User talk:UsagiM/Archive Genseiryu

ARCHIVE Genseiryu Karatedo

This archive is for (old) messages about Genseiryu karate and related pages: World Genseiryu Karatedo Federation, GKIF and Karate.
<-- Go back to my Talk page.

Genseiryu

I've had a look - the one thing that strikes me is that it could do with a 'References' section at the end, with the sources you used to write the article listed. Under Wikipedia:Cite sources, it's always a good idea to allow users to check stuff themselves if they should so want. Dan100 14:34, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi UsagiM! I've added Genseiryu to my watchlist. The last edit to this article was 2 hours ago and the VfD tag has only been added (and then removed) three times so I am reluctant to protect the article at the moment. However, I will keep an eye on the situation and protect if necessary. JeremyA 4 July 2005 17:35 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Jeremy! I appreciate this very much! -- UsagiM 4 July 2005 18:30 (UTC)

DEFAMATION AND MISCONDUCT IS OBVIOUSLY YOUR PURPOSE IN LIFE

When are you ever gonna stop your explicit lies and defamation of my person and the Genseiryu Karate-do International Federation? I guess you simply do not have the ability to do so. Your so-called "Truth" page, created by you with lies and accusations against me, has been deleted and removed from the Internet. At least some responsible and serious people still exist on the Internet, but that certainly cannot be said about you. I only hope that Wikipedia will soon see your true purpose here, just as the www.angelfire.com did. Your purpose certainly is not to supply true and reliable information to the public. On the contrary, too much evidence can be found on Wikipedia to support the fact, that you are here only to submit false propaganda and lies with the sole purpose of defamation of my person and Genseiryu in general. You do this even though you actually have in your possession the information that contradict your articles here. THAT certainly is breaking the rules of this site and others. I feel pity for you. Peter Lee 5 July 2005 20:02 (UTC)

I was thinking of removing this text, but I think I better leave it for a while, so everybody can see your frustration. Apparently your smooth talking at angelfire did convince them to remove a perfectly good site that only showed the true nature of a man who calls himself Peter Lee all the time but is really named Peter Larsen. There was no defamation from our side on the web pages, the only defamations were the true facts about your life. It doesn't say in Angelfire's policy (nor on Wikipedia's) that it's forbidden to give plain facts about anybody's life (like dan-degrees being claimed but not recognized by the DKF, like having been a member of clubs and organizations but also have been kicked out of them because of the aggresive nature and bad attitude, and so on). I am not defaming you, you have done it to yourself. I only summarize all the facts... Like they say: "don't shoot the messenger!" You somehow got to convince Angelfire of the opposite (hey, they are only people), but the whole site is already on line again on a mirror site. I will also talk to Angelfire about the true situation, about YOU being the one that is really slandering people's names.

Now about defamation: if somebody is really busy giving defamation a totally new definition, it's you: your site and especially your forum is SO full of defamation, slander, name calling, untrue stories, lies, false allegations and so on, that it's really "playing the angel" (or a wolf in sheep's cloths?) to say that I am the one who is defaming somebody...

I have, together with other people inside Genseiryu, created a NPOV article that shows both stories, without defaming anybody... As a matter of fact we even created two subpages for the two individual stories. This gave you the opportunity to give you a say on the subpage IGKF (like we can in WGKF). But apparently you don't allow anybody to say or write anything about Genseiryu besides yourself. In that case you only show to the Wikipedia moderators that you don't want to end the edit war and are nothing more than a plain, common vandalist... -- UsagiM 5 July 2005 22:20 (UTC)

MORE DEFAMATION

Even though your "Truth about Peter Lee" site was removed from the internet due to the responsible people hosting this site, you simply cannot take a hint, but right away opens up another one the exact same location under another URL. You simply are a disgrace to everyone having anything to do with not only Genseiryu but martial arts in general. Recently I was informed, that you was awarded 3rd kyu (brown belt) from Konno after having been training there for only a few months. I came to think, that Konno is rewarding his students on grounds of defamation instead of ability and skill in the dojo. In that case, you should be awarded a 10th dan in defamation. It is strange how easy ranks are handed out to people who are only interested in misconduct and publishing defamation on the Internet. Even when being admonished never to do this again. And even when your sites containing such kind of defamation is removed by the hosting provider, you still continue your ridiculous crusade. You obviously do not care about rules, respect, facts or the truth, even though you are aware of the truth. I certainly pity you. Peter Lee 5 July 2005 22:01 (UTC)

Well, you call it "defamation". If it is, then it's only yourself who is defaming you. You are responsible for your own actions Peter. Don't hold me responsible for it. I am only the messenger, telling the people about your (true) skills and knowledge. Since you call yourself a teacher, people are entitled to know the truth, so they are warned... The only disgrace here is you. But I have told you that before.

I was awarded 3rd kyu after a good half year of training under sensei Konno. You were rightly informed about that. But was the informant also aware of my previous achievements? I don't think so... I already started karate at age 15 (in 1987) at the Pierre Zenden Sportschool in Maastricht, where I trained Shotokan. I went the normal way to 4th kyu (KBN) in about 3 years. Then I stopped. I joined on and off several karate clubs and other martial arts in Maastricht, The Hague, Geneva and Tucson (Arizona, USA) in a time where I moved a lot (because of studying). So in fact I went under sensei Konno from 4th kyu to 3th kyu. Nothing special about that... Not like you, going from blue belt to 4th dan in once...

Yes, it's indeed very strange how easy ranks are handed out to people who are only interested in misconduct and publishing defamation on the Internet. I discovered how easy that is when I learned how you got your 4th and 5th dan... So you know everything about how easy that is... My plan is to walk the normal, hard way. I won't buy my dan in Asia, but I want to be recognized by the KBN... -- UsagiM 5 July 2005 23:11 (UTC)

MORE LIES

You know very well, that your conducts here are misconduct, and your actions and inclusions constitute defamation in the first degree. Jeremy removed my personal page, and without any respect whatsoever, you once again just wrote a hole new page with more lies from top to bottom. You simply write another bunch of lies there. YOU are certainly a disgrace to everything that has anything to do with the martial arts in general.

NOW, once again I will try to talk some sence into you. At the moment I am constraining myself very hard, because I believe that other people will close you down. If they will not (and you can take this in any way you like), I will make sure, that all my research and all the collected evidence is put on the Internet, no matter how incriminating it may be to you or any other whom you call your friends or teachers. And you see, it will be legal for me to do so, as I have the evidence to back it up. One thing I have learned (something I believe you can never learn) in the aspect of the research I have conducted, is, that I first thought it easy to write about the history of Genseiryu. Unfortunately it is not. If I should write the clean bare truth without respect to anyone, then many people would suffer greatly. Including the people you adhere to. So for this reason I have published only neutral, many times over verified articles on my homepage. Whenever just a small shred of doubt existed, or it was impossible to find independant verifications on the matter at hand, I would refrain from publishing it. That was more than 10 years ago. Since then I conducted more research now totalling about 16 years, interviews with almost everyone in Denmark/Europe and Japan having anything to do with Genseiryu in some way or another. I have learned, that research is not all. I have some decency in me. That decency and a minimum of human respect for the people involved, have kept me from publishing anymore than I have already done. I did not want to start any wars or to simply step hard on people who was already lying down, even though I certainly have all the evidence to back it up. I believe that such a war would damage Genseiryu more than it could ever justify such a war. Something which you clearly do not understand. Now you have started this war, so in order to protect Genseiryu, and because I believe that most people has something good in them, I have tried to stop you by talking to both you and the people cabeable to stop you at various free Internet resources, but obviously you are not acceptable to any kind of reason. So perhaps you should consider once again what it actually is you are doing. I wait for your reply. Peter Lee 5 July 2005 23:55 (UTC)

Peter, I (we) never started any war. YOU have started it already years ago. We are just finishing it! You truely never had any decency in you, as is shown on your forum that's full of name slandering, false allegations and lies. It's also shown in the fact that you have been kicked out of at least 2 different karate schools and recently even out of the Danish Karate Federation. Don't you lecture me about decency... That's like the devil lecturing about "doing a good deed"...

PLEASE, now finally come up with your so called "evidences"!!! YOU DON'T HAVE ANY!!! Your "16 years of research" is only 16 years of B.S. We have asked you so many times to show the evidences, but you never did. Hiding behind stupid excuses. First it was because you wanted at least 2 independent people that could confirm the evidences... Then it was because you wanted to write a book and publishing it too early would cause you to lose money... Now it's because you had/have 'dencency'??? Come on... Everybody who is into this subject deeply can see this is just another of your lies and again one of your stupid contradictions! Show us the evidences. Get this over with or just stop all the allegations and slandering of names of well respected people... You can't damage Genseiryu any more as you have done already!!!

Peter, you have never talked to me. You didn't even try! You have insulted me, you have slandered my name, you have threatened me, you have ignored me, but you have never TALKED to me! I however tried to be open for discussion. I have tried to talk with you on your forum. But every time I did that, you either twisted all my words or you just deleted it, and eventually you even banned me from your forum for writing honest, factual details about Rengoukai and Genseiryu. That's not talking! Maybe you should take a course in "Communication skills" for you have absolutely no idea what "talking" means...

I know what I am doing. Telling everybody who you really are: a phoney karate teacher with a big mouth... More and more people are gathering behind me, not closing me down but encircling me, helping me and supporting me! You know that and it scares you shitless. Pick up your normal life again and simply stop all your allegations and false information on your forum. Then we will stop warning others for you and you can go on teaching innocent little children who don't know you have bought your dan degrees! -- UsagiM 6 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)

YOU ASTONISH ME ONCE AGAIN

Should I be afraid. HA, that is the best joke I have heard for years. That was a good one. Now, for more than 15 years, I have been fighting and winning the fight against people like you in Denmark. YOU are nothing special. On the contrary. Your kind of personality is something which I have been fighting for years in Denmark now. AND I have won. Not because I am big, strong, tough or rich or whatever, but because the truth will always win eventually. The same thing applies to this ridiculous fight with you. Years ago, a few students of Konno did the exact same thing as you are now doing. I find it funny, that you have not been informed by them about this. It must be very important to have offered you this information indeed. The thing is, that in Denmark, the problem solved itself, as the people involved finally learned, that their conduct fell back on themself. That day will also come to you. Should it not, then it will be too late for you. There are only 2 scenarios for you. One is that you finally see the truth and stop your misconduct and defamation. The other is your complete annihilation together with the people or teachers you claim to work for. I have tried this kind of ridiculous war many times before. But you see, I am NOT afraid, simply because I am still here. And I am prospering like never before. You can continue your ways, your misconduct and your defamation. But the fact is, that as long as you do that, I of course will defend myself, but you will also continue to bring more damage both to yourself and to your teachers (Konno etc.) as well as Genseiryu in general. You obviously is not intelligent enough to figure this out for yourself (even though I tried to hint you on this matter many times before, also through private e-mails as you know). So now I have explained it in clear text to you. Peter Lee 6 July 2005 01:08 (UTC)

I find it rather interesting Peter, that you say that you have fought people like me all the time... So apparently I am not the only one trying to show who you really are? You mean there were actually others, even in Denmark, that wanted to show that you are nothing but a fake teacher, who buys his dan degrees? Of course I knew there were people in Holland that tried it before me. But since you are so nasty and persistent (like gum on your shoe), people stop after a while. It's no use anyway... But I think there's a use in continuing: bring you finally to a complete stop! Like I said, it has been going on too long already. Now you have found somebody who does NOT fall for your empty threats! You have a big mouth for somebody holding pretty bad cards... You have bluffed around with your prices (of minor championships), about your dan degrees (bought in Asia) and about your DKF membership (where you were kicked out). Now show me your cards... "I call you"... -- UsagiM 6 July 2005 01:29 (UTC) P.S.: "you IS not intelligent enough..."??? :-)) LOL!!!

Your email

Sorry for the delayed reply. I got your email but I have been very busy with my real job this week and so I haven't done much at Wikipedia. Because I knew I was going to be busy I placed a request on the administrators noticeboard for other admins to keep an eye on the goings on at Genseiryu. My major concern with this article was the repeated placing of VfD tags, this has now stopped so there does not seem to be much administrator attention required at the moment. However, I will keep the article on my watchlist. JeremyA 18:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! -- [[[User:UsagiM|UsagiM]] 15:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi again! As an outsider, I have found it difficult discern the exact nature of your disagreements with Peter Lee. Please send me (either by email, or preferably on my talk page) the following information:

1. Point-by-point the elements that Peter Lee adds to the Genseiryu article that you disagree with, and in laymens terms exactly why you disagree with them.
2. For each disputed section of the article I would like you to suggest, if possible, a way of rewriting this section in such a way that both you and Peter Lee accept the text.

I am going to ask Peter Lee to do the same. I would also like to suggest that you refrain from leaving messages on Peter Lee's talk page and that he not leave messages on your talk page—I had intended to file a RFC on this article, but the talk about it has become spread over a number of pages making it difficult for an outsider to come in and attempt to mediate. Instead I would like any discussion of the Genseiryu article to take place on its talk page. JeremyA (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Jeremy, that's a good idea. Unfortunately I won't be here for the weekend (have a karate weekend in Belgium), and after the weekend I have a "Prof Check" (check in a flight simulator for my airline pilot's license) and then after that I am going out of the country (again for my work as a pilot) so you've got to wait until after the next weekend (after 24 July). Hopefully that's no problem? Otherwise maybe someone else (like one of the anonymous users?) can already send some of the requested information to JeremyA??? Thanks! -- UsagiM 20:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Voorwaardelijk blok (Conditional block)

(No need for Dutch --> See translation below!)

English Translation

Dear UsagiM and Peter Lee,

The last couple of months the both of you have been having difficulties with each other and several other wikipedians. Personally I haven't followed your disputes but heard about it more than enough. Because you are hindering wikipedia measures will have to be taken. In other circumstances both of you would simply have been blocked. However in your case an exception has been made because of the general believe that both of you can improve and be an added value to wikipedia. Therefore this time a curator has been appointed, me in this case. You both get a block of one month with a probation period of a half year. Because this is regarded a delayed block, the punishment can be executed directly without going through normal procedures. Both of you get a clean start effective from now, with the exception of the probational penalty. You will therefore not be evaluated based on your past. However if one of you performs vandalism, makes slanderous accusations about the other or other users and/or participates in unrightful discussions (personal attacks), this block will be executed by me partially or in full immediately. Of course you may still discuss, but please do this in a proper manner. The page Genseiryu Karate will be unsecured, I hope you can both make a great article of it together. However, should this appear to be impossible the security will be reinforced. It would be a great shame if both of you cannot overcome your difference to make a good article about your collective sport. I hope you will make my function needless and make sure I don't need to execute the penalty. Lastly I wish both of you a pleasant stay at wikipedia without blocks or fights, this way everybody can benefit.

Yours sincerely, Effeietsanders 09:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

P.S.: This translation is made bij CyeZ, because my English is just intermediate. I can read and write it more or less, but to be totally clear about this declaration, I asked Ceyz to make a nice translation.

Okay, I do understand, so do the other Wikipedia users on our side, that this has gone WAY out of hand and is beyond any normal, civilized discussion. In fact, I am glad this has now come to this and I hope that this curator is capable of bringing this to a good end (I wish you good luck Effeietsanders and JeremyA). I admit I have failed in this attempt, but I cannot say I didn't try hard enough. All my effort to create a neutral article and give the other side the opportunity to tell their story, even if it's not true, as well on GKIF with our story on WGKF has come to nothing... First, when Thoar Varenkamp showed he is (now) willing to contribute to a NPOV article, I thought it was going well. Then Peter Lee started his whole edit war all over again and has shown that his only intention is the removal of the article from Wikipedia, as can even be read in an email to WâërÞ... Even now he has got, although "on probation", mutilated the articles Genseiryu, Karate and WGKF and also he is slandering again my name on JeremyA's talk page. I hope somebody will now take adequate measures (the edits were done already HOURS ago!)... -- UsagiM 16:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Enough!

This message is being sent to both Peter Lee and UsagiM. The below comments apply to both of you equally.

This childish edit war stops now! I have already protected the Genseiryu and karate articles and I will protect any other articles that I see you waring on. If you wish to continue attacking each other, please do it somewhere other than Wikipedia. Both of you claim that the other is obviously lying, however this is only obvious to someone fully versed in the subject that you are arguing over. UsagiM should note that protection is only a temporary measure, and Peter should note that I have no intention of deleting the Genseiryu article. I am requesting one last time that the two of you behave in a civil manner and refrain from making personal attacks on each other either in edit summaries, in the content of edits to articles or on talk pages, or in making links to web pages outside of wikipedia that contain such personal attacks. My assumption of good faith is being stretched to its limits. If you are really editing in good faith then you will agree to take the Genseiryu article to mediation—please carefully read the page on the mediation process and let me know whether or not you agree to enter this process. If you do not agree to mediation then I can only assume that you are intentionally being disruptive and I will have no avenues left except to file a request for arbitration (please note that I do not think that either of you will be satisfied with the resulst of arbitration). JeremyA (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree this childish edit war has to stop now!! But don't act like I it is (equally) my fault as it is Peter Lee's... He has clearly stated to you (JeremyA) he does not want to listen to me, talk to me and only ignores me, therefore he only "contributes" to Wikipedia by editing, mostly deleting my own inputs, calling them lies. I could tell you a few lies about him, but that's "defametory" and besides it can be found elsewhere... Peter Lee has shown his destructive intentions over and over again, I have shown from the beginning that I only have the best intentions and I have spend much time creating an NPOV article that's again attacked by Peter Lee...

Funny thing is that in the beginning (of the first edit war) there was an indirect pupil of Peter Lee, called Thoar Varenkamp who was helping him with his vandalizing actions. After the NPOV article was created, he showed much more responsibility and started to show his willingness to co-operate in the creation of a good NPOV article. He added a few remarks to the article and I have altered the text accordingly so he and I could be both satisfied. Then suddenly this Thoar stops every co-operation and a new edit war of Peter Lee started... Count 1 and 1 together and you get: Peter Lee instructed Thoar to stop his co-operation so that he was able to attack the article again... Now, tell me why we should be both "equally guilty" in this edit war???

Oh by the way Jeremy, I am still willing to co-operate in the mediation by you, don't get me wrong! I just don't want to be "equalled" to Peter Lee, 'cause that's far too low!!! However, about the information you were asking for, today and tomorrow I am too busy with the preparation of a "prof check" (a yearly Flight Simulator check that every airline pilot has to do to stay "current") and after that I am out of the country until after the weekend. So please be patient! Thanks! Regards, -- UsagiM 13:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Hidden comment on GKIF and WGKF

I'd just like to remind you that instructions do not belong on the article page, whether hidden or not. Moreover, nobody may impose any kind of restriction on who can/cannot edit an article (unless a user is blocked or a page protected). Thus, I'm afraid it is fairly likely your request will go unheeded. In any case, I've moved it to the talk page, along with the other comment I already moved. The talk page is where that kind of thing belongs, and where it can be usefully discussed. -Splash 17:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I was doing everything I could to create a good NPOV article (Genseiryu), highlighting the fact that there are more stories that totally contradict each other. At the point where the main story splits up into these two different directions, I created two new articles (WGKF and GKIF) and made a link on the main article about that. On these articles both sides can write their own story. The one of WGKF claims it to be true, the one of GKIF also claims it to be true. To prevent WGKF from editing the GKIF article and vice versa, I wrote the same note (not really an "instruction", just a reminder) on both pages to prevent a new edit war. If you only knew how much there has been going on about the articles Genseiryu, WGKF and GKIF, you would probably understand the message and maybe even see the need of it... Anyway, the only one that start this edit war over and over again is Peter Lee and he doesn't care about that note as you can see in the history of WGKF. Again he has vandalized this article! So that reminder is pretty useless anyway. But thanks for pointing it out to me! I will also personally take care of that note on WGKF! Regards, UsagiM 21:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the new version of the note is much better. I did look through the history of both pages, their talk pages and the two user talk pages involved before concluding that I would still remove the note. I can see there has been much 'dicussion', and even a suggestion you take it to mediation or arbitration. I hope you consider something at least to ease things a bit; perhaps the new, lower-key note on the talk pages will help. -Splash 22:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Splash! Well, I am trying to get something done about this edit war. But the main problem is that Peter Lee thinks he is too good to talk to me. That's all I want to say about him... I am glad you find the new version of the note much better! Unfortunately the note doesn't really help, since Lee still things he can vandalize unpunished the article about WGKF, removing true information, received from first hand and of which evidence is available, adding unverified information or deliberate wrong information that is only supported by his own dojo and his branch of GKIF. Weird thing is, he does get away with it every time... Are the moderators sleeping all the time??? -- UsagiM 22:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Regrettaby, 'moderators' such as they are on WP (see Wikipedia:Administrators), do not often oversee individual pages like on bulletin boards and it can be hard for a non-specialist to see a change as vandalism. You do, however, have recourse to the Three revert rule if you need it (and you should also make sure you stick to that yourself). You might also check the definition of Wikipedia:Vandalism; I think what you have here is really a content-dispute that is not being conducted entirely reasonably on either side. This is why JeremyA suggested mediation to both of you, but I hope it can be arranged that it does not come to that. I have added both pages to my watchlist, but I'm reluctant to simply revert on either page unless it is clearly POV or non-policy (hence the reason I intervened in the first place). -Splash 22:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I understand you are reluctant to intervene without having the proper knowledge about Genseiryu. Please keep in mind that the changes Peter Lee does all the time are TOO great in numbers, clearly rewriting whole sentences, adding information that is clearly contradicting with other information on that page or on the page of Genseiryu and adding "WGKF" everywhere as if he knows what he is doing. However he belongs to GKIF and should write his story on that page, not on "our" page about WGKF. -- UsagiM 22:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Now everybody can see how this Peter Lee works! He is using an "anonymous" ip address, but I KNOW this is him, 'cause I know how he works! The article Genseiryu is unprotected and within 24 hours he makes LOTS of changes, deleting large parts of text (without explanation on the discussion page, I thought this was not allowed?), adding stupid remarks like "koryu" and worse of all and I really believe this is NOT allowed on Wikipedia: he is using MY NAME in the article, writing information that is supposed to come from me. Even if this would be true (I am not saying it is), then it is still not allowed to use the name of other users inside the article. Or is it???

I want to contribute to Wikipedia in a good way and I will not do Wikipedia any good starting another Edit War (actually it's Peter Lee who is starting it again!). So I will not touch the article Genseiryu (for the time being) and I hope somebody else will do something about the changes Peter Lee has made here. They are wrong (deleted too much text without motivation), misleading (adding incorrect info) and slandering (using MY name!)... -- UsagiM 12:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

This looks to me like a classic content dispute, though it's complicated a bit by the fact that some of the content is about one of the participants, you (correct me if I'm wrong). See if you can get other editors to agree with your dispute of this anonymous IP's content changes. Also see if you can find where he has made content changes such as adding information that isn't properly sourced or misrepresents the source, or where he has deleted significant, well supported factual content. I will be watching the talk pages and if I think you make a good case I may take some editing action in your support.

I believe it's correct to say that you are an authority in this field, so it is quite in order for another editor to quote your public statements, including publications you may have authored, or describe any of your actions that have been reported in the public domain. If some of these reports are inaccurate and you have publicly refuted them (for instance, on any websites that you operate) then it would be in order for anyone (including you) to include a reference to such a refutation.

Wikipedia is an open content encyclopedia, and the principle is that anybody can edit any article. So we don't like to protect pages for longer than is necessary. That's why I unprotected those two pages. Someone else with experience in the field may well come along and have something useful to add, but he could not do so if we kept the articles protected for weeks at a time. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 13:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

UsagiM, I'm sorry I have taken so long to get back to you.

I really think that this kind of editing problem tends to solve itself over time. If you are patient and don't lose faith I think you'll end up with an article you can be proud of.

If you think some of the things written about you were truly defamatory (libellous) please contact WikiMedia, the company that runs Wikipedia, and make sure they understand this. I hope you realise that, like you, I'm just another ordinary person contributing to Wikipedia voluntarily and I have no real understanding of the law, whereas WikiMedia does have the resources and the power to take down defamatory statements and take appropriate steps to ensure that they stay down. The contact information should be available on the links associated with the site. Email or leave a message on my talk page if you need help contacting them. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please remember to keep your edit summaries firmly away from being commentary on other user's edits to the articles that cause you both so much distress. Keep them brief and to the point and do not allow an edit-summary-war to erupt as appears to be happening. Be sure to stay well away from including anything that might be a personal attack in your summaries. Discussion belongs on talk pages where a conversation can more usefully be had. I would also urge to look for other areas of Wikipedia to contribute to that might give you less cause for conflict. -Splash 22:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello Splash! Could you please tell me exactly which comment you are refering to? Then I might be able to give a comment on it.. I would already like to point out that if anybody vandalizes an article and then slanders my name by saying in the summary that I am a liar, I will put a remark in the summary about it myself. But I believe I have been very 'diplomatic' about it all the time. But if you don't agree, please say where this is not the case and I'll be able to think that over. Thanks!

Discussion has been added now on the Genseiryu talk page, but I really doubt this will help. This person (although using anonymous IP, I know exactly who it is) is NOT going to stop vandalizing the article. May I point out that he has been blocked for this kind of activity for over a year on the Dutch Wikipedia? I really wish we could have talked about it and we could have solved this problem, but you see, he thinks he is the only person who is allowed to talk about Genseiryu. Everybody else is apparently too 'dumb' to talk about it. He already called you 'dumb' too, I saw on your talk page... No, this person doesn't even want to talk to me. He ignores every message I write and he already said to other administrators that he choses to ignore me. So there's NO way I can talk to him...

By the way: I have been working on other areas of Wikipedia. I like Wikipedia, it's a good project and I like to contribute to it. Check my contributions and you'll see what I have contributed to already. As soon as I find more time, my plans are to contribute even more, especially in the field of aviation and physics (since I am an airline pilot and have studied physics). So you'll see! :-) Thanks for your remarks! Regards, UsagiM 21:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to spend ages trawling through your contribs history collecting diffs, but here are a few. Bear in mind that I have little interest in the content of the edit itself — I am interested in squeezing the discussion out of edit summaries, onto talk pages and preferably away altogether: [1], [2],[3], [4], [5], [6], etc etc.

Again, remember that I am less interested in the effect or content of your edit than the nature of the summary since that is where the bulk of the fighting is taking place at present. Edit summaries are such compressed ways to 'communicate' that usually the only way to do is bluntly; and that just winds the intended recipient up. Now, whether your edit summaries are worse or better than Peter Lee's and the anons', is a separate question, and I have cautioned them seperately. -Splash 22:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Right, now I see what you are talking about. Thanks for the trouble! Now, most of the summaries you mention here are in the line of "Edits for better NPOV. NPOV was mutilated by [...] who deleted important info and added only opinions and unverifiable information."

In my opinion, and I think that is also Wikipedia policy (again, correct me if I'm wrong), it should be stated in the summary why somebody has reverted to a previous version. Otherwise anybody can just revert to an older version stating nothing more than "rv"... But if that is the correct and most accepted way on Wikipedia, tell me so and I will do that next time. Regards, UsagiM 22:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Me, and how to proceed

UsagiM,

I am sorry you think I have little time for this. I am prepared to invest many keystrokes indeed if I think there can be a resolution to the conflict. The principal reason I expressed some disinterest in the anon's comment was its incivility. About me, about Wikipedia and about you. In general, if someone is mouthing off, I do not give them the time of day. If someone has something to say, and can say it civilly I'm prepared to listen. So you're comment is much more palatable, even a touch sarcastic around the edges.

Whilst I say I am prepared to invest time in this, I would also note that User:JeremyA has also tried counselling both of you, but neither responded to the suggestion that you take this to RfC or RfAr — this gives the impression you prefer to continue the fight. It is clear that there is unlikely to be a resolution via talk pages, and that the situation has largely degenerated to sterile reverting. Let me present to you the alternatives available, in order of preference:

1. Come to an agreement via the talk pages, or your user talk pages;
2. Try informal mediation;
3. Take the matter to an article-based RfC;
4. Take the matter to a user-behaviour RfC;
5. Request formal mediation at RfM;
6. Take the matter to the Arbitration Committee at RfAr.

Options 1 and 2 show little sign of working. I suspect that, due to the specialist nature of the subject, option 3 would be unlikely to produce much other than alternative forum to fight in. However, it must surely be worth a try. Why not go list the article at RfC for a week or so and see what happens?

Option 2 remains open to you all however. If you can present evidence, externally verifiable, on this talk page to back your claims I would be interested to read it. It sounds as if there must be some way to present both sides of the argument in the same article.

Option 4 is on the way to an Arbitration. It will probably produce comments positive and negative on the behaviour of all parties involved. Reqeusts for Mediation presently have a considerable backlog, but one suppose that, if all the earlier options have failed that it would not be unreasonable to skip that part out. That leaves Arbitration. The Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) generally takes a dim view of edit warring on any article for any reason. It takes a generally dimmer view when all other avenues of cooperation have been exhausted without result. It does not usually determine content issues. So one possible outcome is that both of you are banned from editing either article (under any IP address or account) for a lengthy period; you will probably also be cautioned against making attacks in summaries or edit pages with the threat of blocks if you do. The ArbCom rarely decides completely one way or the other. I would advise that Arbitration be avoided if at all possible.

Can I invite you to file an article RfC first, give it a week to see if comments are incoming, and take it from there? I will cross post parts of this on the WGKF talk page since that is where most of the 'action' is. -Splash 20:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello Splash! Sorry for the late reaction (although just 4 days later), but I first had to think about this, as you might understand. Now, I have written a reaction on the talk page of JeremyA. From this you can already see my point of view, actually I believe I can speak for the whole WGKF organization: bringing this to arbitration would mean that both sides of the story would be looked at and a new story would be created with only those parts that we agree on, maybe a few differences would be pointed out, giving both sides the same amount of credibility. Now, that is too big of a problem, since there is no credibility whatsover to the story of GKIF, at least not for the part where the edit war is all about. All the differences they are bringing up have the sole purpose to destroy the other organization (that's us!), to slander my name and the name of some well respected men, and to promote the book of sensei Tosa. We do NOT want to participate in any of this, as you might be able to understand... Therefore, arbitration is not really an option to my point of view.

I am thinking of an alternative. I do have an alternative but I will have to talk this over with my "superiors"/colleagues first... Thanks for your help and understanding! Regards, UsagiM 13:23:06, 2005-08-21 (UTC)

..."ignorant and naive you are"...

WTF, why are you saying something like that about me at EdwinHJ's? We have not yet crossed paths but I believe we will if you continue to make statements about me like that. I don't know you and I don't think I want to know you. hydnjo talk 02:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you totally misunderstood the message Hydnjo... That's the problem with written messages, you can't look at somebody's eyes! I even made a smiley ;-) to show I was joking! What I meant was that only if you would attack Peter Lee (i.e. revert his "edits"), he would attack you back, saying "you are ignorant and naive"... This was just a conditional statement about Peter Lee, I would never do this myself!!! Sorry you misunderstood the message... Gotta be more careful with my jokes... -- UsagiM 10:09:08, 2005-08-22 (UTC)

I'm begging your pardon. I was totally off base having hastily misread your statement at EdwinHJ's. I have also been mistaken while making a humorous comment and I know how that made me feel. I apologize to you for my harsh comments. hydnjo talk 16:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Apology accepted and no hard feelings! Regards, UsagiM 13:58:33, 2005-08-24 (UTC)

Edit summaries again

Hi UsagiM! Please restrict your edit summaries to just a summary of what you have done to the article, and don't use them for propaganda. As you can see, I have adopted a policy of blocking those who refuse to enter discussion and prefer instead to continue this edit war. But I think that some of your edit summaries are inflammatory and don't help the situation. For example, in your most recent edit to WGKF you put Article 'cleaned up' to higher standard: this is the true story and the only story that is backup-ed by WGKF. where cleaned up would have done. All other discussion should be saved for talk pages. Thanks, JeremyA (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry... Got a little carried away when I saw all the insulting language about me in the other summaries... This guy is really pissing me off sometimes, especially now he is hiding behind all the different ip addresses, in stead of showing what a 'man' he is and use his own name!! BTW, I did write a message on the so-called 'research' on the talk page... -- UsagiM 14:46:19, 2005-08-24 (UTC)

Blocked!

Hi UsagiM! I have blocked you from editing for 24 hours for this edit. You have been asked to refrain from personal attacks on many occasions. I am trying to persuade Mr Lee that his current behaviour is inappropriate and that he should join the discussion on the Genseiryu talk pages with the aim of working out a version of this article that both sides agree on. Your constant taunting of Mr Lee is not helpful in this respect. Yes he has attacked you in edit summaries, but go look at the talk pages of each of these IPs and you will see that I have blocked him every time. He is using an ISP that provides dynamic IPs, this means that his IP changes fairly often—this is not some trick that he is using, it is just the way that his ISP works. Because you have been more open to discussion regarding these articles I have been restoring your version each time it has been blindly reverted. But if you continue to rise to the bait that Mr Lee offers and respond with attacks against him I feel that my position is weakened. JeremyA (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, you are right Jeremy. I should not have done that. My sincere apologies! I thought too much about defending myself and my name and not about Wikipedia policy and the request to refrain from personal attacks. I was getting sick of all the personal attacks from Peter Lee all the time, where I never could say anything back. Now I got a little angry and wanted to say something back to him (actually lowering myself to his level), should have thought this over... I don't like it, but this time I deserved this block. After that, I will refrain from talking with Peter Lee at all (unless he is willing to discuss the 'hot' issues about Genseiryu and WGKF, which I doubt!) and will be very brief in the summaries from now on. I learned my lesson! BTW, thanks for restoring the articles everytime. I did see you blocked some of the ip addresses, however as you noticed, these blocks don't really work, since he uses a dynamic ip... What can be done about that? -- UsagiM 08:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S.: In your revert of the talk page of Peter Lee, you also reverted the message "Genseiryu-Genseikan" ([7]). This was not really an attack but a simple question. However somewhat meant sarcastic, it's an honest question and I don't see any reason to delete this one??? (maybe the beginning of the text was somewhat controversial, if so I can rewrite it after the block)

Request for Comments

This is to let you know that a Request for Comments has been filed which concerns your conduct. It also concerns the conduct of Peter Lee. You can find it here. It having now been certified by the two relevant editors and having had the relevant evidence supplied, it is now open for comments.

Please provide a response as you feel appropriate in the assigned section of the article. Please keep discussion to the talk page. Please keep things civil, and be aware that any member of the community is entitled to comment as they see fit. -Splash 03:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Splash! I will look it over and think about it carefully. I will not respond immediately, I will think it over first. Unfortunately I have a friend over for the weekend and after the weekend I am flying to Jo-burg for a couple of days. So if I won't be able to write a response before Sunday evening (28/8) I will do that after I come back on Thursday... Regards, UsagiM 20:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

You put your response in exactly the right place. It is indeed intended for you to write a) your account of events b) rebut evidence if you so wish and c) say how you plan to respond to the comments made. You may, however, say pretty much what you like there (within the usual constraints!). I remain faintly hopeful that Peter Lee will take a few minutes to write a response too. In respect of c) above, I'd be interested, if you are willing, in reading what your suggestion for the way forwards is. Clearly the articles cannot remain protected indefinitely, and clearly the warring cannot continue indefinitely either. If you do decide to suggest something (bearing in mind the suggestions made at the end of the summary above the certifying signatures), then please do make it in the RfC rather than a talk page. Thanks. -Splash 19:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Your site regarding Peter Larsen

Osu UsagiM-san

We are several people involved in the Danish Karate Fed. who have read your site with interest. I was present at the meeting where he was thrown out. If you have any more info you like to share, please do. You can write to me here: post@mortensteen.dk

Regards

Osu

Morten Steen Denmark

Thanks for your reaction and support Morten-san! However, we have promised the Wikipedia community to avoid any comments about Peter Lee on the Wikipedia talk pages. But since we are in contact by email, we can exchange information to help eachother in our research... Osu! -- UsagiM 17:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Genseiryu & WGKF

Hi UsagiM! I have unprotected these articles—however Splash and I will be watching closely for any return of the anon IP vandalism. I think that it might help if you would agree to not edit these articles for a short period of time (say, a couple of months). Of course there is no way that I can force you to do this but I think that it would show good faith on your part. JeremyA (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

And I second that. -Splash 01:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jeremy and Splash! Of course I'll do anything to help the Wikipedia community. I will try not to touch the articles for a while. In stead, I will put my energy and time in editing and contributing to other articles... Regards! -- UsagiM 10:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

November 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on World Genseiryū Karate-dō Federation. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Frmatt (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay Frmatt. Thanks for clearing that up. Please help me, keeping that article NPOV. All I did, was making sure that all the rubbish that Peter Lee kept putting in the article, was taken out, for it only contained false accusations and name slandering. If I would have kept to the Three-revert-rule, then now there would have been a page with lots of false information, accusations and the good name of a very nice, honourable, well-respected man would have been smeared all over the place by this young Danish person who won't sleep until WGKF and its members are out of the (his) karate world. So, if you or somebody would help me to keep the article NPOV, then there doesn't have to be any edit war... Thank you. --UsagiM 08:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

My revert

I reverted the article back one reversion to a version by you. My reasons are on the article talk page. I am not taking sides and do not expect this version to stay. We are discussing future changes on the talk page. Please join out discussion and offer your proposals. - 4twenty42o (talk) 06:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand. Hope this will come to a good end soon. My time is also limited and just too precious to deal with somebody all the time who finds it necessary to smear the good name of an honoust and well-respected person in the karate world... I will not rest myself, until he stops this name slandering, but also will I try to follow Wikipedia's rules and guidelines in this as much as possible. If I can think of a solution, I will not hesitate to mention that on the article talk page. Regards, --UsagiM 08:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at World Genseiryū Karate-dō Federation. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, your conduct in this matter has been quite unacceptable, both in your engagement in an edit war and the extreme incivility in your edit summaries. The only reason that the blocking period is as short as it is is due to the fact that you stopped the edit war after being warned, but given your tenure here, you should be well aware that both edit warring and incivility are unacceptable. You are not expected to refrain from behaving in this manner "when possible", you are expected to refrain from it at all times, period. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|There has been NO edit war AFTER Frmatt explained the Three-Revert-Rule and gave me a warning that we would be blocked if we would continue to do so. Since that, there was NO reverting anymore. Why would you now suddenly decide for a block after all??? When you drive too fast, does the police stop you and then say "Hey, you get a warning, don't do it again... Oh, you know what, I am giving you a fine after all!"?!? This being totally unfair, also because I did seek consultation, but nobody responded, while the slandering and posting of made-up stories on WGKF continued (as a matter of fact, the slander was already on for 3 months!!! Why didn't anybody see that?) I request that you remove the block immediately, so I can come up with constructive proposals on this problem.}}

