.

"から：汉字为"空"；这个字的解释有二：一为空,空手,手无寸铁;Kara亦可解释做"唐"的意思,唐者,唐朝也,唐代中国进 入盛势,唐人即是中国人.故karate亦可解做唐手,即中国的手技也.但因子十年前日本统一Karate为空手,故其汉字(k anji)亦废用唐手此名. "(from chinese encyclopedia)

Chinese and 唐手道 learned korean say that karate originally from chinese Tang dynasty martial arts. They did not say, it is invented by Japan. do not mistake. Manacpowers ( talk) 20:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

'TKD originally from Karate?' I think that you are not constructive editor. you are Japanese POV pushing Troll. Who believe your fabrication? Your only source is one karate teacher's book.(also can't readable to other. and did not authorized from TKD)

but i admit, TKD accepted Grade system (Dan), practice suit(道服) from karate. (borrowd some 'system') but karate originally from Chinese. Manacpowers ( talk) 20:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

all Source proved. your edit is unclear source. your edit is some type of an unauthorized history.(野史) do not delete it. your source is unclear. my source is clear and fact. Manacpowers ( talk) 00:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Tang soo do is not mean 'karate do'. "In Japanese, these characters mean " karate-do", but in contemporary Japanese karate-do" Who edit like that? if you understanding korean language. it is funny HOAX. no relation with karate. Korean called karate is karate. 'Tang soo do' is NOT mean 'karate do'. also please check Tang soo do homepage. [5] They did not mentioned that it mean 'karate do'. Manacpowers ( talk) 03:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

This is best discussed on the Talk page there. JJL ( talk) 04:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

You revert this. [6] I already talke at Janggeom's page. [7] can you read this? [8](in Korean) ITF 태권도인들은 최홍희를 태권도의 창시자라고 주저 없이 말한다. ‘창시(創始)’의 사전적 의미는 ‘처음 시작함’인데, 이는 최홍희가 태권도를 처음으로 시작했다는 말이다. 하지만 다르게 평가하는 사람도 적지 않다. 태권도 역사를 오랜 기간 연구한 한 교수는 “최홍희 총재는 태권도 창시자가 아니라 작명자다. ‘태권도’가 1955년 그의 제안에 의해 작명된 것은 부인할 수 없는 사실이지만, 그가 태권도를 창시했다는 근거 자료는 어디에도 찾아 볼 수 없다”며 “50~60년대 태권도협회 임원으로 활동했던 원로들조차 그를 태권도 창시자라고 말하지 않는다”고 주장했다. Manacpowers ( talk) 04:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Translate to Japanese language version

ITF テコンドー人たちはツェホングフィをテコンドーの創始者と躊躇なしに言う. ‘創始(創始)’の辞書の意味は ‘始め’のに, これはツェホングフィがテコンドーを初めて始めたという話だ. しかし違うように評価する人も少なくない. テコンドー歴史を長年の期間研究した一教授は “ツェホングフィ総裁はテコンドー創始者ではなく名づけ者だ. ‘テコンドー’が 1955年彼の提案によって名づけされたことは否認することができない事実だが, 彼がテコンドーを創始したという根拠資料はどこにも捜してみることができない”と “50‾60年代テコンドー協会役員で活動した元老たちさえ彼をテコンドー創始者と言わない”と主張した Manacpowers ( talk) 04:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Again, it would be more fruitful to talk at the Talk pages of the articles than those of individual users. In particular, I would appreciate it if you would cease posting messages here and keep the discussions at the Talk pages of the articles in question instead. JJL ( talk) 04:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello, POV fork. please do not change by your own will. without consensus. you are JPOV pusher. your theory(yes, theory) is not accepted by other. It is some type of "minority report'. That is not orthodox story. Manacpowers ( talk) 06:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

It's you who wishes to change the consensus and should discuss it at Talk. Again, I would prefer that you refrain from posting here and keep the conversation at Talk:Taekwondo where all interested parties can participate. JJL ( talk) 06:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

first of all, please prove academic source, admit by TKD organization. You pick a Japanese nationalism/POV in favor of well-sourced facts. After all, you cut and paste only convenient records for you. Manacpowers ( talk) 06:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Your change is based on Japanese nationalism/POV in favor of well-sourced facts.(it did not authrized by TKD. and minority report) My change is based on orthodox source. from TKD official website. Your change is JPOV. my change is based on TKD official website. so my edit is more suit for encyclopedia. Manacpowers ( talk) 06:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Your claim is totally disregard TKD arts developer. They did not thinkg they developed Karate(Chinese martial arts, modified by Ryukyu people) arts. Manacpowers ( talk) 06:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC) even ITF TKD founder also learend karate, it is not mean TKD is karate. TKD arts developed by korean's own skill. Manacpowers ( talk) 06:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

"In Japanese, these characters mean " karate-do", but in contemporary Japanese karate-do" Who edit like that? if you understanding korean language. it is funny HOAX. no relation with karate. Korean called karate is karate. 'Tang soo do' is NOT mean 'karate do'. also please check Tang soo do homepage. [9] They did not mentioned that it mean 'karate do'. Manacpowers ( talk) 07:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

[10] (in particular, most were based on Shotokan Karate). However, Korean nationalism would soon lead to significant changes from these base arts??? Wikipedia:No original research It is made by you. and POV word. Manacpowers ( talk) 07:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I've been watching the article for a long time but not participated in. You are always conflicting with Melnonbarnmonster and Odonen (can't recall his name correctly) on the relation between Taekwondo and Karate. Regardless of which is right or wrong, your last revert is not fair because the two main editors who has faithfully engaged in the article are banned for 24 hours. Right after that, you took an advantage of the chance. Just let it until tomorrow. Your complaint about some participant's break, well, I already know melon is doing that because other editors had complaints enough about him at Korean cuisine article. Just admit that the nature of Wikipedia is just like that. Every article is not fixed. -- Appletrees ( talk) 00:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Is there a reason why you're not being cooperative about which of your edits I reverted here. [11]? If you're going to accuse me of reverting, I have to right to ask which version you're claiming I reverted to.

I'm also waiting for you to give me the pertinent text or even a summary what Henning says about the Taekkyon during the Japanese occupation. If you're not going to back up what your accusation and claims, I'm going to assume that you were BS'ing when you brought up Henning in our discussion about self-published sources. melonbarmonster ( talk) 02:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I would prefer to continue this discussion at the TKD Talk page. JJL ( talk) 02:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I've been waiting for a response on these issues for some time already but I'll wait your response in the TKD talk page. melonbarmonster ( talk) 04:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Taekwondo. For the Mediation Committee, WjB scribe 15:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply

An editor has nominated Shohei-ryu, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shohei-ryu and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 02:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your support. Please feel free to let me know how I can improve in the future. Thanks again. TheAsianGURU ( talk) 04:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for taking the time to bring these over here! Please don't be discouraged. JJL ( talk) 18:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Dear JJL, I notice that you have participated in this discussion. Anyway, please see here. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 20:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Ah, thanks for letting me know! I had indeed wondered why a "new" page popped up on my watchlist like that. JJL ( talk) 20:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

As did I. I'm holding off commenting in the discussion to see if a (3rd nomination) page is indeed created and this one is reverted back to the closed version. I just felt it better if the nominee or a neutral admin were to fixed the format instead. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 20:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jeff Dwire, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Dwire. Thank you. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks a lot. Your senseless and baseless criticism of my wikipedia entry concerning IMPACT- Charlottesville has proven that wikipedia is not, in fact, a public encyclopedia that encourages everyone to contribute sensible, informative and interesting articles. I believe as an administrator you have a duty to engender an ethos of contribution, not lambast it with non-existent local clauses. You spend way too much time on your computer and not enough in the real world and in short, are unworthy of such a position. I will immediately lodge a complaint with whatever authorities hold you responsible, and if that does not work, your fellow peers. Community service ( talk) 17:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm not an administrator on Wikipedia. Anyone can comment on an AfD. The rules require some interpretation, which is why discussion leading (hopefully) to consensus is encouraged. You may wish to take the matter to WP:DRV. I've had articles deleted too. JJL ( talk) 18:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply

You are receiving this notice because you have had previous dealings with the above user, in, so far as I could tell, a less-than-positive fashion. Community service recently emailed another user, User:Tiddly Tom, expressing a desire to return to Wikipedia to constructively contribute. In an effort to assume good faith, but still respect the reasons for the block, I have set Community service a series of tasks for him to complete on his now-unprotected talk page so that he may demonstrate this willingness to contribute to us. These tasks are listed here, and the full discussion of this situation, including an email I sent to Community service just now, may be found on my talk page at User talk:Hersfold#User:Community service. I would encourage you to review these tasks, and offer any advice to the user he may need. Thank you for your time and understanding in this matter. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 17:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• Thanks for letting me know. I'm all for having more passionate users who want to create and improve articles, so I hope all works out for the best. JJL ( talk) 21:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Quick update - CS has emailed me to indicate he has finished the assigned tasks. I'll give you all a chance to review things before I take any action (unblock or decline - right now I'm kinda neutral on it) Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 04:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I have no objection to unblocking him. I see from his Talk page that he promises to contact me to make amends then; that is fine by me. JJL ( talk) 16:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Juxtaposed to my previous comments this may seem a little weird, but, nevertheless, I would like to offer you my sincerest apologies for calling you an innumerable number of names. As I outlined in my synopsis of the civility policy, my infractions are too numerous to detail. But, I wanted you to know that I have the intention of becoming a contributive member of wikipedia and appreciate the second chance.

Regards,

Community service ( talk) 02:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your message! I appreciate your comments and wish you luck on Wikipedia. JJL ( talk) 03:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Karate. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 220.253.4.36 ( talk) 17:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply

The term "vandalism" doesn't mean "edits you disagree with". I suggest you read further in the WP rulebook. JJL ( talk) 18:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply

You are removing sourced information, with no valid reasons. That is vandalism, and your input on the talk page also raises suggestions as to your motivations. 220.253.13.106 ( talk) 22:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply

In addition, you removed the reference from the offical Ryukyu culture archives. 220.253.13.106 ( talk) 01:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Not trying to pick a fight - but it would appear that you created the zipota article. I must confess that in spite of my considerable knowledge of many things Basque this is a new one to me. I've followed the links and searched the literature (that I got here) and the web for all terms mentioned in the article - including variations and different case endings in Basque but I'm drawing a complete blank. Could you point me to the primary source that you used/refer to or would refer to for support this as a Basque sport? I've followed the links but they mostly seem to be forum discussions which aren't really what I'd call reliable evidence either way ; ) Thanks! Akerbeltz ( talk) 11:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for asking! I am no expert in this specific area of the martial arts. I saw it listed elsewhere on the web and it has periodically made an appearance on the Savate and other martial arts pages so I took what I could find and made a page. I am aware that many people think it was created by the school in Texas and others think it's just a local/corrupted name for Savate as practiced in or near the Basque region. Seeing an obituary [12] that mentioned it prominently was encouraging to me but of course this was almost certainly submitted by the family. Sorry, I worked with what I had! JJL ( talk) 12:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I've reworded it... take a look. I think it can stand the way it is now and we could take off the hoax note. It IS a martial art by the looks of it, just not indigenous Basque. Akerbeltz ( talk) 17:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply

See if you can find more reliable sources about this - If you find more RS for Snafu Comics I'll withdraw the nomination :) WhisperToMe ( talk) 03:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for participating at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Calcagni. The article Thomas Calcagni is a bit better now. You might want to take another look at it, especially the references. -- Eastmain ( talk) 22:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Nice changes to the hapkido article, one which I contributed quite a bit to but feared changing a great deal and so mostly 'added to' rather than changed. Much is awkward in the article as it stands though, I think, so your changes and more like them are welcome.-- Mateo2006 ( talk) 02:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the encouragement! I started with a 'test edit' knowing that, as the article itself stated, there is some sensitivity over historical issues. But the real issue to my mind is that the lengthy "History and Major Figures from Korea" detracts from telling people what HKD is and what's distinctive about it. JJL ( talk) 02:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey man, just to let you know, I have removed your vote on this page as the AfD nomination was not yet complete. I have now completed it to include the articles about the other teams at Euro 2004. Feel free to vote again, taking the other articles into account. – Pee Jay 14:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Please note the discussion opened up on removing reference to the J.D. in the Academic Degree article. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 01:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC) reply

