Bushido77

Your submission at Articles for creation: Robert Heisner (August 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by HistoryTheorist were:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Robert Heisner and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

❤HistoryTheorist❤ 20:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Bushido77! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 20:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Robert Heisner (August 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Jlwoodwa were: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Robert Heisner and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

jlwoodwa (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I am trying to learn this Wkipedia editing. I am surprised by the "neutral point of view" comment. I ran the article through Grammarly using the formal and academic settings. I will see if I can figure out my problems, and try again. Bushido77 (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

If you are using generative AI to write some or all of your draft, you should read WP:LLM. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. No, I am not using any AI. Just Grammarly, which makes suggested edits based on my settings. I am doing all the writing myself. I set the Grammarly program for "academic" and "formal" which I had hoped would make the article more "encyclopedic." Apparently, I have more to go. Bushido77 (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Robert Heisner (August 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ktkvtsh was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Robert Heisner and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Ktkvtsh (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Robert Heisner has been accepted

Robert Heisner, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Dr vulpes (Talk) 01:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I really learned much from the process of creating this article. I hope to contribute more often. Bushido77 (talk) 11:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Christian Martial Arts moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Christian Martial Arts. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it violates WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NPOV. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. What sources would you be looking for outside of the multiple Black Belt magazine links? I will continue to look for others,

I looked at the links to WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NPOV and I don't fully understand these references. By WP:NOTESSAY are you indicating that the article sounds more like my opinions rather than facts? And WP:NPOV means the article does not come across a being neutral?

I appreciate your assistance. Bushido77 (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Evangelism, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. This is still not properly sourced or encyclopaedic in tone. Listing a bunch of Evangelists with dubious scholarly credentials is not sourcing Golikom (talk) 11:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Nothing I have added to the evangelism page is original to me. It comes from legitimate scholars with legitimate and recognized degrees (many are doctorate degrees.)

Apparently, you are rejecting legitimate education, but on what basis? Are you refusing to recognize their scholarship? For what reason do you claim they are not reliable sources? Bushido77 (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Evangelism. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Respect WP:BRD and resolve this on talk. Golikom (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I will make no further changes to this evangelism page. Unless I can figure out how to get into dispute resolution. I believe you should check the veracity of your neutrality on this subject and perhaps recuse yourself if it is a subject you cannot be unbiased about. Bushido77 (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Christian Martial Arts (October 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CFA was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Christian Martial Arts and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

C F A 💬 22:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Christian Martial Arts (October 22)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Ktkvtsh was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: This is more of an WP:ESSAY on martial arts within Christianity than an encyclopedic entry.

Ktkvtsh (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Christian Martial Arts (October 23)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Bluethricecreamman was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi Bushido77! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I will look it over, but sadly, I am beginning to think editing Wikipedia is not worth the effort. Bushido77 (talk) 02:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Christian Martial Arts (October 23)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Bonadea was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: The draft says that "Christian martial arts are a subset of the martial arts", but none of the sources I have checked supports this. Neither is there a source supporting the claims about biblical references, or the list of ministries and practitioners. Please read this policy section to understand why this draft cannot become an article.

The list of

bonadea contributions talk 06:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean none of the links supports that it is a subset of the martial arts? What proof would you produce to support tae kwon do as being a subset of the martial arts?

Doesn't the fact that their are more than 30 books and more than 30 Christian martial arts ministries support the fact that it is an existing subset of martial arts.

I am VERY frustrated trying to contribute to Wikipedia.

I REALLY want mediation. You guys are not making any sense. I keep asking how to initiate mediation or arbitration and no one will answer. I am new to editing and will most likely move on if no real help and mediation is available. Bushido77 (talk) 12:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

What proof would you produce to support tae kwon do as being a subset of the martial arts? Good question! The reason we can't compare taekwondo and Christian martial arts is that there are many, many books, scholarly articles, documentaries, and other reliable, independent, secondary sources that talk about the concept of taekwondo. Wikipedia's article Taekwondo is based on some of these, for instance Kang & Lee 1999, Park & Kim 2016, and Gillis 2008. These are secondary, reliable sources about the concept of taekwondo itself, and it is trivially easy to find many, many other sources that prove to us that taekwondo is a subset of martial arts, e-g- this newspaper article (which is also used as a source in the WP article).

