Tamle2nd

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Shoji Nishio, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless that text is available under a suitable free license. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

• Copying text from other sources
• Policy on copyright
• Frequently asked questions on Wikipedia's copyright policy
• Policy and guideline on non-free content

If you still have questions, there is the Teahouse, or you can and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.

• Introduction
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidelines, I appreciate it. Tamle2nd (talk) 23:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

So I guess it's really about not paraphrasing enough, isn't it? Most the content deleted was public information. Tamle2nd (talk) 12:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

"Publicly available" content still enjoys copyright protection. Content you add to Wikipedia needs to be written in your own words. — Diannaa (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I think information regarding born-dead year and final ranking/occupation of particular people cannot really be copyrighted, right? Tamle2nd (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Information is not protected by copyright, but prose is. Rankings, occupations, names of schools, job titles, date of birth, date of death, and the like do not have to be re-worded. — Diannaa (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I want to write a Vietnamese version of Shoji Nishio. Do I need to use Vietnamese sources? His Aikido style is not very popular in Vietnam so there is very little content in Vietnamese about him or his style. Tamle2nd (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Nishio's style

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Nishio's style, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Retaliatory editing is not ok

Your edit on Freda Briggs was totally unjustifed and appears to be "retaliatory" for me editing an article you have created which you did not like. Lead sections of articles do not require references, as they summarise the content that is referenced in the rest of the article. Removing the entire lead section of an article is little more than vandalism. Please do not do it again - that is the kind of behaviour here that can lead you to be blocked. Melcous (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at David Page (musician), you may be blocked from editing. Melcous (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Vandalize? That's laughable, why did you say it was vandalism? I am pretty sure that your reading level is no where near mine. So please try to explain how that was vandalism. Otherwise... Tamle2nd (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

Hi Tamle2nd! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Aikido styles several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Aikido styles, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, most of what I wrote was undone by others rather than edited or marked "citation needed". Whatever the method or reason from others, as long as there was valid point, I edited the text accordingly with edit reason clearly stated. I have no preference to undo others' edits other than making it feels like a consistent discussion. You can see in history that my edits changed in response to undo (by others) reason(s) provided, not just keeping the same text. Thanks for notifying of the policy. I wouldn't have the time for 3 revision/24 hours anyway :D.

Also, there was a text "versatile and innovative" that you considered MOS:PUFFERY. For me high ranking in multiple different linage of martial art (not the similar types) already demonstrates versality and multiple ways of distinction from mainstream already demonstrates "innovative". Those adjectives maybe subjective, I accepted that. How about the text "highly influential Seigo Yamaguchi"? It seems to me is much less clear how and why those word are not required proper supports. Is there some presumption about certain types of character or it's just the case that others editors don't care enough? Tamle2nd (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to post this on the article's talk page because it's not about the article content. Though it was removed a few minutes later, your response continues a trend of asking me to answer questions I've already answered. My response unambiguously answered the question of what point was being sold there. I am under no obligation to respond in a format that you dictate, nor am I required to repeat answers ad nauseam simply because you are not satisfied with the answer. As the editor trying to introduce disputed content into an article, the onus is on you to obtain consensus through discussion which is usually obtained by explaining why the content belongs, not repeatedly demanding specific answers as to why it doesn't belong and claiming no answers to those questions were given afterwards. I have neither the interest nor any obligation to continue a discussion of that type, especially when it's laden with subtle personal attacks against me. I have answered your questions, that you continue to insist I have not is a non-starter in a productive discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)