Jump to content

User talk:BlackAmerican/Ron Duncan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Two Deletion Reviews:

Contested deletion

[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... It just went through a Deletion Review. It was stated that recreation was allowed. --CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the article is still begging for an AfD. The previous AfDs and both DRv call into question the quality and number of references and the repost was again a mess - one would think some attempt to address the underlying issues discussed would have been carried out.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, with a group of people deleting important citations, it will be a stub and subsequently deleted. CrazyAces489 (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - who deleted citations from the article.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some one did a major clean-up of the problem references and with a little further copy editing on my part - the article is in much better (clearer) shape than it was at the re-post. Thank you Niteshift36. There are still some reference issues (primarily deadlinks, see below) which should be looked at but a far clearer case for keeping now exists.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I deleted a number of sources that won't come close to passing RS. I ran out of time, but some more are likely to go as well. Additionally, there are some primary sources that should probably be reviewed in terms of what they contribute and a few sources that are debatable in terms of passing RS. I may seek some opinions at RSN. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

possible further references

[edit]

http://www.ma-mags.com/srchmag.php?SrchFor=ron+duncan&SrchHow=all - An index of magazines proving what?

http://duncanmartialarts.com/history/- self-published source, shouldn't be used

http://www.bohans-family.com/sensei-speaks/duncan-ron/rd.htm
Not a RS

http://kogaryuninjutsuint.blogspot.com/2009/05/grand-master-ronald-duncan.html
- Not a RS

http://jkashtonsjournal.blogspot.com/2012/11/rip-ronald-duncan.html Not a RS

http://www.martialforce.com/SIFU%20ALAN%20GOLDBERG%20MARTIALFORCE%20INTERVIEW.htm Questionable source

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfcYiKlc5tg- A video showing what?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KdPGOFLydY- Not a RS

allegations and issues with black belt magazine http://books.google.com/books?id=pM4DAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA58&ots=N2VRLlEapv&dq=ron%20duncan%20ninja&pg=PA58#v=onepage&q=ron%20duncan%20ninja&f=false -RS that shows nothing of value

http://www.kapmma.com/3/my_tweets.htm Not a RS

http://coboinvestigations.com/Combat-Training.php - Not a RS

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyAces489 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC) CrazyAces489 (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've removed a link within http://oninotsume3.wordpress.com, which appears to be a full pdf of a copyright magazine. It seems incredibly unlikely that blog has permission from the publisher to distribute the copyrighted material, so it would fail WP:LINKVIO "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." --86.2.216.5 (talk) 07:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References with issues

