User talk:Dave3141592

Hindu squats
Knees past toes, yes.... must you point out my idiocy? :p Thanks, can't believe I wrote that, shouldn't wiki so late at night. Btw, you had no prof set up so I wrote something nice about you, you should put some stuff there. Tyciol 09:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Manifold
I didn't think the link was useful, but I don't know too much about what it is. I guess it is relevant. Thanks for the feedback, you're free to make further changes. Thanks! Gflor e sTalk 19:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Dive Bomber Pushups
I restored the image link to the Matt Furey article demonstrating the Dive Bomber Pushup. For your convenience, and so that you might corroborate, here are additional links demonstrating the correct form: Best wishes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.235.162.179 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 5 May 2006.
 * Dive Bomber Pushup Link 1
 * Dive Bomber Pushup Link 2 (Scroll down about halfway)
 * Dive Bomber Pushup Link 3
 * Dive Bomber Pushup Link 4 (Scroll down almost to bottom)
 * Hi, thanks, but I'm familiar with the dive bomber technique. My reason for removing it was that I didn't think it was appropriate as a demonstration of the dive bomber pushup, as it did not show the return movement, which is the difference between a DB and a hindu pushup! However, I'd say it may be useful if linked to as a demonstration of the common section of the DB and hindu pushups, but then that may be more appropriate for the Hindu pushup article than the Matt Furey article. I'll leave the image in for now, but I've started a discussion about this on the article's talk page. -- David Scarlett (Talk) 03:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi David, I see your point. Obviously, you looked at the animated GIF a little more closely than I did. My apologies. Please do whatever you feel is most appropriate. After all, we want to be as accurate as possible. I'll leave it to you.
 * Best wishes my friend. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.235.162.179 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 5 May 2006.

Isometric exercise
Hi Dave, I notice the updates I made on Isometric Exercise have been removed. Among the comments made were that the claims were unsubstanciated and copyright material was used. If I provide the referneces to specific papers would that be of help. The material written was my own as such I'm curious as to the copyright material I used? I would also appreciate your feedback on the tone of the piece. How would you prefer to see it written and phrased? I understand your concers about advertising within the piece hence I didn't link to any of the specific commercial sites dealing with Isomertic Exercise such as www.precisiontraining.com, www.explosivefitness.com, www.maxcontraction.com, all of whom are pioneering the new introduction of Isometric pirncipals into current mainstream fitness.

I beleive it is important to develop awareness of the use and benefits of Isometrics, particularly when the current post states "They are now rarely used outside this contex" referring to rehabilitation. Even Arnold Schwarzenneger recommends the practice of ISometrics in his new edition of the Modern Bodybuilding encylopedia. As a fitness instructor and specialist in this area I beleive I can make a valuable contribution to Wikipedia on this topic as well as others.

Perhaps you can offer me advice on how best to frame and write an introduction on the subject that you feel would be apporpriate for submission. Many thanks. Yours, Paul


 * Hi Paul, the primary reason why I reverted your edit was that it was a copy of the Benefits of Isometric Exercise article from your website, which your site states is copyright. Material contributed to Wikipedia is released under the GNU Free Documentation License, and so the same material cannot be copyright. Even if you own the copyright yourself, it is forbidden to use the same material on Wikipedia. Some less critical issues with that article were that the tone wasn't appropriate for an encyclopedia, as it is encouraging people to use isometrics more than providing information on isometrics. (e.g. "Are you getting stuck in a lift or would like to lift more?") Also, you should only sign contributions to talk pages, not articles, and adding links to your own website is usually considered inappropriate. (In fact, external links other than references should be kept to a minimum, as described in the policy pages, External links and What Wikipedia is not.)
 * However, I still encourage you to contribute. I've placed a welcome template on your talk page which contains information on editing Wikipedia that you should hopefully find useful. If you are famaliar with papers on the subject whose content you think would be relevant, the findings of these papers would probably be a valuable addition to the article. For information on citing sources, see Verifiability and Citing sources. For an explanation on how to use tags to add references, see Cite/Cite.php.
 * Finally, welcome to Wikipedia. -- David Scarlett (Talk) 04:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Dave, thanks, it never even dawned on me that my own material couldn't be used in that manner. I'll write up something new and neutral and submit it shortly - after I've re-read the submissions guideleines ;-) Thanks for the welcome and the quick response, its very much appreciated. I've uploaded a new Isometric article - finally. I hope it meets with your approval. I've expanded on the history and inculded a setion on modern Iosmetrics as well as some sample exercises. One thing I wasn't sure how to do was to add a note on the study I refer to. I know you provided the info above but it's not a free paper that can be viewed online. It's the Nautilus North Study conducted by John Little. If you'd like I can send you a copy for review. Yours, Paul