You have a big mistake. your edit of TKD article. According to mediation, Most mediators NEVER accept your edit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Taekwondo

involved parties

  1. JJL (talk · contribs)
  2. Melonbarmonster (talk · contribs)
  3. Appletrees (talk · contribs)
  4. Omnedon (talk · contribs)
  5. Manacpowers (talk · contribs)

  2. Melonbarmonster (talk · contribs) was not accpeted your POV
  3. Appletrees (talk · contribs) was not accpeted your POV
  4. Omnedon (talk · contribs) is neutral. He was not accpeted your POV. 
  5. Manacpowers (talk · contribs) it's me. I'm not a accpeted your POV

even Omnedon said, "JJL, I'm suggesting no such thing; I'm involved. What I am saying is that I don't like the attitudes displayed by either you or melonbarmonster. I'm also saying that I feel a compromise could be reached, and I've said so several times; but you seem to insist more and more stridently that, in a nutshell, Taekwondo is essentially Japanese. It's not. That has not been demonstrated. There must be something between "Taekwondo was influenced by non-Korean martial arts" and "Taekwondo is Japanese" that we could agree upon, even if grudgingly." He was not accpeted your POV.

at least, 4 member declined your edit cleary.(1 member is neutral. but He never permit your POV edit) if you still rv from your POV edit. it is cleary violate of rule of wiki.

if you still not understand. it's simple. members are not permit your POV edit. i read carefully Talk:Taekwondo/Archive 4. and realized that no one permit your POV edit.

your edit is rejected. Manacpowers ( talk) 03:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply

You've already violated WP:3RR on 15 June. Please stop edit-warring. Mediation was your chance to make your views on this matter known. Please stop your blind reverting. JJL ( talk) 22:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply

1st of all, 3rr violation is not mean 'wrong edit'. you do not know what 3rr mean. 3rr mean, An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.

2nd. this version edit is not my 3rr violation version. my previous version is this [13]. not same current version.

3rd, mediator were not accept your POV pushing. Manacpowers ( talk) 03:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC) reply

there is no rule that undocumented info must be deleted. show me such rule please. for example, your source are undocumented too. also your POV pushing source rejected by mediators. [User:Manacpowers|Manacpowers]] ( talk) 14:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC) reply

The edit warring over the origin of Taekwondo would last forever between you and the other, so why don't you open another meditation? The fail of the meditation was induced by the absence of the main disputers in it. I guess Melonbarnstar would not come back to edit Wikipedia, so you would not wait his return. However, I would not participate in or sign up for it since I do not have much knowledge about the subject. It is clear that neither yours nor the other's edit is not a compromised consensus, so please seek for a peaceful solution. Thanks.-- Caspian blue ( talk) 14:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your comments. I think I'll let someone else do the filing this time though! JJL ( talk) 18:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I think you really need to file another meditation to prevent WP:3RR or tendentious edit warring. I don't know where Manacpowers lives, but he seems like a student. Therefore, he would be on his summer vacation, and participate in meditation seriously. Melonbarnstar is a native English speaker, so even though you two made edit warring, at least the article was legible. Well, I do write broken English, but I also don't understand what Manacpowers writes except the claim "Taekwondo originates in takkyon". Besides, he does not seem to know the procedure for filing meditation. I would help him, but I really don't know the subject. If you filing it again, everybody would definitely think that you have tried to resolve the issue hard. Onorem and Nate.. look like rational editors who could possibly meditate you and Manacpowers. So why don't you re-consider my suggestion? --

JJL's disuptive edit already rejected. I already said, David Mitchell is a Karate teacher. This source is a born to be a Karate Pushing. His source is already null and void. also your Capener, Steven D. source already pointed out that "it's not. That has not been demonstrated", "his edits went too far and produced a Japanese POV." by neutral mediator. Manacpowers (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC) and do not delete documented source quoute from Glen R. Morris Manacpowers ( talk) 09:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC) reply

and Please show evidence about this? Steven D. Capener is not a academic scholar and his claim can't represent to TKD.

"Upon returning, these Koreans opened karate gymnasiums promoting what they were teaching as karate, much like the process followed by the early Judo instructors ^{citation needed original research?}. Well after these schools became established, the need to "Koreanize" was felt ^{citation needed original research?}. The process of Koreanization consisted of three main aspects ^{citation needed original research?}. The first was the selection of a new, non-Japanese name ^{citation needed original research?}. The second was the creation of a system of techniques and training which was distinctly different from that of karate, and the third was the attempt to establish t'aegwondo's existence and development within the historical flow of Korean civilization ^{citation needed original research?}.

This is very heavy POV Pushing. Some one say, "USA belong to africa!" then really USA belong to africa?

1. need scientific evidence. How many % TKD skills are similar with karate?

2. need testimony of TKD founder or master. is TKD founder really say so? no evidence.

Manacpowers ( talk) 10:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC) reply

According to WP:RS says,

• "extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities; any information used must be directly relevant to the subject. The material taken from such sources should not be contentious, and it should not involve claims made about third parties. Articles should not be based primarily on such sources."
• "fringe theories (that is, views held by a small minority, in direct contrast with the mainstream view in their field), should only be used as sources about themselves"

by the WP:RS, Articles should not be based primarily on extremist sources. It should only be used as sources. JJL's sources must remain as a sources.(not in article) It must not contain In main body article.

This process of development can be broadly outlined as follows: Japanese karate called kongsudo or tangsudo was introduced to Korea just after liberation from Japan by Koreans who had learned karate in Japan. Upon returning, these Koreans opened karate gymnasiums promoting what they were teaching as karate, much like the process followed by the early Judo instructors. Well after these schools became established, the need to "Koreanize" was felt. The process of Koreanization consisted of three main aspects. The first was the selection of a new, non-Japanese name. The second was the creation of a system of techniques and training which was distinctly different from that of karate, and the third was the attempt to establish t'aegwondo's existence and development within the historical flow of Korean civilization.

so, this style edit(Karate POV pushing. sources from extremist.(-even TKD orginization did not admit it. distinguish from established theory-) is not acceptable in article. Manacpowers ( talk) 01:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply

what part is gramatically nonsense? if you do not explain this, your rv. is null and void. Manacpowers ( talk) 04:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Taekwondo. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Nate1481( ^t/ _c) 14:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I've tried all that, up to and including requesting mediation. A neutral mediator is very much needed there. JJL ( talk) 17:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is not your blog. cleary, your stance is "My sources are 100% Justice. Other sources are Not" It seems like you want removing other user's sources as possible as you can. Look their are people in the world who do not agree with you, whether they are right or wrong, they exist, there are people who believe that the world was created in 7 days by an all powerful supreme being, agree or disagree they exist. THAT is what is not in dispute, most obviously as you are aguing with one of them who can point you by means of sources at several others. It is incredably frustrating talking to someone who already thinks they know what you are going to say, and refuses to acknowlage that you have not. Manacpowers ( talk) 16:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Why are you quoting something written by Nate1481 at User_talk:Manacpowers#TKD_.28again.29 to me as though you had written it? It was directed at you. JJL ( talk) 17:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Macacpowers, you need to get out of your little dojang and away from your big fish in a small pound teachers to see that there is big world of Taekwondo out there. JJL has been trying to enlighten you to facts from real sources, yet you keep quoting idiot authors and everyone is telling you to get better sources. What gives here? You still have not even figured out that I am not JJL and that I am a real person, with real first hand experience. Ask your teacher, or better yet, ask his teacher. Al Cole (Mastercole@aol.com) 76.227.133.168 ( talk) 08:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply

well. i still heavily doubt that you and JJL are not same person. even Your IP somtimes cahnged. [14] 76.227.133.168 or 76.205.105.20?.

anyway, what is the real sources? no scitentific data with bias personal opinion? idiot authors? well, any standard of idot or non-idiot author? i still heavily doubt that you and JJL are not same person. Manacpowers ( talk) 08:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I am reluctant to dignify with a response the accusation that I am using a WP:SOCK, but: This is my only WP account. I am not the person posting as Al Cole from 76.205.105.20. JJL ( talk) 02:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC) reply

It's funny that you want to be a researcher, but you can not even find out who I am. Let me know when you find out. Al Cole (Mastercole@aol.com) 76.205.105.20 ( talk) 15:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your input on the recent AFD on Taser controversy. The editors involved with that article would like to continue the discussion on how to proceed and invite you to join the discussion at Talk:Taser controversy. The latest discussions include Talk:Taser controversy#re:Globalise and Talk:Taser controversy#Renaming this article?. Flatscan ( talk) 02:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for letting me know! JJL ( talk) 02:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Curious that you have debated the legitimacy of the J.D. so vigorously, but you defend the dubious origins of the eJD. Perhaps if I've misunderstood you we can chat on discussion or my talk. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 18:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I contest the status of the J.D. as a doctoral degree, but not its legitimacy as a postgraduate degree. I don't disagree that the eJD is barely worthy of the appellation 'degree', but in fairness the language you reverted to was synthesizing, not reporting, an argument against the eJD. So while I agreed with that analysis, it still appeared to be WP:SYNTH or possibly even WP:OR. JJL ( talk) 20:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I believe a request for mediation is warranted to settle the dispute over the J.D. article, which also impacts other articles such as e.g. academic degree, doctorate, first professional degree, and postgraduate education. In summary:

1) The term "professional doctorate" is not sanctioned by the U.S. Department of Education, which consistently refers instead to the J.D. as a "first professional degree". In fact, the DOE's own survey of postgraduate education differentiates between master's, first professional, and doctoral students as 3 separate classes (see the appropriate links in the relevant talk pages).

2) The J.D. is not the highest academic degree available in the field of Law in the United States as both the LL.M. and the S.J.D. rank higher. Therefore, the J.D. does not meet the dictionary definition of a doctorate (widely accepted both by American and British dictionaries alike), according to which a doctorate is "highest degree awarded by a university."

3) Several examples, e.g. from the LSE and Oxford University sites, have been mentioned in the relevant talk pages as evidence that universities outside the US do not consider the J.D. a doctoral degree and, in fact, equate it in rank to a LL.B.

4) The term "professional doctorate" is used in the UK to refer to a different class of degrees, e.g. the EngD or the EdD, which, like the PhD, are also research degrees, but differ from the latter in the sense that the underlying research is application-oriented (as opposed to academically-oriented) and is normally undertaken outside a university, for example in industry (in the case of the EngD) or in a secondary school (in the case of the EdD). Grouping the UK professional doctorates and the American first professional degrees (M.D., J.D.) in one single class is both confusing and misleading to the readers.

5) There seems to be a general consensus on the talk pages that the particular name a given university chooses to use to refer to the degrees it awards has no bearing on the actual academic rank of that degree. For example, the Italian "Laurea magistrale" confers the title of "Dottore Magistrale" even though that particular "Laurea" is actually ranked as a master's degree only in the pan-European Bologna classification. Likewise, the decision by U.S. universities to change the name of the LL.B. degree to J.D. does not automatically make that degree a doctorate.

6) Lawyers in the US do not normally use the title "Doctor".

