User talk:Tengu16

Notice the Wikipedia software automatically takes what is between <ref> and </ref> and turns it into a nice looking footnote. That's what we like to see.

The example I chose above wasn't the best one because it was just a link to the company. If that company needs to be linked to then it should be in the "External links" section. This brings us to the next point concerning content.

4) In that example you wrote "The most well-known certification program is the Monadnock Defensive Tactics System". The problem is that you did not provide a source that confirms that MDTS is the "most well-known". A cornerstone of Wikipedia is that all claims must be verifiable. This means that any reader who comes across this article must be able to verify that your claim is accurate. In order to satisfy that requirement you need to provide a reliable source (click here to read about that). This is basically an independent, notable, source writing in depth on the topic. For example if a New York Times article made that claim then you could cite the article and then keep that statement in the article. Without citing a source the rest of us have no way to know if your claim is accurate. I do not doubt that you are an expert on this subject but since no one else knows who you are, how are they to trust you on this point?

5) The article is about Monadnock Lifetime Products the company. The first three paragraphs talk about the company and what it produces (the third one needs a citation, though). The rest of what you added runs longer than what is already there and goes into detail about the instruction techniques they use. This article is not the place for that kind of information. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia whose purpose is to give readers a general understanding of a topic. You have given way too much information. Look at the Microsoft article, it talks mostly about the company and only briefly describes things like the Windows OS. In that case there are other articles on Windows which you can click through to read about. If the instruction techniques of Monadnock are so significant then they should be in a separate article. However, I doubt they are going to meet the notability guidelines (read here). What this means is that the section on self-defense should really be reduced to a few lines stating that the company offers this service without going into details about what that service entails.

6) Thanks for pointing out the Bruce Tegner article and the problems it has. I cleaned up some of the issues and tagged the rest of it. Hopefully more people will come along in time and put more work into it.

7) I was going to talk about the problem you're having getting that new article accepted but unfortunately I've run out of time. But basically here's my advice: A) make it a lot shorter B) make sure your formatting is correct C) make sure you have at least two reliable sources giving in depth coverage on the subject (remember, these sources must be independent and notable themselves). Almost everything you're doing to this point looks like original research (click here), i.e., it's based on your personal knowledge and expertise which as I stated above is inappropriate for Wikipedia.

I hope this helps and cuts down on some of the frustrations you are experiencing. If you have any questions or comments you can reach me on my talk page. Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you guys SERIOUS?!!!

I get on here to follow up on this guy that has made some of the best comments on the Koga-ryu page, and I find all this freaking PROGRAMMER crap?!!

You see, that's the prob with Wikipedia. You won't let people just BE experts in their OWN fields. You try to MAKE people be experts in your silly field.

I'm a CO, okay. That's a correctional officer or prison guard. I don't expect other people outside of my field to be experts in my job, and really don't want them to be. So, I cannot understand why you programmer gurus here are trying to make everyone else be frigging programmers. In fact, I pretty much refuse to comprehend that, because it is not practical or wise in any way.

Like, I supervise other COs, and have to read other the incident reports that they all make. I've made COs cry over reports in the past, back in the days when everything was hand-written and had to be done right by that other person. But computers were a god-send and allowed us to send reports to others who could then help us with corrections before we printed it and signed it. So, now I just correct the crap they send me, send it back to them better, and they sign off on as their own. ---- Why? Because not all COs can write or spell very well.

That's the real world, guys. People are all different and all bring different gifts to the table. By making other people focus on YOUR gifts instead of their own gifts, you make the whole party weaker. Self-improvement concept: focus on your STRENGTHS first and foremost, hiring others to shore up your weak areas, then work on getting better in your weak areas later. Never, never, NEVER focus on becoming merely mediocre in your weak areas while your strong areas go down. It is just a big waste of time to focus on being mediocre in things you are not good at.

Seriously. I can't believe that you guys waste time and energy doing this.