Parkour
Hi Dave. I'm sorry you feel American Parkour is a spam link, however there is as much more useful information there than on some of the other sites linked. You have sited it as a commercial site, however all of the information I reference is free from charge. the page is global in scale as it gwets visitors from more than 80 countries, and as a community is as active as any other site with 30,000 unique visitors a month. I would appreciate if you would stop taking the link down. Unfortunately I have lost my password and seem unable to sign in, my comments on the Parkour page are signed M2. Thanks.


 * Hi M2, firstly, to reset your password, just click the "E-mail new password" button on the sign in form. If that doesn't work, you can always create a new account. Now, as for the APK link, it is my opinion that no local community websites should be allowed in the article. It's an encyclopedia article, not a web directory, and a huge list of every parkour community in every city/country would dwarf the article. If you believe APK to be a exception for some reason, I suggest you request discussion on the talk page. However, I suggest you first read the wikipedia policy pages, External links and What Wikipedia is not, which state that external links should be kept to a bare minimum. Also, note that in the list of links to avoid (in the External links page) is, "A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to".
 * As an example of a web link that I would consider appropriate, see Parkour.net. It contains articles on the history of parkour, on David Belle and on Raymond Belle, and so it expands on the information provided in the Wikipedia article. (And the aim of this article is to explain parkour, not to explain how to do parkour, hence tutorial links aren't really relevant.)
 * Finally, to reiterate, if you disagree, please do not just re-add the link. Request discussion on the talk page and see what others think. David Scarlett (Talk) 03:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

David: unfortunately I do'nt have control over that email account any more, I'll have to make a new login. Now, to address your points, American Parkour (despite it's name) is FAR from being a local community, people visit from over 100 countries every month, and I mean thousands of people, not just a few. Secondly, there are article on what parkour is, the history of parkour, interviews with david belle (the one on Parkour.net was borrow with my permission), there are complete tutorials which help people understand parkour, which I feel is the spirit of the wiki, to give more information about a subject. Have you seen APK's tutuorials or diciotnary (lexicon)? I think you'll find them to be great resources. Also, as this is the English wiki page, we can expect it to be a bit cetnric on countires with English as their primary language, of which the US is certianly a consideration (more English speakers than any other country / place in the world. If you disgaree with any of these points please xplain why. Thanks, M2