Given the arguments above, would you support a request for mediation or peer review of the J.D. (and other related) articles ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toeplitz ( talk • contribs) 16:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I have yet to find mediation actually helpful (see below), but I do think some resolution is needed on this. As you point out it affects many other articles. Getting outside eyes on the issue does seem like it could help. JJL ( talk) 16:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Taekwondo 2. For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey, I've made a few edits of the Okichitaw article. Please take a look and see if that convinces you to vote Keep at the deletion discussion.-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for letting me know! I have heard of it but looking at the article, while it's improved I still don't see how it meets WP:N via WP:RS. I'm still at 'weak delete'. JJL ( talk) 04:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, I've rewritten Non-heterosexuals and would appreciate you revisiting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-heterosexuals to see if your concerns have been addressed. Thank you! Banjeboi 13:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

It's certainly much improved! JJL ( talk) 16:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you! Hopefully it's written well enough to be clearly notable to others there as well. Banjeboi 21:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello, JJL. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

OK, thanks for letting me know! JJL ( talk) 17:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Is this one of those American/US things? Can you point me to the discussion (I would have lost marks if I had used one of these at school, although that is admittedly several decades ago -- Snowded TALK 18:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, the serial comma is common in the U.S. but not in the U.K. The main discussion on it was here and didn't really come to a conclusion; there's other scattered discussion of a serial comma in the list of topics buried in the Talk too. I don't think we reached consensus on this but I did disagree with your absolute statement in the edit history about the use of a comma. I prefer the comma there (being an American and raised with it) but wouldn't make a big deal over it. JJL ( talk) 18:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello, JJL. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JJL, where you may want to participate. -- Omnedon ( talk) 20:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for letting me know. JJL ( talk) 20:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the vote of support on one of my articles (titled "Gordon Dexheimer"). I appreciate your thoughts. -- Rowdywriter ( talk) 18:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply

You're welcome! JJL ( talk) 18:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply

JJL, there are articles and directories elsewhere on the Web that list it.

For instance:

[15]
[16] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjpeanut26 ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Those show it exists, but not that it's notable. Are there are actual stories about it? JJL ( talk) 03:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply

JJL, this article is a direct article about the flea market and its implementation of a booth tracking system:

boothtracker article

does this qualify?

Mjpeanut26 ( talk) 04:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply

It seems to be more about the software than the flea market, so in my opinion it isn't enough. Something that shows someone thought the flea market itself was worthy of attention is what's really needed! JJL ( talk) 04:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, at this point my client will have to figure something out...he asked me to post an article; I did so; he needs to come up with something because all I've seen is stuff like this...maybe a brief mention of it on a blog...but nothing that is a "Florence Flea Market is an awesome place" article.

Mjpeanut26 ( talk) 06:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply

The article meets G4, so it's closed for CSD. (Just thought I tell you because when you posted, it conflicted with my closing of the AfD :P ) Thanks, Leonard ^(Bloom) 01:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I've done some work on this page with is currently an AfD. Nonsense though the science behind the topic almost certainly is, it does have some interesting history and might be saveable. Have a look at the rewrked page and see if you think there's the basis for an article there. thanks Brammarb ( talk) 20:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, Thanks for your edit but it would be even more helpful if you spell out the edit summary somewhere in the article itself! Katzmik ( talk) 16:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks, and I know you're right! I started to put it in standard ref. format but noticed the other ref. wasn't and decided I lacked the time to correct both. Let me take another look at it! JJL ( talk) 16:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply

JJL: regarding your edit to Talk:philosophy, you are wrong. The discussion is not on topic, and however 'valid' discussion of Wikipedia itself may be, that is not the place for it. I'm still considering whether to remove that thread again. Skoojal ( talk) 01:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

He was a significant editor of the page and I was not aware that he would not be returning. I think that info. is relevant on the Talk page, esp. given recent disagreements there concerning wording. I don't see any BLP issues regarding the removed user. I don't object to the current version; if the person whose comments were edited does not object, is the current version acceptable? JJL ( talk) 02:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Whatever your feelings about Peter Damian, it is definitely not relevant. Talk pages are for discussing the content of articles, not for discussing individual editors. The distinction is perfectly clear. The discussion thread is probably just barely tolerable if the incivility and personal attacks are not restored. Skoojal ( talk) 02:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

What's wrong with discussing Philosophical versus scientific questions in Talk Philosophy>WFPM WFPM ( talk) 07:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

It's not how a Talk page is to be used in article space (not as a discussion forum). JJL ( talk) 13:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I request you revisit Perkins' 14 and see if I have met your concerns. Thank you Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks! The Internet development angle is certainly unusual. JJL ( talk) 03:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

There is an ongoing discussion about moving Criticism of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) to Criticism of Objectivism. You voiced an opinion about moving Objectivism (Ayn Rand) in September, so I though I should let you know. The discussion is here. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello, JJL. You have new messages at wikipedia Talk:Articles for deletion/Moni Aizik (2nd nomination).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Alexnia ( talk) 19:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC) ( relisted afd) reply

Hello! Sorry to bother, but can you please revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upstairs at The Gatehouse? I have rewritten the article that is up for AfD and it is completely different from the spammy offering that was put up for deletion purposes. I would like you to reconfirm that the article, in its new state, still deserves deletion. Thanks. Ecoleetage ( talk) 10:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC) reply

I'll take a look! JJL ( talk) 16:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC) reply

And you did! I appreciate your input. Ecoleetage ( talk) 18:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Ecoleetage ( talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{ subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I think the nom did not read WP:BEFORE or WP:ATD. I have now sourced the article. Lots. It now meets WP:NFF through WP:GNG. Has more than sufficiant coverage for a film in post-production. Not at all WP:Crystal. As for "distribution of an unreleased film... ignore IMDB, as the official website says "SummitWorks Films In Assoction with Supernova Media Presents". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I'll take another look. Thanks for letting me know! JJL ( talk) 18:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Restarting the bujinkan into discussion here... -- Nate 14 81 12:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC) reply

OK, thanks for letting me know! JJL ( talk) 12:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC) reply

(Notes to self. A.K. stuff for later perusal.) [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]

As the nomination said, this material is already in History_of_Wikipedia#Controversies. THF ( talk) 15:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

A redirect somewhere couldn't hurt, though I still don't think any o the candidates are ideal. But then if he passes the notability threshold some day the basic material is still there to work with. JJL ( talk) 15:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I've opened a merge discussion at the above-mentioned location. Please consider participating if you are interested. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for letting me know! JJL ( talk) 21:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/juris_doctor, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Wikiant ( talk) 13:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Ah, so it isn't just me who was noticing him. Good to know. Can you make sure to warn him? He's being incredibly persistent. tedder ( talk) 04:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I made a comment with a large dose of WP:AGF--let's see if it takes! JJL ( talk) 05:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the AGF, and thanks for a small dose of sanity :-) tedder ( talk) 05:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I posted a query to your comment in the AfD. I did some searching in archival databases and was not able to find secondary sources independent of the article's subject that discuss this school in any depth whatsoever. If you are able to find secondary sources, however, that would be most appreciated. But without that, this article fails WP:NOTE. Cirt ( talk) 01:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for doing the legwork and presenting secondary sources on the AfD page. I have changed to Keep/withdrawn my nom. Cirt ( talk) 11:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for letting me know! JJL ( talk) 13:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

No worries, thanks again. Cirt ( talk) 15:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

What is to ninjutsu as TKD is to Karate and Kumdo is to Kendo? Have a good day :)-- Nate 14 81 09:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC) reply

LOL! Don't tempt fate...someone will be by soon with a book by Dr. Haha Lung claiming that ninjutsu was the basis for Greco-Roman wrestling or something. JJL ( talk) 13:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Henry Look requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{ hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Antonio Lopez ^(desu) 02:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for letting me know. I no longer see the tag there, but I do believe he's notable and felt the comments about the coverage in the magazine showed notability. JJL ( talk) 02:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Just a heads up that the Mediation Committee asked me to help out by mediating Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Juris_Doctor. I've opened the case here and am asking the parties some initial questions. If you could watchlist that page, it would be helpful in keeping track of things. Regards. MBisanz ^talk 23:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Done, thanks! JJL ( talk) 00:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I saw that you suggested redirecting a few minor leaguers to their respective teams. I've never seen anyone suggest this before; have you? If it's your idea, good job: it seems like a much better idea than simply deleting! Nyttend ( talk) 00:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I figure that since they're listed at those pages anyways, and rds are cheap, it makes sense...though when they move up or down someone will have to change the rds, I suppose. JJL ( talk) 01:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC) reply

(hijacking slightly) How does this work for linking to the person from elsewhere- for instance, a "notable alumni" list at a school or university? I mean, it means they have a bluelink, though it isn't to a bio about them. So would the individual still be considered notable enough for a "notable x" list? tedder ( talk) 02:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't claim to be an expert on this; a page like WP:RFD is a good place for better answers. Presumably if a person is "notable" enough for such a list, they should be notable enough for Wikipedia, at least in my opinion. That doesn't mean someone has actually made a page for them. To link to John Doe's entry at the University of Smith#Notable alumni entry, I'd use [[University of Smith#Notable alumni|John Doe]], myself. JJL ( talk) 03:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm talking the other way around- let's say John Doe plays on a minor-league team, and I'm a big fan of his. I created a wiki entry, then you came along and merged it to the team page. That means the entry for [[John Doe]] is still a bluelink. So should he remain on University of Smith's Notable alumni section? If John Doe's entry was deleted instead of redirected, he'd be removed from the Notable alumni list. (I know you aren't an expert, I'm looking for guidance, not policy). tedder ( talk) 03:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Ah, I think I follow you now! The philosophy with redirects is that "redirects are cheap" and so they may be used for non- notable topics (see here under the section for groups/teams). So, if the John Doe page becomes a redirect then it is blue-linked but he may or may not be notable in the sense of WP:N, and probably has been judged unlikely to be individually notable if redirect was the outcome. On the other hand, while it's my opinion that anyone on a list of notable alumni should be sufficiently notable to merit a page, I don't think there's consensus that everyone on such a list must be blue-linkable, and indeed I could see how someone known for only one event could end up on such a list. So...my personal opinion is that that's a sign he should probably be excised from the list, but I don't know how widely held that view is. For a small college, one might interpret "notable alumni" more liberally.

While on the subject: The link itself on such a page, if the name is left, shouldn't be left as a self- or double-redirect, both of which are discouraged. On the page to which [[John Doe]] points (say, [[Albuquerque Atoms#Current roster]]), John Doe should not be linked at all; on other pages, like a university's alumni list, it should be linked as [[Albuquerque Atoms#Current roster|John Doe]] so it bypasses the redirect. Then only people entering John Doe as a search term originally should end up at the redirect page (and hence the roster). Of course, when the result is merge there can be lots of pages left that point to the page that now is only a redirect, and it's encouraged to chase them down and fix them to link directly to the target but often they're left hanging. JJL ( talk) 13:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Okay, we are on the same page now! I generally agree with your opinion, and it at least gives me guidance for where to look and how to handle things. You are right, it becomes much easier to know what to do when I see a wikilink like [[Albuquerque Atoms#Current roster|John Doe]]! See you around. tedder ( talk) 15:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Country Bones requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{ hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. eaolson ( talk) 03:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for letting me know! I'm not invested in this band--I just went to look them up here when they were on the show and something of their history was briefly mentioned, and couldn't find anything. JJL ( talk) 16:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I have expanded Chile–Finland relations to WP:DYK status with reliable sources. Would you reconsider your vote at the AfD. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 19:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I'll look! JJL ( talk) 19:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply

you will note that the vast majority of these bilateral articles put up for AfD were produced by Groubani ( talk · contribs) LibStar ( talk) 03:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I hadn't looked close enough but had suspected the like. JJL ( talk) 03:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Please go look at this this again- I was manually bundling some other AFDs with it, so clarification on your opinion would be nice. (if you simply move your comment below my bundle and change the text slightly, it might work well). tedder ( talk) 00:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I was thinking of adding them myself, in fact. Harriet Eddy Middle School is a Blue Ribbon school, which many people feel is notable. I'm less sure. JJL ( talk) 00:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I know what you mean about Blue Ribbon. I could see keeping that *one* school because of that, or just noting it on the district page. Grr- that's the problem with grouping nominations. tedder ( talk) 00:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Deletion of Bilateral relation pages despite ongoing merging effort Ikip ( talk) 06:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks! JJL ( talk) 13:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply

You mention in a deletion discussion there's been a final agreement on these articles. Could you point me towards it? I can't figure out where the final conclusion is between centralized discussion and the offshoot project. Shadowjams ( talk) 02:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I was referring to the discussions at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force. The idea is along the lines of Foreign relations of Greece. JJL ( talk) 03:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Ok. I've seen this progression of moving towards "Foreign relations of x"... and then listing the appropriate information, and leaving the few Relations of articles that are clearly notable (U.S. and U.K., China-North Korea, etc.)? Is this correct? I'm asking out of a genuine curiosity, because this is an issue I've lightly followed, but now find hard to figure out where it has ended. Shadowjams ( talk) 07:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure exactly how 'official' it is but yes, my understanding from following the discussion is that there's now considerable consensus that that's the way things are to be handled--a Foreign Relations of X article with relatively rare exceptions for truly notable interactions. There are some examples at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_International_relations/Bilateral_relations_task_force#Completed_pages. In my opinion that's a step forward! JJL ( talk) 13:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

No worries, but I took the liberty of moving your AfD comments that you made to the Ichimonji Shime page itself to the AfD page. Sorry if I messed anything up. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 18:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks! Yeah, I lost track occasionally as I moved through the pages, checked them against the list of Judo moves, came back and sought the AfD. JJL ( talk) 19:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I changed my !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic forex. Since you supported my earlier merge proposal, I figured I should let you know so you can review again. Best, rʨanaɢ  ^talk/ _contribs 13:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks! I'll look again. JJL ( talk) 14:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien episodes. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tavix |  Talk  16:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for letting me know! JJL ( talk) 16:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Let's talk about the edits on the JD article. There are sections in the discussion page waiting for your contributions. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 04:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

That approach led us to the mediation. JJL ( talk) 14:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

JJL, I appreciate your comments (and others') on this page. Having said a lot in the recent past, I am trying to remain quiet to avoid WP:OWN. I am following the discussion, so please do not take my silence as an indication of disinterest. Wikiant ( talk) 16:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for mentioning this as I was indeed wondering. I'm hoping the mediator can have some effect. This seems quite at odds with the outcome of the mediation, and puts us back nearly where we were before. I do think there's an WP:OWN problem here, but I had someone else in mind. JJL ( talk) 17:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi JJL. It may be worth taking another look at this, as the situation has substantially changed since you made your comment. Thanks. Paul Erik ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I have been following it, but I still feel it wouldn't be notable if it never materialized for some region, so I'd still go with delete or merge. JJL ( talk) 20:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi JJL - we seem to be off on a wrong foot with the Stephan Berwick AFD. I realize that I assume any one who is published by Tuttle is a serious author and is therefore notable (like Mark Bishop). What do you think about Tuttle Publishing? Do you know any works from Tuttle that are not serious? jmcw ( talk) 21:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Tuttle is certainly better than average, but per WP:AUTHOR, I note that one of the co-authored Tai Chi books is "Amazon.com Sales Rank: #6,157,746 in Books" ( [31] ), and that's the one in the series that is found in popular book stores. I certainly think that fails the relevant guideline, and I think where we really disagree is in whether a "martial arts author" merits a different standard than other authors do. If it were about an author in another narrow area, like knitting, say, I wonder if we'd both agree to interpret the WP:AUTHOR standard more forgivingly. Perhaps so. This is certainly not the weakest martial artist I've ever nominated, and I can see where you disagree, but I don't think there's an exemption for being an author in a particular field--all authors write about what they know, I presume. Does he meet any of the author criteria? JJL ( talk) 01:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC) reply

OK, I think I understand your objection: because Amazon sells him in a 'popular book' section, it detracts from his seriousness. I think this is an interesting discussion: I would continue it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Martial_arts#Martial_arts_reference_standards to get more input. jmcw ( talk) 08:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC) reply

A question about Mark_V._Wiley: you place him at the same level of reliability as Mark Bishop. When I look at his wiki article, it seems quite similar to the wiki article about Stephan_Berwick (i.e. large amount of academic work and popular press.) Is there something about Wiley that is not in the article? For me, they both have several publications by Tuttle - I would tend to trust them. jmcw ( talk) 12:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I think a 'large amount of academic work' is a bit strong for Stephan_Berwick's material--surely only his three JAMA articles would count there? Mark Wiley, according to his page here, has also been asked to contribute to the Encyclopedia of World Sport from Oxford University Press [32]. But yes, I suppose it's something that isn't in the article--I'm familiar with his work, which is very trusted in my area (Filipino martial arts).

There are two issues here. I wouldn't be opposed to seeing Stephan Berwick's book cited as a source. But that doesn't mean he's notable as an individual. Stephan Berwick's page says he's been cited thrice, which is also what I got at Google Scholar. Searching Mark V. Wiley's name at Google Scholar showed 16 citations. That's a lot closer to meeting WP:AUTHOR #1, and while 16 is also not a big number this is where I might start taking into account the smallness of the field we're considering. I also see recommendations by people like Peter Urban [33]. He's edited a fairly significant book [34]. I do think he's at a higher level than Stephan Berwick. JJL ( talk) 14:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the additional info! jmcw ( talk) 16:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, Canadian Ivy League, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Ivy League (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Labattblueboy ( talk) 23:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks! JJL ( talk) 01:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Are there issues which you would like to discuss with me personally? It appears that you are very frustrated with my behavior on the Juris Doctor article. I didn't mean to disturb you, and hope you will give me the opportunity to offer explainations, which I hope will give us the opportunity to address the issues in a civil manner. Fighting is not the only option ;) http://www.metacafe.com/watch/746402/lion_hugs_and_kisses_man/ Zoticogrillo ( talk) 02:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Your disingenuous comments, continual counter-to-consensus edits, and rejection of the result of the mediation to which you agreed imply that while I must proceed civilly, further discourse with you will not prove fruitful. JJL ( talk) 03:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello JJL, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Urbana sistem has been removed. It was removed by Tybis with the following edit summary '(Deleting the template, since this is a new updated and referenced page)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Tybis before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot ( talk) 22:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC) ( Learn how to opt out of these messages) reply

Hi, JJL

I think you may have intended to add your comment to the bottom of the Ashida Kim section? If so, please move it.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 21:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I had an edit conflict and ended up putting it in the wrong place the second try. JJL ( talk) 22:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Since you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 4#Ashida Kim, which was closed as relist, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination). Cunard ( talk) 08:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks! JJL ( talk) 14:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Since you participated in the deletion discussion of Bullshido.net in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (2nd nomination), you may be interested in my renomination of the article for deletion. If you would like to participate in that debate, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination). Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 22:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for letting me know! JJL ( talk) 01:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

...for the fix, my typing is never good least of all when I'm irritated. -- Nate ^t/ _c 08:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Since you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination), which was closed as "no consensus", you may be interested in a subsequent DRV. Since I disagreed with the close, I contacted the closing admin, who responded, " To be honest, Cunard, I would tend to agree with you, but I am not sure if the balance of things heads to delete rather than no consensus. Listing it at DRV might be a good option here; I won't endorse or oppose the close and will allow the DRV community to decide it. Therefore, I have listed this article at DRV; if you would like to participate, please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2#Bullshido.net. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 21:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks. JJL ( talk) 21:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I will provide a citation to show that Pangai-noon was a description; give me a few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uechiryujournal ( talk • contribs) 03:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I will respect your edit at this time on not adding Paul Janulis to instructor list for him not being well known, but only because he is on military duty right now and off the map. I saw this because he told me about Balintawak and decided to log on and edit it. He is well known enough however; I know he is student of Mr. Buot and has taught martial arts at international events. You can google this to find out. Hes well known enough in some militey circles too (teaches some elite units). That is how I met him. It would seem that he is both more qualified and more well known then at least some of the instructors listed to me. He told me he would review this later, probably when he is back on the map and accepting students that are non-military or contractor. He dosnt seem interested in getting involved with this right now. I think that he should be added still, but will respect your decision only because he is not open to teaching civilians at this time, but be advised that this may change soon enough and his name will be added to that list when it does. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjiLittle ( talk • contribs) 08:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply

He's a good friend of mine, actually, and Rich Parsons keeps me up-to-date on his whereabouts and doings. But he is certainly not a well-known instructor of it and I'll continue to redact that until the situation changes. Being good at doing it or at teaching it isn't the same as being well-known for it. If he disagrees then he can grab a stick and discuss it with me the next time I see him at Tim Hartman's place in Buffalo. JJL ( talk) 15:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply

An AFD discussion that you have previously participated in has been reignited. See here for the new discussion.-- chaser ( talk) 17:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks! JJL ( talk) 20:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Talk:Taekwondo#copyvio_references

The wrongly translated document translated from Shindonga magazine. But, It is copyvio content without copyright holder shindonga's permission. 660gd4qo ( talk) 06:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on taekwondo. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -->-- 660gd4qo ( talk) 17:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Please, don't vanadlize article.

• According to shindonga website, "무단 사용하는 것은 저작권법에 저촉되며, 법적 제재를 받을 수 있습니다."(Korean)(All contents are copyrighted, do not use contents without permission)
• Wikipedia:Copyright violations

material copied from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed without the permission of the copyright holder is likely to be a copyright violation.

-- 660gd4qo ( talk) 17:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Since I reverted once yesterday and once today, your misuse of the 3RR is constintent with your misuse of WP:COPYVIO. You're pushing a Korean-centric POV at Taekwondo and at Tang soo do, and most of your objections are WP:OR. JJL ( talk) 20:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I was not says korean-centric POV at Taekwondo. Unlike your POV Pushing, I admits karate influence. btw, most of your objections are WP:OR. - 660gd4qo ( talk) 20:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply

It is NOT removing this sourced material. material is still linking. But, You says, "rv--please stop removing this sourced material that runs counter to your POV". Again, I did not removed ANY sourced material. The controvercial POV quotes are still need discuss. Please discuss at Talk:Taekwondo#POV_quote.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Wikipedia:Describing points of view

Wikipedia:Quotations#When_not_to_use_quotations

"the quotation is being used to substitute rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias. This can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided."

You did not answered it

And, Capener, Steven D. (Winter 1995). This document was school student report. If you see first page carefully, Its first paragraph title is... "STUDENT FORUM from Korea Journal, Winter, 1995.". Later, Capener changed his point of view, I heavily doubt this souce is a WP:RS. -- 660gd4qo ( talk) 15:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply

You did not answered it

Capener, Steven D. (2000). Taekwondo:

• "Korea has a long history of martial arts stretching well back into ancient times."
• "The earliest unarmed Korean martial art which has been identified was call subakhi."
• "Therefore, it is possible that Koreans were perhaps the first to systemize this kind of martial art into an early form of sport in Asia."
• "In 1895, an American anthropologist named Stewart Culin visited Korea for the purpose of studying Korean games. In his book Korean Games he includes a picture of two children engaging in a taekkyon match."
• "Taekkyon had become so popular as a folk sport"
• "It was in the early 1960s that taekwondo began to systematically organize itself both in matters of administration and technique."
• "In the early 1960s, however, some taekwondo leaders started to experiment with a radical new system that would result in the development of a new martial sport different from anything ever seen before. This new martial sport would bear some important similarities to the traditional Korean game of taekkyon."

Later, Capener admits taekwondo connect to Korean traditional martial arts. btw, It is not WP:OR. This references have 2 problems.

1. Author changed its view
2. 1995 document was STUDNET report.

What do you think? Is it still WP:RS reference? please give your opinion. -- 660gd4qo ( talk) 16:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply

You did not answered it

And Check List of Taekwondo techniques, List of shotokan techniques. If you think it is Japanese origin arts(Actually, China + Ryukyu Origin), How many techniques are smilar? please give your opinion. -- 660gd4qo ( talk) 16:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply

You did not answered it

I admits one of the early taekwondo froms (tang soo do) borrowed karate system and uniforms. However, Nowday taekwond is completely reformatted. Only karate influence is 2~3 hyeongs, belt system, grade system. This is not a WP:OR. many evidences supported it. -- 660gd4qo ( talk) 16:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Capener, Steven D. (Winter 1995). "Problems in the Identity and Philosophy of T'aegwondo and Their Historical Causes". Korea Journal (Korean National Commission for UNESCO). ISSN 0023-3900. "...t'aegwondo was first brought into Korea from Japan in the form of Japanese karate around the time of the liberation of Korea from Japanese colonial rule...".