Thank you. I will do what I can. And about being "uncivil" (which by the way I have NEVER been to anybody but Peter Lee), it was foolish of me to allow Peter Lee to provoke me like that. It will not happen again, and I will continu to contribute to Wikipedia as I always have - as a contributor who likes to see the facts as they are, no nonsense stories. Also, I won't revert the article in question, provided that administrators keep a look-out as well that Peter Lee doesn't abuse the article again to smear my or other people's names, without coming with facts and evidences. If I see that nobody is taking care of that (as the last time, the name slandering and bs in that article was already on that wiki for over 3 months!!), I will have to take action, of course taking into consideration the Three-Revert-Rule... Thanks again. Regards, UsagiM 16:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of World Genseiryū Karate-dō Federation

A tag has been placed on World Genseiryū Karate-dō Federation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ukexpat (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Noted. I added the {{hangon}} tag... --UsagiM 19:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not leave messages on your partner in crimes page. I removed it because that is totally unnecessary. Regardless of the reason taunting someone is not acceptable and whether you realize it or not that was taunting. regards - 4twenty42o (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh? And just why should I not mention the fact that he COPIED my reasoning of the request to unblock, while in his case he is lying??? That shows how he works, what a shrude liar he is. This is important to notice, to see the truth... He lied, because he DID do another revert AFTER he had been warned by Frmatt (see [8]). Frmatt's warning came at 05:51. His next revert (way over the 3 times he already had done) came at 07:31, which was again reverted back by you, 4twenty42o. Just thought I should mention that, before his block is suspended prematurely... In all fairness, I was unblocked for the right reason: I STOPPED reverting... Didn't I??? --UsagiM 19:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

But you are right about staying away from his talk page. I am only getting all kinds of nasty names thrown towards me, for telling the truth... That is how he reacts everytime when he is told the real truth. He can only react in an agressive, angry, nasty, name calling way, which goes beyond any reasoning. I will therefor never ever react to him on his talk page again, and keep it to an absolute minimum elsewhere. He is not worth it anyway... --UsagiM 19:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. you did stop. But taunting someone and being generally uncivil is not the way to approach any situation. If he chooses to act that way he will be permanently blocked from editing. I can absolutely guarantee that his behavior is not going unnoticed. I implore you to stop with the cynicism and allow the Wiki process work its magic. If you feel that admin intervention is necessary, there are ways to handle that. But inflammatory comments by either of you will get you blocked for much longer than 24 hours. - 4twenty42o (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Err... Excuse me? Taunting? Being uncivil? I only stated, that Peter Lee was lying about not having reverted anymore after the warning (a text he simply copied from MY talk page and used in his own benefit). I even prooved it, didn't I? And, it was you who reverted his last revert, so you also know as a fact that Peter Lee is lying. Pointing this out is in no way taunting or being uncivil. He on the other hand is again calling me names (see his talk page, last edit). Talking about uncivilized behaviour... At least I am telling the truth AND I am backing it up... But I do thank you for your given guarantee. And I hope in all honesty that the Wiki process will work "its magic". Beautifully put by you, but I still have to see it... --UsagiM 20:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk Page

UsagiM, you deleted most of the content of the talk page here. Please be more careful. I've undone your change so you'll have to copy-paste your responses back in. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 13:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That was of course not intentionally. Was working on the section, but at some point had to restart my computer. I think that messed things up (I think the section became the whole page after the restart) and I didn't see it. Sorry and thanks. -- UsagiM 13:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought. May I suggest your responses focus on content without referring to Peter himself? The "wall of text" approach has been tried before without any success. Time to break things down and discuss small chunks of content. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 13:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Mmmm... I agree... Partly. I agree that the "wall of text" approach won't work on Peter Lee. He is so hard-headed that even if you throw the evidence right in his face, he will still deny it (see Peter Lee's old talk page). But when he is making all kinds of false accusations towards me and/or members of WGKF/Genseiryu, I have to respond to that. I feel that I have to, because his name slandering is doing no good for the people concerned. Some of these people are highly respected individuals in AND outside the karate world. I know these people personally and I know they don't deserve this. I will and cannot accept Peter's way of talking about these people. Now, I won't go into a direct discussion with him anymore, since that's no use at all. Also I will not say anything about his position in the Genseiryu or karate world anymore, enough has been said about it, so that must now be clear. But I will point out, indirectly, that he is constantly breaking Wikipedia rules and policy with his false accusations and insults. Until he stops (which is unlikely) or until somebody intervenes. Hope you can understand that. -- UsagiM 14:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to try to stop the "wall of text approach", after my last comment on WGKF's talk page. In the future I can always refer back to this last comment. I don't have much more to say about Peter's accusations. But I truly hope that somebody (read: some administrator) will eventually call him to a stop. Was that the "magic" of Wikipedia that 4twenty42o was talking about in the section above this one? Regards, UsagiM 14:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)