Not to be picky M2 but APK's production of a $25 tutorials DVD has created massive anti-APK feeling in the parkour community. Therefore I think you have become a business. In addition, whilst your tutorials may be helpful, similar content can be obtained from the parkour.net forums or on the World Wide Jam website. In addition, your terminology does not match that of the article, hence will create confusion for readers, WWJ on the other hand employs the standard French terminology which is better from the standpoint of continuity. Also, as David says, you are breaking Wiki's rules by adding a link to a site which you own. For this reason, I will be supporting David in removing the APK link. WWJ is entirely English language and parkour.net is fairly evenly balanced between English and French. Therefore your point about language is irrelevant. Also, in terms of practicing traceurs, it is still very likely that the United Kingdom far exceeds the numbers of traceurs in America. Aj* 00:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Parkour references
I understand you explanation for removing my reference in the Parkour web page, but if you notice, my webpage doens't have any kind of publicity, ou commercial interest. Besides that, the link goes directly to the parkour information, an only for that. I pratice Parkour and I notice that doesn't exist a place where people can see the relevance of the links they enter, and where they could watch the best links, videos and order informations connect with the pratice of Parkour. I spent some hours creating that content and watching sites to improve that page, I espect to contribute to the parkour community, and I hope you understand that my page had good information to by consider an external reference. If not, i respect that, but i also consider that doesn't make sense to create a webpage, spending many hours in that, for nobody knows that exists so, please tell my to close the project. Best regards: Pedro Pinto Pedro.ronin 14:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Pedro, adding links to your own website is absolutely forbidden under WP:EL, regardless of the contents of the site. If you want to advertise your site, please try somewhere other than Wikipedia, perhaps a parkour web forum. You are welcome to contribute to the contents of the article, but please refrain from just adding external links. (See WP:NOT for more information on this.) Thanks. --David Scarlett (Talk) 06:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Eccentric contraction
Hi, I'm proposing a merger of several pages together - eccentric exercise and eccentric (sport) into eccentric contraction. You were one of the last contributors, so I'm polling you for an opinion. So far there haven't been any hiccups or objections and there's been some version of a merger tag on it for a couple weeks now. Thoughts? WLU 21:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking. Comments at Talk:Eccentric contraction. --David Scarlett (Talk) 05:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

APK
I didn't know why the APK link was taken down, I just thought someone who didn't like the website was taking it down all the time along with the other ones. I felt and still feel that it's an excellent resource for anyone interested in parkour to go to. I still don't see the issue with putting it up isn't the point of the link section to redirect peopel to places where they can get more information on the topic they are concerned with? Mike 04:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Mike, sorry for the late response. The reasons it's been repeatedly removed from the parkour article include:
 * It is being constantly re-added by unregistered users who have made no other edits (let alone edits relevant to the article), which carries a strong implication that these users are only interested in advertising the site. Also at least one of these editors has been affiliated with APK, which makes adding the link by them forbidden under WP:EL.
 * Fewer links in an article are better.
 * It doesn't really add anything to the intention of the article (being to explain what parkour is) over the contents of the article.
 * It is a commercial operation (selling tutorial DVDs, clothing, etc).
 * It focuses on a specific location (America).
 * This absolutely isn't any bias against APK, the link just isn't appropriate. You may notice I also removed a link to the Australian Parkour Association (which I'm a member of), and that site contains a lot more information than APK. The reason for removing it was similar; it focuses on a single country and was added by an anonymous user with no other edits. David Scarlett (Talk) 00:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you in charge?
I have recently started editing in Wikipedia and talking in the discussion on pages (eg Parkour and Free Running Pages) I have seen that many people have been asking you for permission to edit or asking for hints/tips and you seem to have a lot of knowledge of the Wikipedia website. Are you some sort of Wikipedia Moderator or similiar? (Sorry if stupid question i am a newb) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.67.73.249 (talk) 13:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Hi. Sorry about the late response. No, I'm not a moderator, just a regular editor. Well, perhaps one with more recognition of the Wikipedia guidelines than most. ;-) Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia. I'll put some information up on your talk page that should help you get started. --David Scarlett (Talk) 06:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Freerunning
I am proposing the move 'free running' back to 'freerunning'. I have supplied my reasons for this in the talk page and would appreciate your input. If there's no feedback regarding it from anyone I'll probably go ahead and do it next time it comes to mind. Tyciol (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

PIV
Radfem discussions is where I've seen it used, but it doesn't need to be categorized that way. :) Shiningroad (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Bodyweight exercise has been nominated for renaming
Category:Bodyweight exercise has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)