Madis, Eric (2003). "The Evolution of Taekwondo from Japanese Karate". in Green, Thomas A. and Joseph R. Svinth. Martial Arts in the Modern World. Praeger Publishers. ISBN  0275981533. "The following essay links the origins of taekwondo to twentieth-century Shotokan, Shudokan, and Shitō-ryū karate and shows how the revised history was developed to support South Korean nationalism."

1. these are controvercial POV quotes. because, this quote completely ignore taekwondo also connect to Korean traditional martial arts.
2. Karate is NOT a Japanese origin. It is a China + Ryukyu origin. numerous references support this. so "first brought into Korea from Japan" is completely nonsense, and ignoring historical fact.
3. One of the controvercial reference author, Capener, Author changed its view later.

-- 660gd4qo ( talk) 16:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply

You did not answered it

It would be better to have this discussion on the TKD talk page. Why don't you re-post it there? JJL ( talk) 17:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Check it out. above bolds. Your still gave not enough answers. you still gave not counterpart evidences and explanations. I think we need so much talk before insert quote to taekwondo article. Your POV and POV quotes ar heavily questionable. --- 660gd4qo ( talk) 18:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply

You're misudenrstanding both the first and second Capener papers, and using a Wikipedia page to advance an WP:OR argument. It doesn't matter what you or I think to be the WP:TRUTH, it matters what the sources say. It might be best for you to slow down and learn more about this site before continuing, and aslo to read the TKD talkarchives which contain much discussion of these specific references. JJL ( talk) 19:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Still, not answer. I think we need much talk before insert quote to taekwondo article. Your POV and POV quotes ar heavily questionable. But, you still not prove anything. just pov pushing. -- 660gd4qo ( talk) 20:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply

As excitable as some users are on the subject try to keep a level head (as you seem to have been doing) I would also suggest that stating things as fact (however accurately) and dismissing counter view as "completely false" is unlikely to lead to a productive discussion even if you are right. Hopefully this won't turn into another 9+month drama... -- Nate ^t/ _c 11:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Actually, I'm sufficiently burned out after this, Ashida Kim, et al that I'm not so much level-headed as suffering from ennui. A long fight on this isn't in me at this point. JJL ( talk) 15:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply

See. Talk:Taekwondo#POV_quote

Madis, Eric (2003). "The Evolution of Taekwondo from Japanese Karate". in Green, Thomas A. and Joseph R. Svinth. Martial Arts in the Modern World. Praeger Publishers. ISBN  0275981533. " The following essay links the origins of taekwondo to twentieth-century Shotokan, Shudokan, and Shitō-ryū karate... The use of belted white cotton martial arts uniforms... modern taekwondo uniforms are essentially identical to the once used in karate...(Note : Karate is Chinese, Ryukyu Origin. Author ignoring facts that taekwondo also influenced by subahk, taekkyon, chinese kungfu. and some taekwondo founder was not learned karate. I can prove numerous evidences also) ...shows how the revised history was developed to support South Korean nationalism. (Note : evidence? this TOTALLY baseless assumption. Yes, baseless. this is biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material.)

Many sources cleary state taekwondo also connect to traditonal korean martial arts. "70% of the techniques are unique, not found in other systems" this is undeniable fact. however, if early taekwondo influenced by karate, it mean revised history? I don't know who inserted this reference first. need more explain about this. -- 660gd4qo ( talk) 16:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I've been trying to keep off the JD discussion page, but... just don't let me get too cocky (as your recent posts have done well). Zoticogrillo ( talk) 04:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, International Sport Combat Federation, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Sport Combat Federation. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Niteshift36 ( talk) 22:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks! JJL ( talk) 23:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello JJL! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 941 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{ unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Patricia Ben Peterson - Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. James Ibrao - Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!-- DASHBot ( talk) 20:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC) reply

You seem to be the only person with sources to support the keeping of the article on Tim Cartmell. Those sources sound good enough to me, but do you intend to edit/improve the article to make it worth keeping? It sounds like you have quite a martial arts library. Papaursa ( talk) 00:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC) reply

The issue at AFD should be WP:N, not article improvement. There's no no time limit. So, while I'm happy to help out, I think the focus should remain on WP:N for now. JJL ( talk) 03:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is not for speculation or essays. There were no reliable sources, and as such constituted original research (specifically WP:SYNTH). If sources can be provided to demonstrate that this is notable in any real-world sense then sources should be added.

Dwanyewest ( talk) 15:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

If you have a complain with the number of articles I nominated, then talk about it on a talk page. It doesn't belong in the AfD discussions. It has nothing to do with whether or not the article should be kept or not. I'd point out that you could do some WP:BEFORE of your own in regards to me and see that I've made some redirects etc. But the majority of articles I've nominated don't have WP:SOFIXIT as an option. Non-notable is non-notable. I can't manufacture sources to make them magically notable. And just because you find some mentions of a topic or some obscure book that nobody bought, that doesn't make it such a no-brainer that you should be delivering lectures. I don't just look at ghits, I look at the quality of sources and their reliablity. I do look at these things before I nominate them and I don't just nominate articles for shits and giggles. Sorry if it offends you that someone outside of your project would take some initiative and start cleaning up one list article. Niteshift36 ( talk) 05:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm not a member of the martial arts project. However, I have responded on the talk page there. JJL ( talk) 15:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• So remove the single sentence about the project and the rest remains valid. AfD isn't the place to start complaining about me personally. You're experienced enough to know that. Niteshift36 ( talk) 21:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I expect to be without meaningful net access for the rest of the week. Don't break anything while I'm gone. JJL ( talk) 14:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Sorry about the mis-tagged BLP. I was following 'see also' and tagging anything without references with 'notability'. I realized that I was seeing your name often: see [35] for an overview of what else I might have over-zealously tagged. jmcw ( talk) 16:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

No worries! Yeah, not only do I practice the FMAs and hence have edited many of those but Modern Arnis in particular is what I teach so you were tagging things in my WP:COI zone this time. On the plus side I'm hoping I can provide some of those refs. for those articles. There's a lot out there that's notable but getting that shown to WP standards may not be easy. I agree with WP's rules in general but boy can they be a pain in the arse to actually have to follow! JJL ( talk) 17:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

This review is making me aware of how many articles there are out there without any references<g>. For myself, a strong assertion of notability at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review from a regular editor should be enough to postpone AFD. jmcw ( talk) 09:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi--I'm a newbie, so I hope I'm not asking something stupid, but I see two different results for the afd for my article on Brian Sterling-Vete.

If I look at the afd discussion page, it was closed in a matter of hours before I could comment, and it says the verdict is delete.

I see in the afd list for today, that you list it as Keep (thanks!). Is yours the final verdict? If so, I am very grateful and will move to fix the issues you raised. I worked from templates and a lot of documentation, but obviously did not get all the links and citations correct - I will fix this.

If you could just let me know if this is indeed the final verdict, I will get on with making the changes. I understand that the afd notification in the article itself should disappear, hopefully soon.

Thanks for your help

Lkcarnes ( talk) 19:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC) reply

My vote is of no special significance! I see it as still open at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_Sterling-Vete_(2nd_nomination). Is it possible that you're looking at the old AfD from 2008 ( Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_Sterling-Vete)? That was a delete, but apparently someone recreated it. JJL ( talk) 20:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC) reply

You are being notified because you participated in a previous Afd regarding this article, and you deserve a chance to weigh in on this article once again. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 10:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply

As part of a project funded by the European Commission ( QLectives), we are collecting and analysing data to study quality control mechanisms and inclusion/deletion policies in Wikipedia. According to our records, you participated in a large number of AfD. We are currently soliciting editors with a long record of participation in AfD discussions to send us their feedback via a very informal survey.

The survey takes less than 5 minutes and is available at this URL. Should you have any questions about this project, feel free to get in touch.

Thanks for your help! -- DarTar ( talk) 10:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I have nominated James Ibrao, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Ibrao. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jclemens ( talk) 07:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for letting me know! JJL ( talk) 14:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Please see Talk:Juris_Doctor#RFC_and_revisions_to_relevant_section for comments regarding your proposed content in the JD article. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 22:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply

You may very well believe that TKD is derived from Karate and I respect your right to your opinion but please respect the honest difference in opinion of other editors especially when their views are just as properly referenced as yours. I don't understand why you're so hell bent on undermining differing opinions when they're referenced properly and other editors believe in their positions as honestly as you.

And can you just be honest about the Lawler reference? Do you really have access to the book? If you do can you just write down the paragraph or two of the surrounding text. A full inline citation with page number with a "|quote =" section would do just resolve this and we can worry about if Lawler fits in the existing categories or if we need to alter or even create another category.

I have actually been very NPOV and haven't even added a word of my own. All I've done is to preserve existing text and categories in combining the POV fork from the History and Contempory Development sections and even went through the over 20 citations and transferred them in their entirety. Please stop being so tribal about this. Melonbarmonster2 ( talk) 04:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi, JJL. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2#Bullshido.net, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination). Cunard ( talk) 21:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks! JJL ( talk) 21:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, Hoi Jeon Moo Sool, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoi Jeon Moo Sool. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. jmcw ( talk) 13:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks! JJL ( talk) 13:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, Paul Vunak, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Vunak. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. jmcw ( talk) 10:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks! JJL ( talk) 18:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC) reply

How, exactly, is it a false claim of consensus when every single outside editor who responded to the RFC opposes the section? Deep Purple Dreams ( talk) 21:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm traveling and will have very limited access until next week. JJL ( talk) 04:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I do not believe the Uechi-Ryu Butokukai is too minor an organization for this page. It is currently one of the major contributors in the Uechi world and its founder is well recognized internationally for his work assisting others build or improve their dojos. It is on of the larger organizations in North America. Kobudo-ka ( talk) 16:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Isn't just a dozen+ schools in and around New England? I understood it to be mostly Mass.-based. JJL ( talk) 17:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I would like to take the time to state some facts to further show my reasoning behind adding the Uechi-Ryu Butokukai to the list of major organizations.

While it is true that the organization has a strong New England presence, there are affiliated dojos in New York, Florida, Utah, and California.

The Uechi-Ryu Butokukai was founded in 1984 at the suggestion of Ryuko Tomoyose while he celebrated the tenth anniversary of Buzz Durkin’s Karate School. Since that time the Uechi-Ryu Butokukai has grown into one of the largest organizations of actively practicing Uechi students worldwide. Currently, the association consists of over 3,000 members.

The Uechi-Ryu Butokukai produces more black belts annually than any other Uechi Organization. Every test over the past four years has led to the promotion of over 200 students to various ranks of black belt (ranks ranging from shodan to hachidan).

Through the efforts of its Headmaster, Sensei Buzz Durkin, the Uechi-Ryu Butokukai (and therefor Uechi-Ryu) has become internationally known in professional martial art circles. Organizations such as NAPMA, MIAI, and EFC regularly feature articles on Uechi-Ryu in their publications.