[edit]
And I think none of them are still in the article. By the by - nice job on the article. I like the way the references were cleaned out without the gist of the article getting gutted.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comment was more for the benefit of the author.....who has been conspicuously absent in the editing process. So much work would have been saved if he had at least a functioning understanding of the RS criteria. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I create so others can work. Niteshift36 PRehse It is a group volunteer effort. CrazyAces489 (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First rule of volunteerism is not to pile on work for others to do.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong answer! You don't do bad work and hope other clean it up. An article like this could go either way. I personally think Duncan is notable, but someone could make a good argument to delete again. With an attitude like that one, I will probably be less inclined to improve an article and just side with delete Niteshift36 (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Niteshift, do what you want. I don't control you. I will continue making articles so others can improve on them. 80 this year so far. CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creating articles isn't a contest. I've looked at some of your creations.....and the number deleted. Pretty soon, your refusal to even try to follow RS will catch up to you at ANI. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point in putting a lot of work into new articles anymore. Nor engaging in a lot of debate. I looked at what is qualified to be notable for some people. Things such as playing in the major leagues or WP:NCOLLATH. I put in enough information so that it won't be deleted via CSD. I simply can't fight over sources nor how an article should look. I leave it to others to improve it. So long as I don't violate WP:CIVIL or WP:COPYVIO I won't have any issues. I am choosing to no longer engaging a group of individuals at pages and wasting my time fighting long difficult fights. Too much energy wasted to me. I will just make articles that I feel are notable via wikipedia standards. If they get deleted, so be it. CrazyAces489 (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Willfully disregarding RS is uncivil and considered disruptive editing, especially when it becomes a pattern. You have a responsibility to make a good faith effort to follow the policies. It can catch up to you. Just trying to avoid COPYVIO and CIVIL violations doesn't protect you from the other policies. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't willfully disrupted anything. I may not be a veteran like you in being able to identify RS sources, but this does not mean that I can't be a good contributor. I am putting up good articles of notable individuals. If you want to challenge my articles, feel free to put them up for AFD. CrazyAces489 (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem runs deeper than "I may not be a veteran like you in being able to identify RS sources", above you are asked to have a "at least a functioning understanding of the RS criteria", and your response is not an acknowledgement or commitment for improvement but more shrug and comment to the effect "that's someone else's problem, I'll continue the way I am and let you sort it out", hardly a collegial attitude. You've been pointed in various places by me, and I would assume others that stuff like blogs are not going to be WP:RS yet you continue to add them to articles or lists of sources like the above, that's not veteran level that's merely reading and understanding what's being said to you. Likewise in a recent AFD I noticed you saying that a bio on IMDB was a strong source in your opinion, yet right there in WP:RS it talks about such content as not generally being appropriate "This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB)...", again that's not veteran level, that's just the basics. At the moment people are talking to you about stuff like this, if you aren't willing to help sort it out at a level of self improvement I guess someone may be inclined to take this to a further level of dispute resolution --86.2.216.5 (talk) 07:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many times have you seen me use IMDB after someone said that it was RS? Go through my edits and tell me. If someone tells me and shows me some sort of proof, I don't blatantly put those things up. If you want to take it up a further level, knock yourself out. I am not engaging any more battles with users who have made it clear that they do not like my work here. The less major edits I do, the less they can complain about. CrazyAces489 (talk) 12:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Anyone who has created 80 articles in 3 months isn't allowed to claim the "I'm not a veteran" card. If it were one or two articles, that'd be one thing, but you have an inherent responsibility to know what you're doing. There's a reason they give you a written test before you get a drivers license. They want to know you know the basic rules of the road. (No, I'm not suggesting that we need a test to edit on Wikipedia) Being a responsible wikipedian means trying to do it right. When experienced editors are telling you there is a consistent hole in your editing, why not try to fix the issue instead of not just ignoring them, but telling them to do it themselves. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to like my edits. I don't always like yours or 86's opinion on my edits. You have given your opinion about me in the AN/I so has 86 in another [1] I have found a small niche for myself. Creating articles and I will stick to it. Maybe in a few months, I will start uploading photos and that will be my new niche. If most of you were nicer in general to me, I would be more open to conversation. If you don't like the articles I create feel free to bring them up for AFD. I will probably give my reason for a keep, and that will probably be the end of it. CrazyAces489 (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not about "liking" them. It's about your refusal to even try, a refusal that amounts to intentional ignorance. It's not about being nice or not nice. It's about following the community norms. The norm is to follow the policies. And I didn't give my opinion of you at ANI. I gave my opinion of your actions. Sadly, the thread didn't attract the attention it should have from admins. Don't feel vindicated, feel fortunate. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is about being nice. If you are nice to people they will more likely work with you. If not they simply go on their merry way. I decided not to edit war with these group of people. I simply left the sort of articles that people were arguing at and let them do as they please. I can do other types of articles and don't need to edit war with people. I don't thrive on conflict. CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was trying to give you an understanding of why you might be getting a negative reaction to your comments, not to complain about you or stop you making edits etc. The comments aren't for my benefit since ultimately it makes no difference to me if you continue to clash with people on these matters. It seems clear however you are on the defensive and so probably little point in my having tried. But I am stubborn, and I do think if you focused more you could make some really positive contributions, so one more attempt: I have no doubt you are attempting to improve wikipedia in an area you have an interest in and commitment to, that however doesn't mean you'll always get it right (and no one should expect you to) and it also doesn't mean people should look the other way when things aren't working. To take the IMDB example up, perhaps you have learned after it being pointed out directly, but that's really not the point. You have had various editors at various times over the time you've been active point you to WP:RS where it states quite clearly about using IMDB about blogs etc. Put yourself in the other editors shoes, if you had pointed someone a few times to a page which says "don't do X" and that person still continues to do X, up until you say explicitly to them "don't do X", what are you going to think? Are you going to think that they didn't bother reading the page? Or that they didn't understand it? Or that they read it and are ignoring it? Or does it really matter which one it is, just that you don't seem to be getting it? Expand that over a few different "don't do Xs" and would you be getting frustrated? There is no problem with you not being 100% perfect, the "model" editor, what there is a problem is with when you are being given the same advice from multiple directions and apparently not willing to take that and learn. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
86, if you point out to me specific sources that can't be used and why I don't use them. I considered black belt magazine a reliable source. I now know what a passing mention is. I went over to RS once as suggested and it was such a long read and confusing I said forget it. When I put up a post and you or someone says its not reliable, check to see if I put it back up. The black belt magazine that you said was copyrighted, I showed that link to an admin and they didn't say it was a bad link. First I heard about it. Did you see me put it back up? nope! It is only to show that Ron Duncan was a noteworthy martial artist. Past that, he's been dead for a few years. The website is run by his son (I believe), so it may not necessarily be self published. CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, on the specific black belt, the magazine itself I haven't looked again, but at DRV I thought it looked ok. So that may be a usable source, it's the link itself which is a problem. So if the source is good it just needs to be a reference to the magazine with the issue and page number etc. without giving the link. The only advice I can give you if you are finding it difficult to fully understand WP:RS and similar is as said elsewhere try and focus on the quality not quantity of what you are doing, spend time looking at articles like this where others have taken the time to try and improve it and understand what they are doing. If it's not obvious to you ask people. I've no idea how active it is and how good or bad the people involved are but you could also take a look at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user to find someone willing to act as a mentor who probably won't mind you asking a lot of questions, rather than miserable old people like me who tend to have limited patience --86.2.216.5 (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the subject's son publishes a website, based largely on the foundation the subject laid and calls it the family site, yes, it's a SPS, with a primary sourcing issue. SPS doesn't mean it has to be published by the source himself. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree here with NiteShift36, Self Published Sources don't mean that it's the subject who has published it, in general it means where the editorial control and decision to publish is controlled by one (or a very small number) of people. From a reliability point of view it menas that there is unlikely to be any particular fact checking and the instances of bias are going to be questionable. If it were my dad I might well bend the truth to show him in a certain way, omit things which don't help show things the way I want, I might include things based on my own memory, or based on stories my father told, which may have been exaggerated in the first place or which I might have misunderstood (like chinese whispers). Another SPS would be a blog, I can get a blogspot account and write a martial arts blog and write anything I want, I can say how great Duncan was, or how stupid he was, or whatever, since there are no controls it place it'd be just my opinion. Don't get this wrong, SPS will often contain things which are 100% accurate, the problem is that many aren't and we can't just guess as to which one will be, or use out own personal opinion. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 10:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can the both of you go through this article, get rid of bad sources, and get it ready for userspace. I don't know where to start or begin. Thanks


