User talk:Aikikai45

Vandalism from Cesiumfrog

So.. I see that (like other single-purpose accounts including "Olympic sport Judo do", toxin "C31H42N2O6" and maybe "Jisso"?) you have an interest in promoting insignificant recent syncretic Japanese French small martial arts (Yoseikan, Kinomichi, etc). Please quit spamming other articles. You don't need me to explain that it isn't balanced or constructive to distract from other music articles with links to irrelevant garage-bands.. Cesiumfrog (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So.. weren't you mentally scarred afterwards or anything?? STOP project onto others your malevolence. Only YOUr contribution are vandalism. If you don't have a Doctor able to explain your mental disorder try to look at yourself into a mirror, weird huh?--Aikikai45 (talk) 12:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Judo do

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Judo do, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. JMHamo (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JMHamo: SO EXPLAIN ME =blatant and obvious misinformation, blatant hoaxes (including images intended to misinform), and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism / Judo do???--Aikikai45 (talk) 08:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Judo do (August 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by JMHamo was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Judo do and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

JMHamo (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft talk:Judo do

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. JMHamo (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of

Let us wait until a main article on Judo do (or Judo-do - make up your mind whether it takes an hyphen) is accepted before you create sub-pages. I have buried the text of list of Judo-do techniques in the edit history of draft:Judo do. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft

If you truly wish to abandon your efforts to create a new article from Draft:Judo do, I recommend that you replace the page contents with {{db-g7}} (author-requested deletion). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly advice

The editing you are doing (especially with respect to JMHamo's talk page) is not convincing administrators to understand your point of view. If you continue to shout at the administrators, demand actions that are clearly out of line with established wikipedia practices, and threaten retribution for administrative actions you could find your editing privileges restricted. Please take a deep breath and calmly and logically explain your complaints. Hasteur (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@Hasteur: Can you make the job? Just do what must be done=

~~Delete the page that must be deleted = draft:Judo do~~
Restore the page that cannot be deleted for (G3: Blatant hoax) = Judo do
Restore the page list of Judo-do techniques

Then they can add all {{Accuracy}} or {{Disputed}} they wanted. Tx--Aikikai45 (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will not interceede for you. Your storming around trying to stir up trouble (i.e. Category talk:Hoax) is not helping. Please consider WP:TEAHOUSE or sitting down and reading the numerous policies and practices that have been linked to you. Hasteur (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@@Hasteur: Partly done white knight Accepted to delete the page that must be deleted! Now will you ~~Works for me~~ works for Wikipédia? --Aikikai45 (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You seem to be edit warring at Judo. If you continue, you may be blocked. Please read WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: if your edit is reverted, do not just repeat it, but discuss it on the talk page to try to reach WP:CONSENSUS. You cannot always have your own way. JohnCD (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say you delete your own way without WP:CONSENSUS or asking wikipedia community?

September 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm blocking you for 48 hours because right now, you're being extremely disruptive. During this time I want you to look over basic policy and guidelines. You're quoting policy, but I don't think that you entirely know what it means. Right now your best outcome with the Judo do article is for you to work on it at AfC. You were given a chance to do this by JohnCD, but you requested the draftspace copy be deleted. While the mainspace article wasn't entirely a hoax, it was well within John's right to move the article to the draftspace and request that you work on improving the article there. Right now I don't think that taking it to AfD would really benefit you or the article, since all you've done since signing up is try to re-add and rename articles in a way that comes across as extremely disruptive. You've also apparently made some WP:BADFAITH comments towards other editors, which also does not make you look very good. Basically, you would be going into AfD with an article with poor sourcing and with a reputation for being insulting and disruptive. This is the sort of thing that would make it far more likely for the article to be deleted rather than retained. Your best bet here is to have the AfC draft restored and for you to work on improving the article and submit it for consideration. If the article is accepted through AfC, the article will be moved. However until then I would suggest that you not try to readd the info to the mainspace or you may run the risk of getting another block. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But as far as requesting the mainspace article being restored, I have to say that I share the concerns of multiple other editors in that the article as it stood did not really show a lot of notability. During the block just go over policy and then quietly work on the draft article. Once you're finished you can ask John if the article is ready for the mainspace at that point in time. While you're correct in that this is not John's Wikipedia, it's also not your Wikipedia and you need to be able to work as a team. If an experienced admin expresses concern over the article and people at the teahouse also show concern over the article's notability, the best thing is to try to work together, not demand that people capitulate to your exact demands. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did some investigating and it looks like the page was deleted as a hoax by JamesBWatson. He has replied to your concerns on his talk page, where he explains that the reason why he deleted the page was because there were multiple claims in the article that were not backed up with reliable sources, including a claim that it was an Olympic sport as of 1964. You linked to a book in a foreign language, but I'm not entirely sure that this would be enough to back the claims since the section seems to be about Judo and Judo do together. I'll get someone from WP:POLAND to do further translations of the work since I do not read Polish (which appears to be the book's language) - however I do need to note that I don't see the date "1964" in the aforementioned section, which means that it does not completely back up the Olympics claim. It looks like he also spotted other issues which made him believe that a deletion via WP:G3 applied. James is a good editor and I don't believe that he would delete an article without at least some reasons to back up his actions. I also need to ask: what is your native language? Is it Polish? I'm asking this mostly because I would like to find someone fluent in your language that can help go over policy with you in your native language, as there does appear to be a language barrier here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Aikikai45 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Second opinion requested

Decline reason:

My uninvolved opinion is that the block is correct. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

If this is notable enough to be included as a derivative of Judo in the main Judo article, it needs to be notable as a martial art and should be able to stand on its own as a Wikipedia article. My take is that it should be allowed to be tested at AFD. what I try to explain you is exactly that = JUDO-DO (All content is factual, notable, verifiable with cited external sources, and neutrally presented.) IS NOT Judo
and what I got on link Judo do? (I am redirect to Judo!!!