I hope this has helped in making my point of view clearer and I look forward to hearing from you. Kobudo-ka ( talk) 02:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Is it really producing more black belts annually than any other of the organizations? That would be a pretty good indicator of being a major org. Can you find a reference for that? It's certainly surprising for a principally local org. I'm not doubting that you're largely on-target--I'm suggesting that this claim seems to require a WP:V WP:RS. JJL ( talk) 02:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC) reply

It is surprising that the organization, whose Hombu dojo is located in such a small N.H. town, has such a global effect on Uechi-ryu. This fascinates school owners and other heads of martial organizations from all over North America. This is evidenced by the fact that it has so many visitors who come to study the organization to learn how to develop better student retention and how to develop black belt longevity. As for the number of black belts promoted each year by the Uechi-ryu Butokukai, please reference the following: Click through to see that graduating classes of the past five years. A video slide show of the 2010 graduation If further independent verification is needed, please contact George E. Mattson, the father of Uech-ryu in America, who will attest to all my assertions. Kobudo-ka ( talk) 18:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC) reply

You should review WP:RS and especially WP:V to see what the Wikipedia standards for sources is. Is there an appropriate source for the claim that this org. produces more black belts than any other? JJL ( talk) 03:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC) reply

The article Angi Uezu has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources of a biography of a living person, fails WP:BIO and WP:N

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JJ98 ( Talk) 11:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for letting me know! JJL ( talk) 17:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply

The article Martial arts equipment is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martial arts equipment until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jeepday ( talk) 17:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply

The article Pangai-noon is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pangai-noon until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Janggeom ( talk) 14:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for letting me know. JJL ( talk) 04:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC) reply

The article IMAF is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IMAF until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. jmcw ( talk) 13:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks. JJL ( talk) 02:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Thankyou for your contributions to the discussion on that page. I hope you will forgive me if I have responded to you uncivilly at any occasion, or called into question your qualifications or competency. I can see that you are thoughtful in your comments. I wonder though if we are going to get too bog down in this debate. I recognise that there is not complete agreement across all sources and that there is silence on the matter of the death of the fetus in several definitions. You are quite correct to make the point that every abortion does not always result in the death of the fetus. But is that in particular your objection to the present wording? Would a change along those lines be sufficient for you? DMSBel ( talk) 19:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply

I won't be able to reply until tomorrow as I currently have a throbbing toothache and need to take some rest. DMSBel ( talk) 19:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your comments. I too hope we can proceed productively. It's clearly a difficult issue. But my basic objection isn't that death doesn't always occur but that the difficulties in defining 'life' make a discussion of life/death here highly problematic. (I agree with Orangelmarlin's comment on the matter.) I am quite prepared to compromise and the comments made putting the use of the term on Abortion is historical perspective have been helpful to me in understanding why it now occurs there. JJL ( talk) 03:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC) reply

I would also like to thank you for working on the abortion article. I'm fine with the current definition using viable in-place of death. Medical dictionaries are really the only MEDRS that can "define" abortion. Thanks again. ArtifexMayhem ( talk) 04:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC) reply

And thank you to you too. It's a very difficult issue and yet I feel we're making progress where I fear we would not. JJL ( talk) 04:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Some editors might use Ignoratio elenchi as a form of rhetoric (aka The Red Herring). Sometimes this is best ignored. Just an FYI. ArtifexMayhem ( talk) 18:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi, JJL. A quick aside about the Abortion article, if I may. You wrote;

• But what those who favor including 'death' may see as a euphemism, others (such as myself) see as a proper reflection of the fact that an embryo is not alive in the sense of something that can die--it's merely living tissue, not 'life'. What is a 'life' is an ill-defined matter, as is what can experience 'death', and I see the term 'death' as plainly inapplicable here.

and

• Agreed. It is the end of a pregnancy, not the end of a life. There's nothing euphemistic about that, but saying ":ends a pregnancy" rather than "terminates a pregnancy" would be acceptable to me. But using this to wedge in 'death' isn't reasonable. [36]

I'm guessing that you mean that while it is true to say (1) that the fetus is composed of living tissue, it is nonetheless incorrect to say (2) that is alive. The second statement has legal and moral implications, briefly if inadequately encapsulated in the motto, "Life begins at conception."

Unless I miss my guess, this may be the semantic barrier which is dividing the two groups of contributors. I'm wondering if we can find a way to concede that the fetus is composed of living tissue, all of which indeed dies during an abortion -- without going so far as to endorse the position that the fetus is "an organism which is alive" in the sense of having, say, "personhood" or "humanity" (see Beginning of human personhood) of the sort which makes turning its living tissue into dead tissue a kind of death which must be classified as homicide.

(I can't believe I wrote a sentence of such complexity. I think I sprained a muscle in my brain ;-) -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 04:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC) reply

I think this is correct and I do agree. I have tried to make this point on the Talk page previously; for example, on 9 June I was trying to distinguish 'cellular death' from organismal death but this did not seem to go anywhere (in part because we haven't had good luck staying on one topic and discussing it fully and resolving it). I would add though that it isn't merely (or for me even principally) the legal and moral implications--I don't believe that 'life' in the other-than-cell-by-cell-sense is well-defined here. To my mind it's a heap paradox, or fuzziness of language, issue. JJL ( talk) 04:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I'm still hoping DeForest Kelley will jump in and say, "He's dead, Jim". But that sort of science fiction clarity may be difficult to attain here. Anyway, with enough good faith effort by all parties, we might move ahead a few more inches this summer. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 04:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Your efforts to insure that we are 'logical' despite our merely human nature are much appreciated. We certainly aren't making progress right now. JJL ( talk) 13:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Re: sorites paradox, I don't really see that the issue on the abortion article has anything to do with that particular philosophical conundrum. We are not really talking about taking away "little by little" in an abortion. I find I have to agree with the IP 67.. when he/she says that fetal death is the sine qua non without which there is no abortion. Else I see we are left with the difficulty of differentiating two obviously antithetical events: birth and abortion. Both involve the expulsion (in a sense) of the fetus from the the uterus, so the sine qua non cannot be in that. I believe that retaining the term together with the footnote is the best way out of the impasse, along with maybe some more clarification why the term is used in the FAQ. DMSBel ( talk) 13:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC) reply

It's probably best to keep this aspect of the discussion together on the Talk page. I understand you position, and I think we start from different assumptions at a very basic level. JJL ( talk) 14:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Well, you could be right. The sorites/heap paradox doesn't serve to clarify the issue. It's an interesting bit of philosophical chitter-chatter, if someone really wants to discuss when a heap of sand is not a heap of sand, and has pretty good tweezers. But things seem to be quiet on the talk page, so I prefer to let the issue rest. 62.254.133.139 ( talk) 18:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC) reply

JJL, without a straw poll I'm done. Most of the editors who I imagined were in favor of a change do not post. The one from the old group that is posting calls your move to change the definition "ill-advised" as though Moses himself carved the old definition in stone. I find myself arguing with absolute dolts. My daughter briefly read the talk page when I asked her for a comment on the word "viable" and she suggested I may as well start posting that Jesus talked to me and said I was right, and plus I was going to get raptured and they weren't going to get to come with. If the current definition stands, with virtually no references to back it up, it is a sad day for Wikipedia. If Wikipedia editors can make up their own rules to get around the wise guidelines that were set in place to avoid this kind of editing, one has to wonder what would stop any pressure group from doing the same. Or perhaps I do not understand the "rules" well enough. If that is the case I have yet to see a good explanation. Gandydancer ( talk) 20:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Frankly, I'm similarly disillusioned. I gave up editing WP for some while because of issues like this. A straw poll could be helpful. Mediation wouldn't last, I fear, and would be a required first step to get anything actually done. This is a real problem for WP: People who feel strongly about an issue can stonewall progress. I'll try asking for a straw poll and see what happens, I suppose. JJL ( talk) 20:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC) reply

From reading the archives, stonewalling does seem the tactic of choice. In the end very few npov editors are left and a "consensus" is claimed. ArtifexMayhem ( talk) 21:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Straw poll posted. Please vote! JJL ( talk) 02:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC) reply

It's a landslide! I can hardly find words to express my appreciation for what you initiated and persistently followed through with. As I watch the Christian Right continue to gain control, at least it is good to know that Wikipedia will not aid and abet them any longer. We are lucky to have NW - that made all the difference to have all the references right there, and no matter what anyone said, they would just not go away! Gandydancer ( talk) 13:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply

I really have been surprised by how lopsided it is! In retrospect I should have just had support/oppose 'death'. Thanks for your kind words and your persistence--I nearly dropped out myself--and I absolutely agree that NW's sources are what made the difference! JJL ( talk) 13:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Glad to have helped. I'm only a layperson in these matters, but if you ever require assistance in the future with sources or a similar contentious issue, feel free to ask. Best, NW ( Talk) 23:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply

You have a factually false first sentence in the lede. Declaring a landslide was a joke right? Don't you see that its a pyrric victory? Not least damaging to your intellectual integrity, and honesty and what people on Wikipedia think of you. Starting a straw poll, counting it up yourself then drawing your own conclusions from it. If there was no consensus for removing "caused by or resulting in its death" There most certainly is none for replacing it with "before fetal viability". Sorry but you'll find that arguing against factuality will take up a lot of your time for nothing gained. DMSBel ( talk) 11:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Actually the the lede is now factually correct. JJL, Grandydancer, NW, Doc James, et al. have it right. Your opinions are worthless. If you think JJL is a liar take it to WP:ANI. Nice job JJL you have made Wikipedia better. Unfortunately the fight against POV pushers never ends. ArtifexMayhem ( talk) 15:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Artifex, thats the second time recently you have said "your opinions are worthless" to another editor. Tell me how that helps. "We are all in this together", you said. You seemed to start out with clarity then descend into supporting obfuscation of the matter, despite saying that was something Wikipedia could not do on this. How also is your comment "your opinions are worthless" to be reconciled with your earlier comment "Understanding, respect and patience are frustrating by definition"? DMSBel ( talk) 20:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Probably better asked on my talk page. ArtifexMayhem ( talk) 20:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC) reply

I apologize. My "worthless" remark was not appropriate. - ArtifexMayhem ( talk) 21:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC) reply

How long will this go on? It's getting ******* nuts. I will go out to my garden and pick strawberries and lettuce. I will pet Maya who thinks I am just wonderful and has no idea that I am such a genius, she'd love me regardless. My standards are a little higher I guess and I think morons are morons... BTW, the discussion at the Commons re the photo is interesting and you may enjoy it. Gandydancer ( talk) 21:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, it is pretty ridiculous. I couldn't find the photo discussion at Commons when I looked...can you point me to it? JJL ( talk) 00:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC) reply

commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Human fetus 10 weeks - therapeutic abortion.jpg. NW ( Talk) 01:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Some people complained earlier that medical sources by themselves were not enough. So I gathered some others from other encyclopedias. Care to take a look at User:NuclearWarfare/Additional abortion sources and help me format them? NW ( Talk) 21:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Looking now! JJL ( talk) 00:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Another lengthy list of good sources that is heavy on 'viable' and bereft of bereavement. I see why people may disagree but it's difficult to fight such a tide of sources--I don't understand how their faith in the perfection of their phrasing remains unshaken after all this. I hope you'll post this on the Talk page. JJL ( talk) 00:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Well, the first bit of it is already in the article. After a little formatting, I'll add the second half (the dictionaries). NW ( Talk) 01:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Well JJL, what do you think? Do you think this is the best we can do? I am not very happy at all. Others may see it differently, but I do not see the phrase "survive outside the womb" equal to "viable". The definition for survive: intransitive verb 1)to remain alive or in existence : live on 2)to continue to function or prosper 3)to remain alive after the death of <he is survived by his wife> 4)to continue to exist or live after <survived the earthquake> 5) to continue to function or prosper despite : withstand <they survived many hardships> — sur·vi·vor noun And here is the definition for viable http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/viable It could be argued that I should bring my thoughts directly to the talk page, however it is so difficult to have a reasonable conversation that I thought I would get your thoughts first. I can tell you that I see no progress at all when the word death is removed and replaced with the innocent wee babe gasping for its last breath. BTW, do you know Joe Bageant? Chris Hedges does a good job of explaining the Christian Right, but Joe does it better. You can read one of his posts here: http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2004/05/the_covert_king.html Best, Gandy Gandydancer ( talk) 12:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I hope I'm not being a pest, but perhaps you missed my post? Gandydancer ( talk) 22:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I did--thanks for calling it to my attention! I do agree and have just made the change based on discussions at the Talk page. There's no reason to waver from the actual defn., and no benefit--just needless fuzziness and misdirection. JJL ( talk) 04:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Roy Boy 22:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks! JJL ( talk) 00:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC) reply

JJL, in the last few days I have watched the abortion discussion mired at a level where discussion has become one of discussing moral issues rather than Wikipedia policy facts that would guide a decision on the abortion definition argument. I am not at all familiar with policies, however I was under the impression that editors must strictly edit to reflect only the best references available. This is important because a small group of editors, 7 in the case of the abortion article, should not be able to use information completely at odds with virtually all the references provided to back that information. If Wikipedia does not take that policy seriously pressure groups could join in droves and rewrite articles to their liking, isn't that correct? Isn't there a group that looks strictly at policy issues where this debate should be considered? Gandydancer ( talk) 12:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC) reply

The Arbitration Committee will look at conduct violations and severe violations of content policy. In practice, they will deem this dispute a simple content one and refuse to look at it. That's actually probably a good thing in many circumstances, because some members of the Committee...well, let's just say that they don't have a great track record with examining these kinds of matters in accord with policy. ArbCom has a sister Committee, the Mediation Committee. Unfortunately, the Medication Committee will only run a non-binding discussion forum that cannot be cited elsewhere for evidence of misconduct, so it's rather useless in that sense.