In contrast, I could not see that any of the sources provided in Draft:Christian Martial Arts talk about a kind of martial arts called "Christian martial arts". Looking at the current version of the draft, the first two sources are reports of American churches that offer judo training, and sources 3 - 5 are advice columns run by churches or Christian religious institutes (these may or may not be reliable sources, I haven't evaluated that) offering their opinions on whether Christians can practise martial arts. You will notice that none of these five sources actually talk about "Christian martial arts", but about Christians who are also martial arts practitioners, and in fact, a number of different martial arts are discussed in these sources - judo, taekwondo, karate, etc. Sources 6-10 are Bible passages used to support the content in the section "Observations From The Bible". That whole section is original research – as I explained in my rejection notice, it is crucial that you read and understand this policy subsection in order to fully understand why. Likewise the following section, where all the sources are primary (it's a list of books, and all the sources are the books themselves); if any of them is a reliable, scholarly publication discussing the concept of Christian martial arts, that is not at all clear. I checked 10 of the books and none of them is a reliable source, much less a secondary one. I tidied up the section called "List of Active Christian Martial Arts Ministries" which had a lot of WP:OVERLINKING that made it look as if it was a list of notable entries – it isn't, and again it is pure synthesis supported by primary sources, unclear if any of them is even reliable.

I hope this brief summary of the main problems with the draft makes it clear why it is not acceptable as a Wikipedia article. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 13:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain your position thoroughly. I believe many of your assessments are wrong in the sense that you are claiming the comparison between Christian martial arts and tae kwon do is not comparing apples to apples, but rather apples to oranges. I maintain that they are similar situations. Here are my observations to your response.

You said "Good question! The reason we can't compare taekwondo and Christian martial arts is that there are many, many books, scholarly articles, documentaries, and other reliable, independent, secondary sources that talk about the concept of taekwondo. "

I referenced more than 30 books that acknowledge and discuss the existence of Christian martial arts, including Black Belt magazine.

You said "In contrast, I could not see that any of the sources provided in Draft:Christian Martial Arts talk about a kind of martial arts called "Christian martial arts"

My response I have been training in the martial arts for 40+ years and I can assure you that tae kwon do is NOT a unified monolithic "kind" of martial art. There are multitudes of tae kwon do styles, just like there are multitudes of Christian martial art styles.

You said "You will notice that none of these five sources actually talk about "Christian martial arts", but about Christians who are also martial arts practitioners..."

My response if there are not Christian martial arts, why have new Christian styles been developed by many of my references? Most Christian styles have been created from other styles (just like many tae kwon do styles were created from other tae kwon do styles.)

You said "That whole section is original research..."

My response you give me too much credit, I did not write the Bible. Those Bible quotes are not intended to prove anything. They are simply there to show some possible places where Christian martial artists find their support.

You said "

My response how would one obtain a scholarly secondary source about Christian martial arts? Many martial artists are not Christian. Most martial artists are not scholars. Outside of the martial arts community, what scholar who is not a Christian martial artist would even write about the subject?

I must admit that I am growing close to giving up on editing Wikipedia. I put about a month's worth of work into this article. It is a very large (albeit minority) part of the martial arts community, and (except for you) all I got was a rejected article with little valuable feedback.

It seems that editing for Wikipedia is far more effort than it is worth. I offer my expertise to write on a subject of notable value only to have it summarily rejected. I think I can spend my time better elsewhere.

Again, I appreciate your time and response.

Is there any way to seek an unbiased mediator in cases like this? Thank you. Bushido77 (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia isn't a hobby that appeals to everybody; if you think it is more frustrating than rewarding, maybe it isn't for you – but you are the only person who can make that decision. However, unless you understand what original research means in Wikipedia's terms (for instance, it does not mean that you are citing yourself or your own publications!), it's unlikely that it will become less frustrating. A number of your fellow volunteer editors have been spending our time on trying to help you understand the central policies such as No original research and its subsection on synthesis (this is the third time I link to it on this page), but I'm not sure that you have really read the information we have been linking to, or even tried to understand what we have been explaining. That's OK, we all decide what we want to do with our spare time and nobody forces us to try to help you, but I'm afraid fewer people will be willing to do so when our explanations seem to fall on deaf ears. --bonadea contributions talk 14:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I have read the original research document before (and am reading it again now.) Are you saying that by the "original research" article defines the Bible is not a reliable resource?

Is there any way to seek an unbiased mediator? Bushido77 (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your making the effort to understand the relevant policies – they are not always intuitively easy to understand. The issue here is not with whether the Bible is a reliable source, but with the fact that the "Observations From The Bible" section in the draft we're discussing takes a number of quotations from the Bible and interprets them in the context of martial arts. That is original research – a synthesis of information taken from a source. We are not allowed to base any content in Wikipedia on such syntheses. (As an aside, "shadow-boxing" does not refer to any martial arts exercise, the wording is a bit of a red herring :-) ) --bonadea contributions talk 15:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Boxing is a martial art. If you read the verse it says he does not box like a shadow boxer. Bushido77 (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

That's the red herring! Some English translations use that wording, many other translations don't, and the original didn't. --bonadea contributions talk 16:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

You said "That's the red herring! Some English translations use that wording, many other translations don't, and the original didn't."

My response: are you a Greek scholar? Where is your PhD or ThD from?

Here is a link to more than 60 English Bible translations and 46 of them use the word boxing.

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/1%20Corinthians%209%3A26

I believe that you are not neutral. Bushido77 (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

αεραδερειν, literally "slapping the air". Look, the whole point of this discussion is to show why content based on a synthesis of interpretations of a source is not something we can add to Wikipedia, much less a synthesis of Present-Day English translations of an ancient text! And especially not when an ancient text is interpreted as stating something about present-day concepts. We are not allowed to do that. --bonadea contributions talk 16:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

43 out of 60+ Bible scholars translated as boxing into English. Translations, according to Wikipedia are not original research. You might want to read the original research page. It specifically says that translations are NOT original research. Bushido77 (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that Bible translation scholars are not faithful translations?

Here is from the original research page of Wikipedia.

Translations and transcriptions

[

edit source

]

Shortcut

• WP:TRANSCRIPTION

See also: WP:Translation

Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research. For information on how to handle sources that require translation, see WP:Verifiability § Non-English sources. Bushido77 (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bushido77 see WP:RSNP “ Scriptural texts, like the Bible and the Quran, are primary sources only suitable for attributed, relevant quotes and in compliance with other Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. Content that interprets or summarizes scriptural passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources (for example, in the academic field of religious studies) and attributed when appropriate. Analysis of scriptural content by Wikipedia editors is prohibited by the Wikipedia policy regarding original research, and a 2020 discussion found no consensus on whether unsourced summaries of scriptual texts should be allowed under MOS:PLOTSOURCE.” Doug Weller talk 17:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

You said "generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources"

My response: so, if I understand you correctly, the scholar interpreting the Bible is a superior source to the Bible they are interpreting?

I made no original research. I quoted the Bible and stated that some Christians appeal to those passages to support their positions. Bushido77 (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bushido77 Yes, we rely on secondary scholarly sources discussing the Bible. Doug Weller talk 18:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, I get it. The Bible is not good enough. But a scholar commenting on the Bible is. Bushido77 (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Bushido77, if you believe the guidelines are being misapplied here, you can request assistance in various places. Options include asking for a third opinion (WP:3O) or inquiring at the original research noticeboard (WP:ORN) or the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RSN). If those don't meet your needs, you would need to pursue next steps outlined at WP:DR. However, I strongly recommend you do not pursue this. @Bonadea is correct in the interpretation of Wikipedia policies on original research and synthesis, and I would be surprised if an experienced editor gave you a different opinion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. At least someone gave me the steps. Bonadea is not correct in his assessment.

Now I have to research these steps and see what is next. Bushido77 (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

You are likely to continue finding Wikipedia frustrating if you try to make its culture conform to your existing worldview, specifically regarding appeals to authority versus consensus and the suitability of the Bible as a reference. Working in a system at odds with what you're used to can be unpleasant at first, and it's your call whether you want to make the effort to step outside your comfort zone to edit Wikipedia. What you can't do is expect everyone else to change to suit you.

In your thread at Talk: Charles Darwin you continually demand the intervention of a mediator and express incredulity that there isn't a "final authority" to appeal to. Wikipedia isn't a top-down hierarchy; it's a consensus-based model. Yes, some people have more experience and some people have superior arguing skills and get their way more often, so it can seem like there are bosses, but fundamentally Wikipedia's rules are developed through the messy push-pull of self-governance, not imposed upon the community by an authority. If you can't accept that principle, you will remain frustrated.

Likewise, you are clearly coming from the point of the view that the Christian Bible is reliable source, which is fine in some contexts, but it isn't an appropriate reference as Wikipedia defines it. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources that summarize academic or otherwise already vetted content. They are based on secondary sources, on commentary in line with existing expert consensus, not what people or organizations say about themselves. So yes, in this context, biblical scholars are preferable to Bible quotes. If that isn't a mental shift you can make, you're not going to be happy here.

(You are permitted to delete this message, so feel free, but please take it in the helpful spirit with which it was intended.) 69.180.140.223 (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

You said - "In your thread at Talk: Charles Darwin you continually demand the intervention of a mediator and express incredulity"

My response - that is a great example of the bias of Wikipedia editors. All I wanted to do was include one quote of the full title of Darwin's book. I am incredulous about how it is wrong to include the complete title given to the book written by Darwin. Somehow an editor gets to override Darwin himself. Darwin entitles his book and an editor forbids using Darwin's title. Bushido77 (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Robert Heisner for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert Heisner is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Heisner until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

bonadea contributions talk 15:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The article has already been approved. This is ridiculous. If one Wikipedia editor can thwart another... Wikipedia is unstable. Bushido77 (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The fact that an article has been approved only signifies that one editor thought the person was notable enough. A deletion discussion, on the other hand, lets the community weigh in on notability. Sort of the opposite of what you are saying. One editor approved it, the community decides whether to keep it or not. Also, not sure if anyone has asked you this, but do you have some sort of relationship with Robert Heisner? If yes, please take note of our WP:COI policy, If you've already been asked and have responded, my apologies. RegentsPark (comment) 15:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

You said "A deletion discussion, on the other hand, lets the community weigh in on notability."

My response: more than one editor has been involved in that article. Bushido77 (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

That’s not the community. It’s individual editors. An AfD is advertised to the community so any one can participate. Doug Weller talk 17:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@RegentsPark says studied under him for 40 years. Doug Weller talk 17:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

You said "says studied under him for 40 years."

My response: yes I did, and I never concealed that fact. Wikipedia discourages not forbids people connected with the subject from writing the article. Even though I admitted my connection, I worked diligently for 4 or 5 months to make it neutral and the article was approved. Bushido77 (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@RegentsPark Bushido also wrote a book with him.. As they presumably both profited from it, seems a clear COI. Doug Weller talk 20:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

You said - "As they presumably both profited from it, seems a clear"

My response: that is a presumptive lie - we did it for the students and sold them at cost. You have the conflict of interest. This is biased and unsourced allegations - it is defamatory and uncalled for. Bushido77 (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Still a COI. I clearly have no COI here. Doug Weller talk 06:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. We wrote a book documenting the history of the martial art system, made no money on it, I am not trying to sell it here... but you say it is a conflict of interest. Uh OK!

Actually, I do think you are biased and conflicted. Bushido77 (talk) 12:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

At the AfD, several hours before you posted this, I wrote "Bushido admits to writing a book with Heisner."For example, I took the photo of his Wado-Kai certificate and all of them are copyrighted in the book that Mr. Heisner and myself wrote". He does say he sold it at cost to students" Doug Weller talk 12:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Images in Robert Heisner article

Hi there. I see you have uploaded several images to Wikipedia Commons dating back to 1966 and listed them as your "own work." Did you actually take all of these pictures? Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I took photos of Robert Heisner's photos. For example, I took the photo of his Wado-Kai certificate and all of them are copyrighted in the book that Mr. Heisner and myself wrote. Bushido77 (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and that copyright is linked to the Robert Heisner article. Bushido77 (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

You should not have uploaded images as your "own work" that you did not create. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I created many of them, and Robert Heisner and I are the copyright owners of them all. Bushido77 (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Christian Martial Arts for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christian Martial Arts is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Martial Arts until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Bushido77, your article on Christian Martial Arts should not have been made a draft for a second time after you returned it to article space. I pointed this out to the editor who draftified it, and that editor returned the article to mainspace. I have now nominated it for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and what an article should be. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Wrong! It is fully valid for Wikipedia. Christian martial arts is as much a valid subset of the martial arts as tae kwon do, shoto kan, or any other subset. It does meet the guidelines for notability and you want it deleted because of your lack of neutrality and personal bias.

~30 books and articles plus ~30 Christian martial arts ministries prove it is notable. Bushido77 (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

1. Can you identify one reference that comprehensively defines what "Christian Martial Arts" entails in terms of technique or forms? What makes it NOT judo or sumo or kickboxing but a distinct type? That would be a start.

2. Are there any other names that might be used for it? If you want people to contribute to improving the article, synonyms could help others locate additional references.

3. If it's actually more of a type of ministry than a distinct type of martial art, which is what the current sourcing implies, perhaps you could add some content using the sources you have to the Christian ministry article. 69.180.140.223 (talk) 04:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

You asked - "1. Can you identify one reference that comprehensively defines what "Christian Martial Arts" entails in terms of technique or forms? What makes it NOT judo or sumo or kickboxing but a distinct type? That would be a start."

My response - as I told someone else, it is like Tae Kwon Do or most other styles. Tae kwon do is a general martial art, but under the heading of tae kwon do, there are literally thousands of various tae kwon do styles. The same with Christian martial arts. It is a subset of the martial arts with thousands of various Christian styles.

You asked - "2. Are there any other names that might be used for it? If you want people to contribute to improving the article, synonyms could help others locate additional references."

My response - not that I am aware of. Perhaps faith martial arts or Christian karate or something like that.

You said - "3. If it's actually more of a type of ministry than a distinct type of martial art, which is what the current sourcing implies, perhaps you could add some content using the sources you have to the Christian ministry article"

My response - possibly. Although, there have been new styles that have been developed that inextricably incorporate Christian faith and the martial arts.

I will say that your approach to "editing" is helpful, unlike the vast majority of the other responses I have gotten. Thanks. Bushido77 (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

You are the same guy who told me that photos I own the copyrights to should not have been uploaded... :-) Bushido77 (talk) 00:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Some friendly advice

Hello again. I know this message is very long, but I want you to succeed.

I know that right now you are struggling with the Wikipedia community and are frustrated. That is perfectly reasonable, and I understand that you might leave Wikipedia for good. I do not completely know why you are editing Wikipedia, presumably because you want to create entries on people and activities you know well and want to share to others.

While I do not think that this is necessarily a wrong thing to do, you must be very careful in your approach. Wikipedia is not a Christian encyclopedia, and thus is not written from a Christian perspective. I do not think that you need to abandon your Christian convictions, but you must realize that Wikipedia articles have high quality standards and are written to everybody, not just Christians.

Please be understanding to those who have been editing at Wikipedia for decades and have seen many editors make similar mistakes. To them, seeing a person who does not completely understand how Wikipedia works is frustrating, and from their years of experience, they might jump to conclusions about you that are not necessarily true. In these cases, it is best to assume good faith, and be slow to make judgement calls about their intent, as I am sure you do not want them to make judgement calls about your intent.

I do not mean to discourage you or cause you any more frustration than you are experiencing, but if you want to continue editing at Wikipedia, I recommend stepping back and performing smaller edits to existing pages, preferably ones which are not controversial, to gain an understanding on how Wikipedia works. I did not create my first article until about 2 months in. I hope that you have a good day and a better time on Wikipedia, or in real life if you choose to leave, and I wish you nothing but success. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 00:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights.

You said - "...presumably because you want to create entries on people and activities you know well and want to share to others."

My response - that is part of it. I suspect many articles (hopefully most) are written by experts in their field. I doubt anyone would be interested in a karate article written by a ballerina.

You said - "Wikipedia is not a Christian encyclopedia, and thus is not written from a Christian perspective."

My response - I get that. But how is it inappropriate to add to Christian topics from a Christian perspective? That seems a bit prejudiced. Aren't atheist articles written primarily by atheists from an atheist perspective?

You said - "In these cases, it is best to assume good faith, and be slow to make judgement calls..."

My response - it is very hard to assume good faith when the immediate response is to trash my work and delete it. From what I have read the first thing a Wikipedia editor should do is try to improve the article to acceptable standards. The first thing they have done is try to delete four or five months worth of work.

I appreciate your thoughts. But I am about done with this!

If four or five months of work on a subject who is more than deserving of inclusion goes down the toilet, I am most likely gone.

Actually, I fully suspect that many Wikipedia editors are filled with personal bias and demonstrate the lack of neutrality that I am accused of. Bushido77 (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I get that you are frustrated. Many professors and subject level experts burn out due to misunderstandings with long-time editors over how Wikipedia works. You are not the first and neither will you be the last.

On the topic of not being written from a Christian perspective, I will admit that Wikipedia can be a bit uneven in perspective and can give more latitude to atheists and people who lean more politically left on the spectrum, as most long-timers (but definitely not all) share these beliefs. It is harder to identify bias within yourself than it is among other people. The neutral point of view can sometimes be more aspirational than real.

While unevenness in the NPOV (neutral point of view) policy can be a problem, that is not a good reason to create articles from the opposite point of view. If you have deep problems with this, that is okay, but you must realize that NPOV is a fundamental aspect of Wikipedia and will continue to remain that way.

From a Wikipedia policy perspective, the nominations for deletion are valid. Short clips from newspapers do not necessarily translate into notability. Although editors might appear this way, I do not think that most of them involved have a personal grudge against you, and are strictly following Wikipedia policy. This might sound harsh, but the policy does not care how long you have worked on an article or how much emotional investment you have put in to it.

There is a reason why Wikipedia strongly discourages people with close connections to a subject to write an article on that subject: the author becomes less able to make neutral and emotianally detached judgements about notability, neutrality, etc. I still exhort you to be careful not to pick a fight with other editors over this; intimate familiarity with a topic does not translate into broad, general notability.

If you really want Robert Heisner and Christian martial arts to become widely known, I would recommend starting your own website/blog or a YouTube channel. Martial arts and Christianity are an interesting combination and I know some good Christians who are also Taekwondo artists. I wish you all the best, whatever you do! ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 01:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

You said - The neutral point of view can sometimes be more aspirational than real.

My response - true. But, wouldn't it be proper to correct the article or call for correction rather than simply reject it.

You said - "While unevenness in the NPOV (neutral point of view) policy can be a problem, that is not a good reason to create articles from the opposite point of view."

My response - I did not create any articles from the "opposite perspective" - I wrote articles about Christian topics from a neutral Christian perspective.

You said - " NPOV is a fundamental aspect of Wikipedia and will continue to remain that way."

My response - I have no problem with requiring rewrites based on NPOV - my Robert Heisner article was rejected 5 or 6 times - before an editor approved it. Should not the NPOV go both ways?

You said - "There is a reason why Wikipedia strongly discourages people with close connections to a subject to write an article on that subject:"

My response - Wikipedia should FORBID it rather than allow 4 or 5 months of anticipation and hard work - this is just wrong that people should be allowed to waste their time. Wikipedia should be honest and promote any bias that they embrace.

You said - "I still exhort you to be careful not to pick a fight with other editors over this;"

My response - fights will end soon - if my months and months of work goes into the toilet due to the bias of some editors - I am gone.

You said - "If you really want Robert Heisner and Christian martial arts to become widely known..."

My response - we have websites - I don't blog yet (no time to figure that out) - Robert Heisner is notable and should be included in Wikipedia - one of his instructors page is honestly pitiful compared to the Robert Heisner page.

I appreciate your approach to interaction.

I have learned through editing Wikipedia... I get what I pay for! Biased editors squashing valuable articles.

Most likely my Wikipedia days will be over. I thought I could help Wikipedia... but it appears not. Bushido77 (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be fundamental disagreements in policy interpretation and I cannot help you. In that case, have a good evening! ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 02:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Policy says NPOV - Wikipedia editors edit from a slanted point of view. The policy is OK - the application is skewed. Bushido77 (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Warning

Civility is policy on Wikipedia. Personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith are not allowed. The next time you attack somebody, as you do here and here, I will block you from editing. Bishonen | tålk 13:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC).

I apologize. I admit I find it difficult to assume good faith, when I see contradictory comments. I will make efforts to assume good faith. Bushido77 (talk) 13:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Bishonen | tålk 15:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC).

Bushido77, on a separate note, please just reply with what you have to say instead of using 'You said' and 'My response.' Also, stop repeating your comments in the deletion discussion unless you have something new to add as I believe you have already made your point. Kindly be patient and let the community decide now. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Canvassing

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 14:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not know about a canvassing policy. When I read the article about dispute resolution, one of the suggestions was to elicit help from other editors. I thought the evangelical Christian boards might be interested in weighing in on the outcome of the discussion of a Christian minister. Wouldn't Christian editors be allowed in consensus building on a Christian articles? Bushido77 (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

No worries – I figured you were not aware of this. Editors who are interested in participating in deletion discussions within particular areas can watch the relevant deletion sorting pages, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity (where Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Heisner was listed as soon as it had been created). --bonadea contributions talk 14:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm... lots to learn. Bushido77 (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Questions

1) Would something like this be acceptable to elicit interest?

_____

Article Deletion Discussion - Robert Heisner Article

There is a page deletion discussion ongoing about Robert Heisner, a Christian minister who was also a martial arts expert.

If you are interested in this deletion discussion, you can find it here...(with a link to the discussion)

_____

2) It appears that there a several Christianity WikiProjects to which this discussion may be of interest. How many would be limited? Is there one place where all interested Christians could be friendly notified?

Thanks. Bushido77 (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it is possible to notify all Christian Wikipedians. The closest you are going to get is Wikiproject Christianity (this is the general Christianity wikiproject). You could also try the Evangelical Christianity wikiproject if you want a more specific group of editors who edit articles on Evangelical Christians. (I don't know if you or Heisner are actually Evangelical Christians, but you seem to closely resemble them, speaking as an Evangelical Christian.)

Do be aware that not everybody who participates in either wikiproject is a Christian, but there are many experienced Christians who could give you good feedback. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 23:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, before you go off pinging the noticeboards there, the Christianity wikiproject does maintain article alerts where subscribers receive notices on articles put up for deletion and draft articles to be reviewed. That is how I found and reviewed the Robert Heisner page in the first place. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 00:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Another question. Why didn't you just delete the article in the first place? That would have saved me a tremendous amount of frustration and effort. Bushido77 (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't delete articles because I'm not an administrator. (Also, I do think that the article has a kernel of potential but needs a bit of work.) Articles can only be deleted through discussion. Alternately, if you want deletion immediately, you might be able to go to wp:speedy deletion and tag the article with a G7 tag so that administrators can delete it. However, please read the page carefully because I am not familiar with speedy deletion policies. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 05:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. On another point, is this a possible scenario...