If you see something wrong, just fragging FIX it. Stop trying to make everyone else do part of your job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poekoelan (talk • contribs) 21:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear friend Tengu16, I read you concern regarding your Article for creation regarding Desmond Lamont Crenshaw. I sincerely respect your effort in this regard and I welcome you to keep contributing in Wikipedia.

Here are some point I noted about your article:

• Crenshaw is realy a person who is so important that he should be included in Wikipedia? Is the subject have encyclopedic value?
• I cant find much about him on internet as a person who is important to encyclopedia.
• Your first reference : ancestry.com is not a valid reference to be included.
• Your article is too big for encyclopedia. It lok like essay rather than an encyclopedic article.
• It look like an advertisement:

He is not an active public teacher, however, and therefore gains no profit from his association with the martial arts; most of his students have been referrals from other teachers, and he has never been known to teach for a fee (a practice often referred to as "backyard martial arts instruction").

• there is no info. about his birth, childhood, youth. It simply start with pre-military days!!
• 2nd/3rd para. is not about Crenshaw but about martial art.
• I cant find any of your reference in formrt related to Wikipedia or from reliable source. Like books, News, Magazines etc.
• Example:

Crenshaw started with one requirement: no matter what their interest or personal style preferences, every student had to pass his first “basic combat preparation test” It is not encyclopedia style of writing!!

• It include so much info about Martial art that Crenshaw doent seem much of importance.

examples:

18 Skills of Bujutsu in Togakure-ryu Ninjutsu====it has nothing to do with Crenshaw. It should be different article and here should be a line and link to it.

• A large section on Students look like Advertisement. If student is notable figure than it should be separate article and a link should be placed here rather than a part of article on Crenshaw himself. If they are not notable figures than they should be scrapped.
• What is this?

-Crenshaw’s former “Shadowed Tree Combat Bujutsu Dojo” has all but died -In late 2009, MSN announced that they would be shutting down their site platform. Several web-ring group members transferred their content to the Multiply social sharing frame-work. Johnson, Crenshaw and Strother all did the same, but none of them were satisfied with the new lesser-organized “single-thread” format, so none of the sites lasted more than a few months. Today, only Crenshaw and Sutton seem to maintain sites, both now simply blog-sites on Facebook. For a short time, Carlos Johnson had been posting fitness and martial arts blogs on MySpace, but after less than a year, he gave up for lack of sharing by other members. -In late 2000, Johnson started his own MSN martial arts discussion site, titled “Lost Mountain Martial Arts Society” (aka, LMMAS). The name was in reference to both his former practice of Tien Sun Pai kung fu, and his study of Crenshaw’s Roniyu-ha Saburo-ryu Koga ninjutsu. Yet, he was slow to broach such topics.

This are the example of unrelated info in Encyclopedic article.

• There are no enough sources related to such along article. Just 24 sources ( None of them are reliable like book or news)!!
• No source is in prescribed form of reference. It look like you have copied whole article from somewhere.

Tips:

• Have a look at some article related to marial art and its practitioners. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_martial_artists
• Rewrite the whole article and make it short and readable.
• Remove all other part which are not DIRECTLY related to him.
• Find and establish links to other articles on martial arts rather than giving info on martial arts.
• Provide authentic and reliable sources to establish the persons notability that he must be included in Wikipedia.
• Your article include so much info on Martial art that it looks like article on different martial art rather than Crenshaw!!

• When you complete writing article again than give me message. I will look at it provide further suggestions. When It look like enough to be included in Wikipedia, I will pramote it and get it approved.

Keep working on : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Desmond_Lamont_Crenshaw

Keep contributing in Wikipedia. Thanks. Regards, Nizil (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I myself will collabrate with you to improve your article and getting it approved. So do not worry about it keep improving it along with me.

Collaborate? You know the best way to collaborate for you guys? Correct issues that you find... without hindering those more creative minds that are just trying to help out.

Like I'm reading this, okay. And, as a fellow martial artist, I understand why this guy has written what he has written in the way that he has. Nine times out of ten in the martial arts, the ART is more important than the person; the art defines the person.

So, by giving so much info on the MA itself, and the various MA influences of that time, he's actually contrasting this Crenshaw guy to others of his time. Plus, if you really pay attention to martial arts, a LOT of the real MA guys (not including competition types) DON'T like to give up info on their lives.

Like I know lots of MA guys that actually refuse to compete in Boxing because they are paranoid that the government will punish them for defending themselves by classifying their hands as lethal weapons. I know some MA gyus that refuse to go for official ranks for the same reason. They want everything to be as low-key as possible, and the more action they've seen in the streets, the more low-key they tend to be. --- What's the saying? "Just because I'm paranoid does not mean they are not out to get me."

This guy Crenshaw sounds like he's pretty low-key. He did not keep a real school, which would require a business license with his city and a public statement of being a martial artist. ---What city was this? The same one Muhammad Ali was from, which has that scene at the very start of the local police following him and harrassing him just for jogging down a public street. Didn't Ali end up tossing his Olympic gold medal because he still could not get served ina restaurant as a black man after winning the gold? --- With those things in mind, would you not expect some paranoia or reservations about going completely public?

In law, they have this idea called the "totality of the circumstances." You Wiki-heads can't see the whole picure, only your little small part. Hell, you can't even see how you HURT your little part by being such nit-picky A-holes. You have to take off those horse blinders and broaden your POV.

You can't make declarations about how somebody says something from the outside looking in without offending them. It's better to just let them say what they need to say, and then politely help them as much as you can. I can't tell you how many prison informants I've developed with that idea. (Really, legally I can't. Even if I know it and want to share it.)

Open-ended questions, people. That's what you all need to learn. It's not, "you have to do it this way." It's better said as "it might sound/ look better if..." It's not, "this is what we expect." It's better as "let me help you with this..."

Wiki, and the world of customers out there, would be better served with that kind of mindset.... not the Nazi ways you all have been using. IMHO. Poekoelan (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Poekoelan

I'm about to give up. If that's what you want, just to wear people down until DON'T they want to contribute here, you are succeeding wonderfully.

If you want to get people to contribute, then LET them!!! After they say something, you can make whatever recommendations you want, but leave their stuff ALONE. If no one else is sharing on that topic, BE HAPPY that they are doing so and encourage them by letting them go with it.

Keep telling you people I have a full-time job, and can only get on here a few minutes at a time, not the hours you eggs devote to it. I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to learn all of the programming crap required by Wiki censors. I've had college professors rip off my written work, but that's not good enough for Wiki. My hours, if I'm going to devote such will be to the WRITING and the crafting of written work, not to some crap arbitrary formatting BS.

You people obviously have no concern or respect for creative drive. You've shown that. So, I'm done.

This stuff does NOT have to be perfect, people. It just has to be allowed to stand first, then refined later. "Live well. Die well. Pass on virtue to all you meet." 02:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Tengu16

Hello Tengu16,

1) You stated on my talk page "Since I hold advanced teaching certifications in this particular subject as a Lafourche Parish/ Louisiana defensive tactics instructor, I am well-qualified to make such an edit." Anyone is qualified to edit any article on Wikipedia. All that matters is that they follow the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Having extra knowledge about a topic means that it is easier for that person to add good content.

But knowing about a topic does not mean that all that person's edits are appropriate for Wikipedia. Any reader who comes along must be able to verify that the claims made are accurate. From Wikipedia policy on verifiability "This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." This is Wikipedia policy. We all have to follow it. You must provide citations for your claims.

2) You asked "So, what exactly do we have to do to make an edit here? This is not exactly a well-written topic, although it is very easy to find hundreds of MDTS instructors and instructor training programs through online searches." It takes published reliable sources. If you cannot find those sources or if they do not exist then that information does not belong on Wikipedia. It's that simple.

3) Please do not use article talk pages to express your personal feelings about editing and other editors on Wikipedia. Talk pages are for discussing the article itself. Please read WP:TPG.