In short, there isn't really anything like what you want. And that's a shame. NW ( Talk) 12:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC) reply

I gave up editing for some while because of disputes like this and, more to the point, the inability to resolve them. A page like this needs a permanent referee ruling points in or out. But yeah, I wish there was a meaningful administration system here...there just isn't, and we lose the smart folks with better things to do with their time and keep the POV-pushers with this as their major goal. Given how many schoolkids use it as a significant reference source, that sucks. JJL ( talk) 13:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC) reply

JJL, I keep trying to figure out how this situation can be moved from a discussion about the opinions of a few editors to a "higher" level where it could be determined if the "death definition" is acceptable according to Wikipedia policy.

The discussion has included one line of thinking that suggests that our current sources are not appropriate because new information has changed the meaning of fetal viability. In fact, one of our sources does make this statement:

The terms 'spontaneous abortion' and 'miscarriage' are synonymous and are defined as loss of the fetus before the twenty-eighth week of pregnancy. This definition implies a legal perception of the age at which a fetus can survive out of the womb. With great advances in recent years in the ability to keep very premature babies alive, this definition is in need of revision." "abortion and miscarriage". The Royal Society of Medicine Health Encyclopedia. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Ltd. 2000.

However, reading the article User:Uncle G/On sources and content it seems that while it would be important for the article to discuss, it should not let this recent information be reflected in the definition until it is reflected in the definition used by the overwhelming majority of our sources. I think the following from his article may apply:

One common canard is to read discussions of the advantage that Wikipedia has over other encyclopaedias, of being rapidly updated when things change, and to infer from that the erroneous conclusion that Wikipedia is the first place to come to document new things. It is not. One implication of our content policies is that Wikipedia must never be the first to publish anything new. Wikipedia is not the place to come to document the previously undocumented, to report new discoveries, to publish new theories, or to report news. The project for reporting news is Wikinews. Everything in Wikipedia must have been through a processs of fact checking, peer review, publication, and acceptance into the general corpus of human knowledge. In the case of news, that process is performed by journalists and editors. Current events belong in Wikipedia only after they have been reported. News is not part of the corpus of human knowledge before it is reported. The places for publishing new theories and new discoveries are the appropriate scholarly journals. For new discoveries and theories, it is those journals that perform the process of fact checking, peer review, and publication, and from those journals that new things are accepted into the general corpus of human knowledge.

From the same article I wonder if the following may show that our article must reflect what our sources say and it is up to any person that alters the current Wikipedia definition (to include death in the definition) to show why the following does not apply:

One popular mistake that editors make is where an article contains factual errors, the erroneous content is properly sourced, and editors that personally know the truth correct the article so that it disagrees with what the sources say. Another popular mistake is to add content that an editor knows to be true, but also knows cannot be found in any source. These are in fact the obverses of the same coin. Articles must always reflect what the sources say, and no more. Wikipedia's trust model does not involve relying upon the sole words of Wikipedia editors. Always think of such situations from a reader's perspective. When faced with a group of fact-checked, published, sources that say one thing, and a Wikipedia editor, about whom they can know nothing, who asserts something contradictory, readers trust the sources not the Wikipedia editor. Therefore if something is sourced but wrong the correct ways to tackle the issue are:

Contact the sources and have them publish a correction. Don't correct the encyclopaedia; correct the source. Find, cite, and use another, better, source that provides better information or that demonstrates why all of the other sources are wrong. Counter sources with more sources.13 Publish your original research, that provides new, never-before-published, information that contradicts what has heretofore been published, in the appropriate venue outside of Wikipedia, such as a scholarly journal or a book. Create a source yourself. However, note that you may have a conflict of interest. Please see also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Citing oneself.

Couldn't an editor or editors just keep reverting the definition citing it not properly sourced until the matter was brought to a level where the matter would be considered? "Civil disobedience", if you will... Gandydancer ( talk) 12:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC) reply

His comments about the "common canard" are certainly on-target here. The short answer is that my experience has been that it's very hard to get anyone on authority to make an enforceable decision here. In a lot of cases an admin drops in, reads a few comments, forms a quick opinion, then makes a pronouncement and moves on. I consider the system broken. This Talk page desperately needs a referee assigned to it to rule certain points in, our, or dead and no longer the subject of debate until something truly new is brought up. The only enforceable way to get anything done is ArbCom, and they won't take lots of types of disputes. Frankly, I'd like us to end up there. But I don't know how to get an admin to hold editors to WP policy, and yeah, repeated reversions happen. You get page protection for a while but there are lots of slow edit wars going on out there. Continuing to revert will likely just get continued page protection for longer and longer periods, but it'll still be a matter of which editor(s) are most tenacious. It's a pity, but that's the system--and in fairness, overall WP is quite useful. I'm not sure what to say! JJL ( talk) 14:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC) reply

You are not sure what to say because you have said all that there is to say, and its all been said before! Let us know when you find non-politicised scientific sources which are not filled with semantic drift on the subject of abortion! Best 62.254.133.139 ( talk) 11:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC) reply

JJL, maybe we are not exactly understanding each other on the talk page and that has not helped, maybe you also wonder the degree to which POV may guiding me on that page, as I at times do you. I think one thing I can tell from you is that you are not uncivil in your discussions. Yet neither of us is in possession of the whole picture. Firstly I don't think you were being disruptive in your initial edit, though I don't agree with it. I am more and more coming to see discussion on these difficult articles almost a pre-requiste for keeping temperature down, which was why I had never made any edits even seemingly minor to me without either them being in response to other editors concerns or discussing them first on the talk page. I was slow to add the POV tags (weeks after the issue of theraputic/elective was raised), as the IPs who brought up the matter will tell you. You had not been involved in editing the article at that point. I have learned some things from earlier experiences in a couple of controversial articles, but one or two editors would use the fact that I have a topic ban to "poison the well" in discussions. I wonder if we could move back to constructive discussion on the issue, I admit I have been responsible at times for breakdowns in the constructiveness of the discussion. To that end I wonder if we could discuss the Common Ground (linguistically speaking) in the lede:

It seems to me that as a sentence it currently has deficiences which leave it rather inaccurate, but which can be surmounted. In its earlier version some readers may have to make a presupposition accomodation of a kind when they reach the phrase "caused by or resulting in its death". Most people are willing to do that in non-controversial matters. For instance if you where reading a book and had not noticed it was raining and someone said to you "It stopped raining", you would not reply "But you haven't said that it was raining". In the book What is Meaning: Fundamentals of Formal Semantics, Paul Portner writes:

Unless you want to dispute the idea that it was raining, the co-operative thing to do in such a situation is to act as if the presupposition that it was raining had been in the Common Ground, discreetly adding it and moving on. (page 187)

In the earlier lede the presupposition the embryo/fetus is alive is presupposed in the meaning of pregnancy and it is taken for granted that for any reader who still does not obtain that presupposition that they can make an accomodation when they reach the part of the sentence: "caused by or resulting in its death"

I wonder if expecting readers to make this type of presuppositional accomodation is so out of the question, although admittedly it is asking a bit more than for someone to act as if the proposition "It was raining" is Common Ground. It will not be an issue for many readers, and we do make these accomodations in ordinary communication. That there are fields of medicine such as peri-natal pediatrics[ [37]] indicates a understanding of pre-birth (nascent) life within the medical profession and that it is held to be the case that there is no disjunction between before and after birth except between intra-uterine and extra-uterine. Do you agree that the existence of this branch of pediatrics confirms the view that birth is an event in life, not the beginning of it as the article in JAMA stated? [ [38]] To me this indicates that there is a fairly common understanding within Medicine, that most readers are able to accomodate when reading the article, and that the earlier definition was not non-standard, even though it could have been better referenced. Any thoughts? DMSBel ( talk) 23:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I think discussions of specific issues such as whether "birth is an event in life, not the beginning of it" are best kept on the article's Talk page. It's clearly something on which editors disagree. More generally, I too am in favor of constructive discussion but have not found the page a welcoming environment. I certainly support any attempts at constructive dialogue there. JJL ( talk) 00:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, I am sorry, the reason for a reluctance to re-discuss the issue is complicated, and seems to have to do with a delay in article review. Its a highly contentious article. I am sorry I greeted your initial entry to the page in the way I did, and by dismissing your concern, I was somewhat unaware of all the debate about the lede first sentence, but OM at the time was just opening the issue because it was a can of worms and to get back at other editors. You followed on his comment which was enginnered to pull the article back into "wiki-hell" so to speak, because he thinks he sees political motivations behind some editors. I guess you could not have known what you were stepping into. Please be very circumspect in any edits. I believe editors can find common ground on this, but not if one or two race ahead with changes, even if they think them minor. DMSBel ( talk) 14:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I certainly hope we can continue to make progress on the article. Reviewing your recent comments on the article's talk page, I don't think further discussion on my Talk page would be helpful. Let's keep the discussion there. JJL ( talk) 15:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I think you may not be familiar with all the discussion of this JJL. I don't blame you, but coming up with a rationale (that flys in the face of a host of MEDRS that confirm a fetus is alive) to support the daft comment OM started this off with was not smart either. I am sorry if my comments belittled you, that was not my intent. I am rather sorry I ever put a POV on the lede, but I was responding to what I still see as genuine problems with the lede. But OMs twisting the POV tag at the time to re-open an issue on which there has been compromise and consensus for a long time is gaming the system. There might be a modal definition, but it does not support OMs assertion the fetus is not living. Best. DMSBel ( talk) 23:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Again, I think this would be better discussed at the article's Talk page than here. JJL ( talk) 04:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC) reply

There is a good reason to discuss some aspects on each others talk pages. The matter of a POV tag being twisted to subvert the reason it was on the lede is mentioned on the article talk page, if you think I should mention that again or articulate the matter more clearly on the talk page I will. I realise now it was incorrect to place a general banner tag rather than a specific (ie a tag after the words such as {disputed} or {dubious}) on the lede - that was my fault. If things had been done according to etiquette and wikipedia conventions though there would have been a simple removal of the banner tag, followed by a suggestion on my talk page not to use banner tags and how to tag individual phrases/ words. I was not challenging the consensus/compromise. I was addressing a completely unrelated aspect of the lede. There is no standard definition. A modal (in a statistical sense) definition includes the terms pregnancy, embryo, fetus, viability. But the medical profession regards a fetus as a patient as I pointed out in reference to peri-natal pediatrics: (see this link also) [ [39]] In a logical sense a modal[ [40]] definition must therefore include "resulting in or caused by its death". DMSBel ( talk) 12:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC) reply

In the case of a pregnancy which starts out normally, but then developes complications the fetus has been regarded as a patient from the start, and is still regarded as a patient even if complications develop. DMSBel ( talk) 13:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Again, I don't wish to have side-discussions on the issues of dispute--that's best kept all together at the Talk page. Fracturing the conversation like this is no, to my mind, helpful. I'm happy to engage the matter there. JJL ( talk) 13:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Since we may be approaching a consensus I do not want to burden the talk page with side-discussions since there has been so much of that. However, sometimes in the past you have helped me to understand posts that have not been clear to me. This post:

GandyDancer, that's been discussed above. For example, I said: "The presently-used word 'technically' is much better than 'medically' because many medical sources include the broader definition. For example, among the sources now in this article's 'Note', see TeLinde's Operative Gynecology, Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, and Dictionary of Medical Terms. There are many other medical sources that include the broad definition, e.g. American Heritage Medical Dictionary, Gale Encyclopedia of Public Health, and WebMD/MedicineNet." Nuclear Warfare responded: "I'm good with how it is now, including using technically instead of medically, which I think is appropriate because even medical sources refer to post-viability terminations of pregnancy as abortions.". The present lead sentence is already the result of a great deal of compromise.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand NW and Any's POV? If the so-called technical wording/definition is the medical wording/definition, why not just say medical? The more I see this wording, the more I don't like it. What it does for me is bring to mind a suggestion that "technical" suggests, for instance, "...the suspect was guilty as all hell but was let off on a technicality...". At least if I'm going to agree to using technical, I'd like to understand the reasoning, and right now I don't. Do you? Gandydancer ( talk) 14:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm with you. "Technically" seems to imply "but not really". I'd prefer "medically" and I think the objections amount to saying it isn't used universally by medical sources--even though it's far and away the most common form. I'm unhappy with it but like you trying to get to some degree of stability. JJL ( talk) 19:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, "but not really" is exactly my impression. Thanks. Gandydancer ( talk) 22:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The 
Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. 
Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the 
request page, the 
formal mediation policy, and the 
guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by May 6, 2011.