Judo et Judo-Do: haute ecole du combat par Hubert Klinger-Klingerstorff 1952
Judo & Judo-do par Hubert Klinger-Klingerstorff 1953
Teach Yourself Judo & Judo-Do par Hubert Klinger-Klingerstorff 1953
Erwartungshorizont des Judo-Do: eine Technik-Checkliste par Dennis Arnold
Les racines du judo français: histoire d'une culture sportive par Michel Brousse
Cynarski Wojciech J., Sztuki walki budō w kulturze Zachodu, Wyd. WSP, Rzeszów 2000. (ISBN 83-7262-072-2 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum)
Cynarski Wojciech J., Sztuki walki – Idō i Idōkan, SIP, Rzeszów 2009. (ISBN 978-83-61312-85-7)
Cynarski Wojciech J., Martial Arts and Combat Sports – Humanistic Outlook, Rzeszów University Press, Rzeszów 2009. 172 p. ISBN 978-83-7338-439-2
World of sports indoor, Volume 2 par Anil Taneja, ISBN 9788178357652.

‎Aikikai45 (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC) And now it is Moved excess bibliography entries to "further reading"[reply]

despite extensive media coverage in the early year an example Judo do is no more

right now you're facing a possible block from editing Revision as of 09:05, 2 September 2015 Tokyogirl79 / 08:59, 2 September 2015

If you want to have an article, I will be more than happy to restore the AfC draft and allow you to work on this at AfC. I will not restore this to the mainspace, nor do I think that many other editors will be likely to do this either. I honestly do not think that the article would stand a good chance at AfD and I think that at best people would argue that it should be sent to the draftspace for you to work on improving things. The example you gave for the book (this one) only briefly mentions judo-do in a caption for a photograph. This would not show notability and is, at best, a WP:TRIVIAL source. The books by Klinger-Klingerstorff appear to be "how to" books, which are not the type of works that would give notability on Wikipedia. Many of the other books appear to be how to books as well and one of the books you've listed is apparently self-published. Self-published sources are rarely considered to be reliable sources on Wikipedia. I have to again ask that you be content with working on a draftspace entry because the version you wrote was not appropriate for the mainspace. There were concerns over whether or not the content was accurate and there were also concerns over whether or not it was notable. Right now what you need to do is show us how you will try to work with others rather than demanding that we follow your demands. You're making it very hard for me to assume that you will operate in good faith once the block expires. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a rundown of the sources: Many are self published, as is the case with much of Klinger-Klingerstorff's work. Some, such as Les racines du judo français, do not actually discuss judo do and instead only cite Klinger-Klingerstorff in a bibliography section. This might be something useful in arguing that Klinger-Klingerstorff could potentially be a reliable source, however I'm concerned that the bulk of sources here are by two specific persons/outlets. You need to be able to show where this sport has received a variety of coverage by more than just a few people and they must be able to back up the claims in the article - and at least one of the sources did not accomplish this. That you're posting these and saying that they are reliable sources, paired with you misquoting policy really doesn't show me that you really understand policy all that well - and worse, that you don't appear to want to work with other editors. You need to be able to cooperate with other editors if you want to remain on Wikipedia. So far all you've done is be disruptive to prove a point, assume bad faith from several experienced editors, and essentially demand that we all do what you say - which smacks of WP:OWNERSHIP. Now please - be patient and try to work with us, as multiple editors have tried to compromise with you and you've refused them several times because you weren't getting exactly what you wanted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to again ask: what is your native language? I'd really like to get someone in here that speaks your native language in order to help translate some of the finer points of the various policies since again, I do think that part of the issue here is a language barrier. I also had someone from WP:POLAND (a native speaker) read over the Polish language source and they said that the source did not mention judo do as an Olympic sport. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Judo do - the way forward

When you are unblocked, before editing any more, please read all the advice above. The only way that an article about Judo do will be accepted is by first creating a draft. Other, helpful users have created a basic one at Draft:Judo do. Please improve that, and when it is ready we will move it to the main encyclopedia and list it at WP:Articles for deletion. That will start a discussion lasting, normally, seven days, so that the community can decide whether the article should be kept.

The important things to add include something about the history and present status of Judo do. It is not enough that it was invented and its authors wrote books about it - how widely was it practised? Is it still practised? Are there tournaments that are reported in the press? Did it influence other styles of Judo?

I will post a notice at WP:WikiProject Martial Arts to see if anyone else can help.

Please concentrate on developing this draft. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia by making extensive edits ot Judo or trying to move it or to re-create the article under other titles, you will just be blocked again, for much longer.

I would like to repeat TokyoGirl's request for you to tell us what is your native language: we can probably find someone to interpret, which will make it easier for you to contribute. JohnCD (talk) 09:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]