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CrazyAces489/Jerome_Mackey

CrazyAces489 (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy

[edit]

Ron Duncans claims to Ninjutsu are WIDELY disputed , Ron Duncan has never shown any evidence of being taught Ninjutsu and the Soke of his claimed Lineage , Fujita Seiko , is on public record stating he taught no one Ninjutsu and would not pass on the school.

Ron Duncan never travelled to japan or trained with anyone that could teach him Ninjutsu.

Some kind of 3rd party citation is needed to state he learn't Ninjutsu. The "Ninjutsu" he taught is karate based. karate did not exist in Japan until the 1900's. Ninjutsu Existed 500 years before this event — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonEdwards2003 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SimonEdwards2003 (talk · contribs), if you keep adding this content as an IP or otherwise, you will continue to be reverted and will eventually be WP:Blocked. Wikipedia goes by WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources for content such as that. Flyer22 (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what is wrong with it? Should Wikipedia not be accurate? You State Verifiability but allow the UNVERIFIED section about Ninjutsu to remain. If we look at another similar page , frank Dux , who is another "Ninjutsu" teacher with wild claims , it is allowed to say that these claims are disputed , why should this be any different ?

  • The difference is that WE aren't saying the claims are disputed in the Dux article. Other reliable sources are saying it. You're adding a dispute that doesn't have a source. If you find sources that pass the reliable source standard, then we'll explore how to add it to the article. Also, please sign your responses with 4 ~'s Niteshift36 (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BlackAmerican/Ron_Duncan&oldid=1257943681"