The 
request for formal mediation concerning Abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been 
declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the 
mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the 
Chairman of the Committee, or to the 
mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see 
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

JJL, I need to do a lot of using words not suited for talk pages if you get my drift. If you take emails, please email me. Thanks, Gandy Gandydancer ( talk) 21:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Regarding your edits to the lead sentence at the abortion article over the past few weeks, do you view your edits as consistent with WP:Consensus, or do you instead view some other Wikipedia policy as more important? If the latter, please name the policy. Thanks. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC) reply

This has been discussed ad nauseam at the Talk page, and I don't wish to open a second front for it here. JJL ( talk) 00:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I sincerely do not know the answer. Please link to a diff if the answer is somewhere at the article talk page. You're right that there has been much discussion at the article talk page about whether consensus exists for various changes. But I see no discussion at the article talk page about whether you even care about consensus. Do you? Do you seriously believe there was consensus at the article talk page regarding how to edit the 2006-2011 lead sentence?

I'm asking you nicely to please explain what policy is motivating your edits. If you cannot or will not do that, then I may have to think about starting an RFCU. I don't want to do that. But there's got to be some way to get you to explain your rationale. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC) reply

There is in fact a way to do that. It actually happened, and it worked: I have been repeatedly asked this question at the Talk page and have answered it. I've also repeatedly been threatened with (topic-)banning and the like. Start an RFCU if that pleases you. To me it seems like just another tactic--the stalling, the threatening, the gamesmanship. Again, I don't care to have this discussion here. If it's relevant to the article it should be at the Talk page. JJL ( talk) 00:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC) reply

This is a question about you, not about the article. I'm asking whether you are purposely not complying with WP:Consensus, and if so why? Is it because you think WP:NPOV is a more important policy? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I say again, we've repeatedly had this discussion at the Talk page for the article. Feel free to re-open there the question of whether I've stopped kicking my dog yet, if you wish. JJL ( talk) 01:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Ed Parker Jr. requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Regards, SunCreator ^{( talk)} 00:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply

This message is to inform you that you have been added as a party to a currently open Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion, per Arbitrator instructions. You may provide evidences and comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi JJL,
The abortion case primarily concerns editor behavior (ArbCom does not rule on content) on image removal and first sentence edit warring at Abortion and on article titles re: this MedCab case.
ArbCom is the final word on what the case is about....so don't take my word for it, check the case page and ask questions on the talk pages for specifics.

Should be interesting. Enjoy. - ArtifexMayhem ( talk) 20:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks! That's helpful, though I'm not very motivated to go there and either complain about others or defend myself against more of the same endless barrage of SLAPP attempts. JJL ( talk) 21:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Dieter-Knuettel-2003.jpg, which you've sourced to Dieter-Knuettel. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{ OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk) 05:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply

An arbitration case regarding all articles related to the subject of Abortion has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• All articles related to the subject of Abortion:

1. shall be semi-protected until November 28, 2014;
2. shall not be moved absent a demonstrable community consensus;
3. are authorized to be placed on Standard discretionary sanctions;

In addition:

1. Editors are reminded to remain neutral while editing;
2. Structured discussion is to take place on names of articles currently located at Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Support for the legalization of abortion, with a binding vote taken one month after the opening of the discussion;
3. User:Orangemarlin is instructed to contact the Arbitration Committee before returning to edit affected articles;
4. User:Michael C Price, User:Anythingyouwant, User:Haymaker, User:Geremia, User:DMSBel are all indefinitely topic-banned; User:Michael C Price and User:Haymaker may appeal their topic bans in one year;
5. User:Gandydancer and User:NYyankees51 are reminded to maintain tones appropriate for collaboration in a sensitive topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for letting me know! JJL ( talk) 04:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that: The Abortion case is supplemented as follows:

Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:

• Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at his or her discretion, for a period of up to three years from 7 December 2011. Pages semi-protected under this provision are to be logged.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Discuss this

Hello. Your edit summary was “the basic notion is worth addressing but i share the concerns about the sourcing and phrasing”. To my knowledge the policy is that any big change has to be discussed on the talk page first and that is a policy I have been trying to follow. The section you removed was mentioned on the talk page before it was added and this is not about the whole lead issue. I would revert your revision, but then it’ll just look like a plain old edit war. And if the notion is worth addressing but you do not like the sourcing and phrasing why didn’t you just change the sources and phrases to what pleases you instead of not addressing the notion. Neurophysics ( talk) 05:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I take that as no comment? Anyway, do join the conversion on the talk page. Neurophysics ( talk) 16:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello. I have made a request to the Arbitration Committee to amend the Abortion case, in relation to the structured discussion that was to take place. The request can be found here. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 04:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks for letting me know. JJL ( talk) 15:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC) reply

JJL, it is out of character for you to be angry and harsh in your posts. I think I understand your impatience with this editor, and I agree...if I am understanding your position correctly. I believe that it is not fair to the editors that have spent so many hours researching and posting at the abortion discussion page or helpful to help us find a consensus, when a new editor is not willing to do their necessary homework, which seems to be the case here. At this point I am disappointed that this editor has been unwilling to do more than scratch the surface of this most difficult topic, and yet post with such authority. Even though I am strongly pro choice, many times throughout the discussion my thinking was back and forth as I read the many thoughtful posts. To this point this new editor seems unwilling to do more than report that his opinion is "reasonable". Perhaps he will remain stuck just exactly right there, but perhaps not. Either way, I hope that you will reconsider calling him a troll. With much respect, Gandy. Gandydancer ( talk) 21:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC) reply

He's gone from unsourced claims to rejecting the very notion that he should have to source his claims, because of his reputation...that he's a troll is truly my best guess. JJL ( talk) 00:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC) reply

JJL, I edit with him at the Occupy Wall Street article and I know he's a good editor. See the talk page there and you will see that he is more than willing to attempt to reach consensus through discussion. It took me a long time to understand how complicated this issue is, and I learned a lot from you and many others. I have no idea what conclusions he will come to, but I do know that he needs time to learn more about the issues - if he is willing to spend the time. Gandydancer ( talk) 00:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Again, I don't see what value there is in me investing time in researching his background to see if he's a "good" editor elsewhere. As long as he is explicitly insisting on his unsourced opinions being included in the article, that really doesn't matter. I'm not angry...I believe that good fences make for good neighbors, and on WP that means WP:V, WP:RS, etc. JJL ( talk) 02:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC) reply

I have no idea why you'd call me a troll for agreeing with you. B^e——C_ritical 22:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

The article Quinn Duffy has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{ prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 05:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply

JJL, in the past you have helped me to understand some of the conversation at the Abortion article. I currently have a lot of questions and thoughts regarding the suggested article name change that I don't want to bring up in the poll section because it would not be appropriate to wander off in various directions, as so often has happened at that article. My goal is to completely separate the abortion and the miscarriage articles so that the definition and any other miscarriage information need not be included in the abortion article. Would your suggestion be the best way to accomplish that? Also, I note that you give only "weak support" to your suggestion - why is that? Thanks! Gandydancer ( talk) 11:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply

I support separating Induced Abortion from Spontaneous Abortion in some way. I see a lot of support for the idea even among those who vote Oppose there--there is opposition to the specific suggestion more than to the general idea, I think. Your example of an internal link going to a specific place made the point well. I think starting a separate section at Talk:Abortion after the poll closes is a good idea since there does seem to be adequate interest in finding the right way to separate them. I support the idea of two articles pretty strongly--but like those voting Oppose, could only weakly support it on technical grounds. JJL ( talk) 14:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi. When you recently edited Safe House (2012 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sam Shephard ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Hey JJL. This is just a notification that a binding, structured community discussion has been opened by myself and Steven Zhang on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. As you were named as a involved party in the Abortion case, you may already know that remedy 5.1 called for a "systematic discussion and voting on article names". This remedy is now being fulfilled with this discussion. If you would like to participate, the discussion is taking place at WP:RFC/AAT. All the best, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 23:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks! JJL ( talk) 02:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi. When you recently edited Ed Parker Jr., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zuni ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Moni_Aizik is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moni_Aizik_(3rd_nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. jmcw ( talk) 07:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks for letting me know. JJL ( talk) 13:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC) reply

== That boy can think! (and misc. other thoughts to someone I consider an old friend) ==

Parent...and still so young...JJL, there is hope for our future!

Hope that all is well with you and yours. You are my rock at the abortion article. It is easy for me to imagine that millions of women reach out to you in appreciation for the work you have done on this WP article. Sometimes just one person can make a difference, and you are evidence of that. Gandydancer ( talk) 22:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC) reply

That's so very kind of you! I do think of young people coming here for advice, however much we would wish they would get it from better authorities. Thanks! JJL ( talk) 02:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like you're trying to tell me how to vote, or at least how to think about WP. JJL ( talk) 03:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Donald Dafoe is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Dafoe until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. MSJapan ( talk) 04:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks! JJL ( talk) 05:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Half a decade ago, you created the article United States Fencing Hall of Fame. The article has been proposed for merging with the article United States Fencing Association. If you wish to comment in the discussion, go to Talk:United States Fencing Association. Cheers, Michaelzeng7 ( talk) 18:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks! JJL ( talk) 18:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply

I intentionally linked the two (please see How to nominate multiple related pages for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion. It is possible that the result will be a merging of the two articles under Hidy Ochiai although both articles need to make a much stronger case for notability. Peter Rehse ( talk) 18:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Ah, I didn't realize you meant that. Check! JJL ( talk) 18:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC) reply

I have done some heavy copy editing of Tadashi Yamashita which you created. The one reference it had made no mention of Yamashita. If you have time, could you take a look at it? Thanks! jmcw ( talk) 10:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Looks good. Plenty of references here [41] but I don't have the articles so I'm not sure which would support what. JJL ( talk) 15:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks for starting the notable article Sharknado. A great collaboration of editors to improve the article has been going on even without them being asked. That means that the article has a good topic. SL93 ( talk) 20:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks! I felt somewhat guilty leaving such a stub but what happened was just what I had hoped would happen. JJL ( talk) 22:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC) reply

On 22 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sharknado, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that, in case of a Sharknado, a National Weather Service representative recommended staying indoors "whether sharks are raining down or not"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sharknado. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass ( talk) 12:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carol Paul is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol Paul (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – S. Rich ( talk) 14:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure if you have the page watchlisted or not, so I've decided to give you a courtesy heads up that I've nominated Kai (LEXX) for deletion. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 00:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks for letting me know! JJL ( talk) 19:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Every time I want to jump in there I see that you have already replied to the points raised. It's nice not having to comment myself; thanks for handling this in a calm and informative manner. NW ( Talk) 18:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks! It's not right to say to new editors "You can't hope to ever change this" but I do hope to let them know what a well-worked and contentious path they've chosen if they do try. JJL ( talk) 19:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Educational specialist page, your edit caused a missing references list ( help | help with group references). ( Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 01:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) (2nd nomination) EEng ( talk) 01:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timothy Skinner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Otter Creek. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello, JJL. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello, JJL. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Juliet Tablak is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juliet Tablak until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello, JJL. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) reply

The article Douglas O'Connor has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No claim of significance or notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mccapra ( talk) 20:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jesse Head is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Head until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 22:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Angi Uezu is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angi Uezu until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Boleyn ( talk) 10:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply

The article The Norm (radio) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't meet WP:N

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn ( talk) 15:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply