User talk:PRehse/Archive 3

Korindo entry vandalized?
Hi, Peter,

I've just taken a look at the Korindo Aikido entry, and all the material there has been erased, except for one short sentence. Is that vandalism?

132.77.4.43 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Barry Ley etc
Admin request filed here--Nate 11:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Newfoundland referendums, 1948
Thanks for all the help in cleaning up the article. I wasn't really sure how to proceed with any more cleanup. I guess it always helps for someone else to take a look over the article too. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Review Me!) 02:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Sir, just wanted to thank you for such a great aikido resource   Artemka 20:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Aikido
I apologize for not being able to check back; I had to make a trip a few days earlier than I expected, was in a bit of rush shutting everything down and forgot to check the FAC. I'll certainly support it next time you put it up, give me a nudge if I don't notice it. Cheers, Yomangani talk 12:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Congradulations on getting to FA. Great work. Cheers,  Basketball one  10  23:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The Bo Page
Would these links be good for the Bo page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_(weapon)? http://www.martialarm.com/weapons/weapons-bo-staff.html http://ejmas.com/jmanly/articles/2003/jmanlyart_wolfcosta_0203.htm Please let me know. Neptunekh 15:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Bugei Juhappan
FYI, you added a prod tag to Bugei Juhappan back in November and it was deleted by me a week or so later. Now a user has requested on my talk page that it be restored so I have done so. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you help me write this article?
Hello,

I was wondering if you would be willing to help me write either Seikichi_Iha or Shorin-ryu_Shido-kan. Tkjazzer 21:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering a move of History of SMR to the main article again
It was suggested on History of SMR-talk page to move the whole article and insert it into the main article again. I moved it to a seperate article 5 months ago, but maybe it is better off in the main article after all. I would really like your opinion. Fred26 11:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the main article as right now is 16 A4 pages with crude printer-formatting. The History-article is 11 pages with a total of 25-26 pages. The Main article is 42 kb, but I dont know bout the history-article. Fred26 11:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

SSR and Futagami Ryu / Kukishin Ryu
Howdee Peter!

Russ Ebert here. There is an article called Futagami ryu that should be redirected to the Sosuishi Ryu page, same Ryuha.

Also, I've played with the Kukishin Ryu page and I believe that the sources are properly cited and verifiable. I would like to remove the header of "unverified sources" if that is okay. It's nothing spectacular, but the citation is accurate.

Mekugi

History of Shintō Musō-ryū Jodo GA nomination failed
Unfortunately, I have had to fail your good article nomination for History of Shintō Musō-ryū Jodo. My comments are on the article's talk page. Regards, Green451 16:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

A quick qustion
Hello,

This is a question that may sound a little stupid. I clicked the links and read what was there, but had no more luck understanding it than I would understanding Greek...

When a "citation" is requested what exactly does that call for. What does it mean and how do you go about meeting the request???

Thanks for any help you are able to provide.

--Quo tsv 19:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sumo Wikiproject
I noticed you made some comments on the Sumo Talk page. I am looking to make a WikiProject Sumo Proposal. I hope you decide you can join. If not, any comments would be helpful, yoroshikuXinJeisan 20:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hapkido Article
The hapkido article is going through a peer review. I am personally unsatisfied with the article's structure as it now stands...even though I contributed to parts that I dislike about it. : ) I think we could benefit from non-hapkido practitioners opinions who have lots of experience with MA articles for Wiki. Any suggestions you might be able to make would, I believe, be appreciated by all. I am sure they would be appreciated by myself! Best, Matt --Mateo2006 01:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Kinomichi
Most of the times when you've pointed me to something suggesting I'd take a look at it, I plainly ignored you so don't feel obligated in any way to take a look at kinomichi. The article IMHO needs lots of work; I not sure how to go about it though. // habj 12:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Not that unique
Things that are not that unique in Aikido are the photos you have on your user page of you doing techniques that are inccorect. It's a shame that wikipedia is a 'Members Only Club' and anyone who makes you feel small is removed. Someone of your stature and with your responsibilty of editing Aikido articles should certainly be on a first name basis with the Doshu, perhaps you could call him and ask him to help you figure out what notability and uniqueness in Aikido really is.

I am also fairly certain that this will be deleted as soon as you read it, because it it argumentative and I am not a member of your club, so you feel threatened.

Anyway, tally ho and sayonara.

Dealing with difficult anonymous posters
Peter, I know that there is a 3 time revision rule for the articles but we have an anonymous poster who keeps deleting factual and cited posts to insert false uncited information of the Hapkido and Ji Han Jae pages we took out the whole section to stop his activity on the hapkido main page but I'm not sure how to go about dealing with this irritation. Any ideas. I can't talk to him he has no TALK page.--Mateo2006 20:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD log for Aikido Shinju-kai
I moved the entry for this AfD you created from the bottom of the log list to the top. The procedure for adding AfDs to the log changed recently. Cheers! Flyguy649talkcontribs 05:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Antonio Inoki versus Renzo Gracie
I removed your tag for deletion, as I believe the fight is notable enough to include. The Gracie family has always been opposed to the work tradition in professional wrestling, so the fact that a Gracie fought in a work is notable. I also added one source (another is needed to verify that, in fact, the fight was a work).

I do agree that the article should probably be merged into Antonio Inoki's own page, and into Renzo Gracie's own page, with the other fights on the card being incorporated into perhaps a new Inoki Bom-Ba-Ye page, or into the pages of the individual participants of them. Unfortunately, I don't know how to do this, being primarily a wikipedia user rather than editor (hence my lack of account).

69.181.223.182 02:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Naming Conventions
Our Wiki rules state that "for a historical figure (a person born before the first year of Meiji (1868)), always use" the family name first. For those born after 1868 use the Western order. I always wondered why? Did Japan become a Western country after 1868? They certainly didn't adopt this convention themselves and we don't adopt a similar convention for Korea.

Daito-ryu persents a awkward situation in that the proper Wiki way of render the founder of Daito-ryu is Takeda Sokaku while the his son's name should be written Tokimune Takeda. I think this quite hard to follow for the average reader. It would seem a consant rule for name order would better serve ease in reading than a close following of the Wiki rule. Thoughts out there?--Mateo2006 22:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Improving an article
Hi, Thanks for taking a look at my article about Kenshiro Abbe. I'd appreciate any comments you might have to help me improve it...Thanks! Corky1979 21:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Creation of Category:Japanese chinese martial artists
I notice that you recently created Category:Japanese chinese martial artists. Should it not be Category:Japanese Chinese martial artists (capitalised "chinese")? I'm not exactly familiar with martial arts, but perhaps it's a typo? -- Black Falcon (Talk) 04:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. I've created Category:Japanese Chinese martial artists and recategorised the article. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 05:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Stalking
I did an AWB run fixing typos on pages within category:Martial arts and one on the various spellings of jujutsu so they all got added to my watchlist, so when one crops up I tend to have a look, also keep an eye on the AfD list, I hope I'm usual helpful, even is something of a blunt instrument on 'questionable' claims. --Nate1481(t/c) 09:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Image Deletion
Hi PRehse, Heres how you tag an image for deletion. This is taken from information which can be found at WP:IfD.

Hope this helps. Thanks. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 14:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

copyvio
Done, noticed the similarities when I looked @ the 'source' link --Nate1481(t/c) 16:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Aikido Shinju-kai
Hi, I noticed you initiated the process for Aikido Shinju-kai to be deleted earlier this month. The reason you gave was that it was not a notable Aikido club. In fact, Aikido Shinju-kai is the largest Aikido organisation in Singapore with over 5000 members and 60 dojo in Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and China. The reason that there was very little information being updated was because I was trying to rally more aikidoka from the regions to assist. Therefore, I would really appreciate your assistance in helping make the page more useful to both local, regional and international students to understand about Aikido and us.

List of MA's
Got them I think could only see 3 & there gone --Nate1481(t/c) 09:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * & There was me thinking refering to them as a joke was the polite version... --Nate1481(t/c) 09:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That pesky Q article
I got it for you. It's been pretty entertaining tagging all these articles during the day and seeing you assess them every night (in UTC-5 time, that is). I'm also surpised I keep finding so many untagged MA-related articles day after day. Oh well. So what are you doing in China, anyway? Bradford44 03:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Aikido Article Review
I was looking over the aikido article trying to think about what would prevent this one from being upgraded. As stated in the TALK, since most of the earlier issues have been dealt with, I'm kind of grasping at stuff, not trying to be negative for being negative's sake.

1) Firstly I had some negative reaction to have a list of techniques which comprise a typical hapkido curriculum with the hapkido article. There seems to be a feeling that lists are 'unencyclopedic', though I think you dealt well with this by adding explanations of technique there. However perhaps the list-like section elicits a negative response from reviewers of the article?

2) The "Mental Training" title is centred rather than starting at the left margin like all others. This looks inconsistant rather than making the layout 'more interesting' to me.

3) The "General Fitness" section is a bit wordy for what it seeks to explain, I think. I'm also not sure that a comparison to 'pilates' clarifies more than it misleads. I know what the author is getting at here but I'm not sure a non-practitioner would.

4) I think the first picture in the article has a bit of an over busy background which pulls away from the activity being featured. Also the illustrations of techniques like ikkyo are a bit 'gumby-like'. I prefer pictures like the one's found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wristlocks a bit more.

I like the "Implementations" section and love the "ki"-box and explanation. The "Spirit of aikido" section is also strong. The "History" section is very carefully worded in order to be as accurate as posssible. This careful wording pulls away a bit from an easy narrative flow but is appropriate to an encyclopedia I think.

The idea that this article displays too much 'Aikikai' perspective is, I believe, not well founded.

Perhaps a quote from the Founder explaining his vision of aikido might be a nice addition?

Anyway, I was just really looking for any little nitpicky points which might be holding this article back.--Mateo2006 11:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Peter, thanks for pushing the article along. These types of thing need someone to "drive" them, and I'm glad you're here to do it for this article. (And since I'm replying here under the feedback, thank you to Mateo2006 for the feedback - we'll investigate!). &mdash; Mrand T-C 13:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Concerns
I am growing concerned, Peter, as the FA review comments are beginning to mirror my thoughts on the article's weakness. Generally speaking, I am (and have been, if you'll recall my frequent conflicts with Wayne) concerned that they article's material has been over-streamlined to the point that it is no longer suitably comprehensive to be encyclopedic. More specifically: I don't want to post this on the review page, and I don't want to sound like I'm saying I told anyone so, but I wanted you to be aware of my perspective on the article as we take this farther. I think the article is being hit by its lack of comprehensiveness, which has been cause by an over-simplification/streamlining of the contents. I sincerely believe the article was better at the time of the prior FA review, and I'm quite frustrated. If you agree with any of this, and have any suggestions regarding how I can help, please don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks, Bradford44 16:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Spirit of Aikido" is vaguely titled, and its content lacks a clear purpose or direction, and I fear it only makes sense to those with prior knowledge of aikido.
 * Certain concepts have not been explained thoroughly enough, on the theory that readers can click on links to read more about them elsewhere. I fear that this is disapproved of by FA reviewers - I had the impression that each article needed to stand on its own, without reference to others.  Obviously a subject like "ki" should have its own article, and should not be explained in the aikido article with the same depth, but a certain amount of time still needs to be taken to enable the reader to at least grasp the basics of the idea without going to its article. Likewise with the now-eliminated section about aikidoka. It is many of these little things that give an article its comprehensive quality.
 * The subsequent fractioning of the aikido organizations is a major part of the modern history of aikido. Again, it is a subject that can have its own very detailed article, but some attempt should be made to give an overview of it in the aikido article. I don't believe the organizations section should ever have been eliminated, only converted to prose.

Aikido Article FAC #2
For what it's worth, I have added my support to the FAC page. I feel a bit guilty if my enthusiasm for the article led you to submit it before addressing all concerns people may have, but I think it's wonderful, said so, and said why. Best of luck with it. BWatkins 19:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Aikido Article
I'll look it over tonight! Mike Searson 17:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Kushindo
Oh dear... off for the day so will have a look (hack) at it tomorrow... --Nate1481(t/c) 16:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

New pic
Tell me what you think of the following pic:

http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/4607/mantisfistcomparisonwz8.jpg

It's actually a merger of a free pic from wikcommons and a copyrighted pic. I thought it would be nice to show a comparison between the human and bug variations. I am waiting for permission to use the bottom pic before I post it onto the Northern Praying Mantis (martial art) page. But I have whipped something up in advance with the old microsoft paint program. I figure I can either use it to fill the giant gap created by the contents box or put it a little further down in the article. I can still fill up the gap with the pic of a stone statue dedicated to the style's creator (once I get permission). I can put it in the info box with a caption. I'll have to scrap the idea if I can't get permission.

I like the bottom pic because it shows what both sides of the mantis fist looks like. --Ghostexorcist 01:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for accuracy
While checking your aikido lineage, I came to see that you define yourself as Dojo-cho of Himeji Shodokan Aikido, it is unfortunately written in a way which may induce who is new to Aikido into believing that you are "Head" of a style. Please be so kind to correct and specify that Dojo-cho means Head of Dojo not "Head" and following ethics please add Dojo at the end of Himeji Shodokan Aikido.

I do ask this in good spirit, I hope that your interest in debunking false concepts and false attributions in martial arts also applies to mistakes you could have overlooked in your own page.

I also observe that your credentials don't justify your attitude for acting as you are acting in divertse editions of articles; you should think in asking or finding out first who is giving you comments or corrections, you could be surprised... This said in the spirit of opening your kamae to a more receptive stanceJennylen 15:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Jennylen, I strongly suggest you find an alternate editor chastise. In my year or so on wikipedia, I have met few editors as humble, patient, helpful, and all-around enjoyable to work with as Peter. Indeed, he has been an invaluable resource for myself when I was new to wikipedia, as well as others, for advice and guidance both on wikipedia rules and resolving conflicts with other editors.  You will find few editors as universally well-respected for their neutrality as Peter.


 * Your suggestions that he modify his userpage are simply absurd. If he wanted to state on his userpage that he was the Queen of England, he would be entitled to. Finally, your suggestions regarding Aikido are being considered in accordance with wikipedia policy.  Peter, as well as any other editor, is entitled to act in accordance with consensus to edit the page, which he had done.  Before making any further personal comments regarding Peter or others, I suggest you review WP:NPA, as well as WP:CIVIL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradford44 (talk • contribs)

First, please sign your messages, thank you. About its content, all that you are saying is that you support the owner of the page and stand by him, nothing else. Dojo-cho is still Head of the Dojo and not simply Head and his Dojo is a dojo and following ethics he should avoid to have it confused with a style. If he is a responsible and ethical editor as I believe he is, in spite of some careless disregard for others knowledge, he will understand this. Jennylen 17:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Peter, greetings. It is a pitty that instead of responding to me here providing at least a good reason for keeping your error, you just went to tell your "pals" so bad "she" is. I will just tell you that I have absolutely nothing against you all by the contrary I think you are making a nice job in many places with no doubts, however, perhaps "she" wants you to hold to your own intentions (to help clean up the errors and misunderstandings in martial arts) and write that yours is a Dojo not a style simply adding the word where it should be and correcting that Dojo-cho means Head of Dojo unless you prefer to write that you are just Cho (Head)? At least to match both languages? :) You don't have two separate sets of standards...do you? Jennylen 18:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Jennylen, it's unclear why you are so upset about what Peter writes on his userpage. Nevertheless, I think it's quite clear to any reasonable reader that Peter is the head of "Himeji Shodokan Aikido", which is the name of the dojo he is the head of. He even links to the dojo's homepage, so anyone could refute or confirm his claims.  It seems equally clear that use of the word "head" in parentheses is intended to define only "cho", because everyone is assumed to know what a dojo is. In any event, what difference does it make to you? You do not endear yourself by coming to people's user pages and presuming to judge the quality of their credentials, humility, or ethics. Conflicts on wikipedia are properly resolved by the introduction of arguments, analysis, and sources; the qualifications or lack thereof of particular editors are irrelevant. Additionally, unless they are violating wikipedia policy, demanding that a person modify their userpage to suit your preferences for accuracy are a waste of everyone's time. Let it go. Bradford44 18:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't upset me, he can write whatever he wants as far as it doesn't misslead to his qualifications, it is strange to me the reason why he resists to add the simple word Dojo, it really gives to think, if it is not pride, then is something worst, in anyway why to not show honesty and accuracy?Jennylen 20:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm done. If you don't get it, I'm quite certain I'm incapable of explaining it to you. Bradford44 20:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Aiki-Signal
Vandals!? Where?! I'm on the job! --GenkiNeko 19:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Peter - Aikido article
Sorry for not replying earlier. I've been in Czech Republic on a week long Gasshuku and just returned yesterday. I'll give the Aikido article a looksee. Fred26 16:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Aha!
You were that big tall westerner I saw at the All-Japan Aikido Embu thing in 2004! its all starting to come together. I was the out-of-place westerner sitting in the stands by himself probably violating a number of social rules I did not understand.

Thanks for keeping all the internets real! :) Transentient 20:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Himeji Shodokan Aikido
Hello

First I would like to apologize for any unpoliteness in previous messages, to say the truth, I was reacting to the fact that my suggestions for enhancing and making more accurate some articles were all followed by you and deleted or flagged with no special explanation or contact with me. I took it as disrespect and reacted accordingly.

As at present moment you seem to have understood that my input is not groundless or without backing knowledge, I would like to propose you a more respectfull interaction. Please act fairly and I will also do so.

I observe that you have corrected and wikified the term Dojocho, now is certainly very clear your information.

I would dare to suggest that for the benefit of readers, mostly those who look up to you as a good source of information, to you consider to wikify Himeji and Shodokan Aikido separatedly instead of the external link to your trainings page (which you can add perhaps separatedly). This is because I think is important that readers relate you with the Tomiki style so they can see your opinions at the right light as well as they can see your disagreements also at the right light. If you are so kind to do that, or at least think about, it will be really a very open and sincere approach to all readers new and old. Far from intending to make suggestions on your personal page, this is a suggestion about how to be better understood by many, you surely know what you want to transmit but only someone who is not you and doesn't previously know you, can tell you how you arrive to readers. I hope this is taken in the correct way.

As you mention also that you are Dojocho, I would like to know where, as you mention three separate training halls in your external link, are you Dojocho in one of them, in all three ? Are you Dojocho by appointment from someone or you own any training hall ? Sorry so many questions, I just would like to really know more about and perhaps visit or send a friend to visit your training.

Thank you for your patience Jennylen 12:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Dove Project
Do you know why the Dove Project which you agrred with flagging was deleted and by whom? also where I can find the talk about justifying the decission?

I see that also dissapeared from My contributions page, where can I get a copy of what I contributed there?

I will most surely place it again as soon as I get unrefutable citations but I want to know why exactly in spite of I have proven that the references were on the doing, the article was delted.

I most appreciate your response as soon as it may be possible to you

Jennylen 08:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

When I was for adding content yesterday to the article Dove Project, I saw in the talk page that Jennylen provided proof that referencial material was soon to be posted. I also saw your reply that you should post in the deletion discussion that a reasonable wait was adviced based on the notification from Jennylen. I went today to the Dove Project article to insert periodical citations and journal references founding the article deleted. I have examined carefully the deletion discussion of that article and I observe that you never posted such message, all by the contrary, your only position there is to urge for deletion. Please clarify this situation. Librarian2 09:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I had the distinct memory that you were writing "I will go to (the link) and do (description of action)" but perhaps you were saying "would" not "will". Anyway, it just called my attention. Librarian2 10:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I just left a message to Jennylen and saw your message, that was kind and good counsel Librarian2 10:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I see, I took it like you were going to do it because you knew how or you had another access level, now I get it. Well, I go learning.

By the way, if you think I can be of any help with getting the Aikido page approved for what you proposed it, let me know how or what is needed and I can see if I can be of any use. Jennylen 12:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your message and all the links for helping in what I need, you are very kind. Let me know if I can help in anything, when I have time to set up my user's page you can give a look in which areas I may be of assistance Librarian2 11:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

wow
Deaths from shihonage? I'm not an Aikidoka, but I've seen images and live demos of the technique performed. How exactly did it cause fatalities? VanTucky (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That makes sense. Anyway, I wasn't doubting, just amazed and curious. When I requested a section about injuries, I didn't actually expect there to have been deaths. Thanks for not sweeping it under the mat (no pun intended). VanTucky (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help
Hi, thanks for the style adaptation in that page. All the best Jennylen 18:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Kenshiro Abbe
Hi, Thanks for your help on Kenshiro Abbe again. Just wanted to draw your attention to the current discussion about the name of the article at the moment. Not sure what the actual policy is for it - thought you might have some ideas? Corky1979 21:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Endre Kabos
Hi. Not sure what happened, but on Endre Kabos you seem to have deleted the biography template, leaving only the martial arts one.--Epeefleche 13:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And similar problems bedevil Sergei Charikov, Mark Midler, Iosif Vitebskiy, and Otto Herschmann.--Epeefleche 13:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Maai promotion
Hi Peter, are you sure about promoting Maai to B-class? I don't know that I would consider it has having "a majority of the material needed for a completed article." Anyway, no big deal, just wondering what your thoughts were, I've been doing a lot of thinking lately about how exactly we apply our classifications, and I tend toward the stricter side. Bradford44 02:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I just wanted an idea of your thought process. Thanks, Bradford44 15:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Aikido
Article deserved it, and it was an opinon, you cant cover things in exhaustive detail in an encyclopaedia. Any way you did the hard bits I just agreed it worked! --Nate1481(t/c) 13:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Help stop Afd
The Andy Sherry article is under attack and is likely to be deleted. Please help by posting your views on Articles for deletion/Andy Sherry. simonthebold 16:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Catagory watch
Found this script User:Ais523/catwatch.js that allows you to watch when pages are added to a category, thought you might find it useful details here, how to install is at the top of the page. --Nate1481(t/c) 09:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Arnis Nicolas System
Arnis Nicolas System, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Arnis Nicolas System satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Arnis Nicolas System and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Arnis Nicolas System during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Nate1481(t/c) 10:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

MA notability
Could you have a look over the guide lines we've come up with so far & let me know what you think, they need some expansion --Nate1481(t/c) 09:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

About those redirects...
Sorry Peter, but I reverted your redirect at Yōshin-ryū (Yōshin Koryū) and related changes. There are a several totally unrelated schools of jujutsu named Yōshin-ryū, for example, the one founded by Akiyama Yoshitoki, whose article is located at Yōshin-ryū, and the different one slightly earlier by Miura Yōshin, whose article is located at Yōshin-ryū (Yōshin Koryū). they have different founders and different lineages, although the one founded by Akiyama is by far the more notable, which is why I left it at the main title. I chose to disambiguate the Miura school using its most popular alternate name in parentheses. I'm more than happy to discuss better ways to disambiguate, but they should have separate articles. Bradford44 21:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

DahnMuDo
I'll have an edit... --Nate1481(t/c) 08:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Seem to be a copy & paste form 2nd source tag for review. --Nate1481(t/c) 10:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello. Yup, had a name change recently, I should have let you know... I've pasted in Forestgarden's new version with a couple of changes, please check it over if you get a chance. What part of China are you removing to? --Bradeos Graphon 22:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help getting the new stub in place. Forestgarden 03:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Purge
Are you on a bit of a clear out at the moment? That's 4 nominated today! --Nate1481(t/c) 15:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahh another wikiholic... some of them should be tagged for a speedy to be honest, the one i did was that bit worse but others could be covered. --Nate1481(t/c) 15:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

D'Antonio David
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article D'Antonio David, because another editor is suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add db-author to the top of the page. Drojem (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC) . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drojem (talk • contribs) 04:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

San Soo
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article San Soo, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Taekwondo
If your back form the land of wiki exile, there is the Taekwondo origin debate (again) wondered if you could be another voice of reason to help cool tempers, Thanks.--Nate1481(t/c) 10:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of judoka
An editor has nominated List of judoka, 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 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) 21:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Back from the wilds
Saw you were editing the MA list & thought I'd say welcome back! Just to break you in, someone has been re writing Kenshiro Abbe he's an aikidoka, so figured you might be able to help, again welcome back. --Nate1481(t/c) 13:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fare enough, I'm trying to cut down... and failing. Good to have you back though. --Nate1481(t/c) 15:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

2 AfDs of karate people
Since you have edited the Karate International, even if it was just to add a category, and you seem to edit martial arts articles. See Articles for deletion/Chung Li and Articles_for_deletion/Jayde_Lovell, both related to that organization. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Han Moo Do
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Han Moo Do. 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 Notability and "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(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Han Moo Do (2nd nomination). 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of John Cornish
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is John Cornish. 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 Notability and "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(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/John Cornish. 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Michael Williams (aikido)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Michael Williams (aikido), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. jmcw (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Aikido techniques
Rehse-sensei: I recently created Aikido techniques to be a more exhaustive list than may be accomodated in the Aikido article. Expert attention is needed. 宜しく御願い致します! Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Martial arts equipment for deletion
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 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) 17:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Seigo Yamaguchi
Regarding the article on Seigo Yamaguchi that was deleted this summer, you might be interested in participating at User talk:Fastily. --83.188.196.6 (talk) 10:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Genbukan for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genbukan 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 Articles for deletion/Genbukan 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) 09:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)