4) You said "I've not seen any real 'help' or 'collaboration' from the censors here. (What is the offical name for their position?) I see them repeatedly block what people try to put out for really petty reasons." Several people have tried to help you understand Wikipedia policy and guidelines on your talk page. What I'm not going to do is fix everything that is wrong with your edits. If it was only fixing up a few links then I would happily do it. But fixing everything wrong with your edits would require at least a day of work finding all the reliable sources necessary to support all the claims you make -- and that's assuming my local library would have all that information. The burden is on you to provide those sources in the first place.

5) You said "Like the whole 'formatting' thing. I've written instruction manuals for my old agency, on such things as Crisis Management, Emergency Response Team functions and Special Tactics; I used federal references for most of those written works, mainly the FLETC pages on related topics. So, I have trouble understanding how Wikipedia can be more exacting than either the federal government or the profession in which I worked." Wikipedia has an entire manual of style covering these issues which you can read about WP:MOS. The fact that you have trouble understanding why the Wikipedia community cares about these issues is irrelevant. The community does care and has set up standards for articles that we are expected to follow if we want to be part of this community.

6) "However, one of the guiding principles of Wikipedia is to 'Ignore All Rules'" Ignore all rules does not give you the right to do whatever you want. For example, if you were to continuously make libelous edits about a living person and claiming that "Ignore All Rules" allows you to do that your edits would be reverted and you would be blocked from making further edits.

7) "Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy; that's the third rule of governance here, as found in 'What Wikipedia is Not'. That's exactly what we see when they create so many obstacles to improvement and expression, however. If not, those people that devote their time to being obstacles would spend less time simply correcting mistakes, while still allowing as much accurate info to be presented as possible." "Simply correcting" your mistakes takes too much time. Instead I am trying to help you understand how not to make those mistakes in the first place (something about teaching a man to fish ...). Also, none of my actions, or those of the other editors, has been bureaucratic. We have no more power or authority than you do. The difference is that we are acting in behalf of the consensus views of the wider Wikipedia community in trying to keep article in line with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. It seems you have your own set of rules that you think Wikipedia should abide by. If you think your rules are better then by all means work to get them implemented and I will respect them. In the meantime please respect then tens of thousands of volunteer editors who have worked for years to build up an encyclopedia and to establish a set of policies and guidelines to further that goal. If you have better ideas, great, but convince the community first.

8) We see thousands of 'citation needed' Wiki-ments all over the place. That means, quite clearly, that an article need not be perfect from the start. In fact, Wikipedia has a grading scale for articles. In that grading scale, there are several that allow articles to be posted without references or citations, such as the 'Start' class." This is completely untrue. All articles are required to be verifiable. Any such article that fails that can be nominated for deletion and if the article is not fixed within a seven day period it will be deleted. The fact that articles exist that do not live up to Wikipedia policy and guidelines simply means that there are more articles than there are people who have the time and inclination to do all the dirty work of fixing and/or deleting these articles. I would like to contribute content but I find myself spending most of my time reverting vandalism, fixing articles that can be fixed, and trying to help people understand Wikipedia.

9) "Another Wikipedia concept we constantly se broken by the guys that repeatedly block worthwhile articles is this: "Wikipedia is not censored.'" You are not being censored according to the definition of "censorship" being used in "Wikipedia is not Censored". You can read about that here.

10) "Oh! That "Wikipedia:Editing policy" article also states something else I have been saying over and over on various different talk pages about blocked article content: Perfection is NOT required." Correct, perfection is not required. This does not mean that anything goes.

11) You might also want to read up on being civil on Wikipedia as well as the policy against making legal threats.

What this all comes down to is when you attempt to join a new community you should first figure out how that community operates, it's "rules", methods of operation and so on. And once you have a feel for things then start making substantial contributions. Mistakes will be made and when people point out those mistakes you should take them to heart and work to prevent those mistakes happening again. Again, thousands of people have successfully worked their way in to being productive members of this community with little or no drama so it can be done. SQGibbon (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"Thousands of people have successfully" become productive members? According to Wiki's own numbers there are over 17,652,866 members. A few thousand making it to print is NOT a very good ratio. 173.123.98.99 (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Tengu16