• an editor approves an article
• another editor recommends deletion
• it moves to a draft
• an editor approves the reworked article
• another editor recommends deletion

is there an end point? How can one editor approve and another recommend it not be approved? Bushido77 (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It can be that way but it usually isn't that complicated. If there is a never ending loop, that is called a content dispute. Although I'd like to be helpful, I do not want to get deeply embroiled in this dispute. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 06:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I will probably try those two projects. Bushido77 (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

AFDs

Hello, Bushido77,

Please do not respond to every comment in a discussion like an AFD discussion or even every comment by an editor that expresses a different point of view from your own. This is called "bludgeoning" a discussion and can result in you being blocked from participating in a discussion. Share your argument, based on policy and sources, and then leave space for other editors to participate without being worried about being questioned about their comments. I see you bludgeoning two different AFDs so I'm leaving you this warning now so that you are aware this is not appropriate conduct in a discussion. If you have questions, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I am a newbie and never heard of bludgeoning. I thought deletion discussion was to come to consensus. If I see flawed logic it is unacceptable for me to respond? Do I understand that correctly? Thanks. Bushido77 (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a form of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing to respond to literally every editor's comment, making the exact same points over and over again, and insisting all the while that a dozen experienced editors discussing things with you on various pages are somehow all wrong about how to interpret core Wikipedia policies on primary sources, original research, and neutral point of view. You claim above to be a newbie. If that's true, I invite you to be less aggressive in telling the rest of us why you think we're wrong, and more time reading and observing. You may not agree with every consensus this community reaches (I sure don't), but I understand why decisions are reached, and being comfortable with the fact that there will be outcomes you don't fully agree is essential for being part of the Wikipedia project. Finally, there's some good advice at WP:COAL -- a helpful principle is to share your !vote and rationale in a discussion, then refrain from further replies (unless you're asked a direct question or someone responds to your comment). Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

So, is my understanding correct. I am not supposed to correct wrong comments? Wasn't it you who reported me for uploading photos for which I own the copyrights? Should I have not correct you on that? (I think it was you, but I apologize if that was someone else.) Bushido77 (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

You are incorrect. I didn't report you for not holding the copyrights; rather, I said that you have not supplied sufficient evidence (beyond your own say-so) that you own the copyrights. (If you want to supply said evidence, read this link and follow the instructions there. I reported the uploading of work that you admitted you did not create being falsely labeled as your "own work." That is not allowed under the terms of the license you used.

Your comment above is emblematic of many of the interactions you are having here: you misread a comment or a Wikipedia/Wikimedia policy, and thus think your interlocutors are wrong and needing a response. We're not wrong here, but even if you think we are, it's not productive to make the same point over and over again. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971 once again this is why I respond. the book in which every one of those photos is included is copyright protected and the link to the copyright is in the article. and I own the copyrights. how did you miss the link to the copyright office in the article? Bushido77 (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971 if it is not productive for me to make the same points over and over again, why is it productive for people to make the same allegations over and over again? Bushido77 (talk) 04:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The link to the copyright office shows the title, authors, and date of publication of a book. It does not show pictures in a book. It does not show whether the author of the book held the copyright to the pictures. So I don't know how that link proves anything you think it proves. Regardless, I have no concern one way or the other whether you hold the copyright to the pictures. That's not germane to the discussion. My concern is that you falsely claimed they were your own work when you uploaded them.

I tried to be helpful above by giving you some perspective about Liz's warning against bludgeoning. It seems that this effort to bring perspective is unwelcome, so I'll just bow out here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971 I made no false claims. I own the copyrights. Bushido77 (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

dispute resolution/mediation here

Hey, Bushido. I'm willing to discuss this with you if you'd like. Creating an article from scratch can be extremely frustrating for new users. There's a lot of policy to understand.

The minimum standard for a Wikipedia article is that the article subject is shown to be notable by providing at least three sources, all of which meet all of the following criteria:

1. Significant coverage of the article subject
2. in a reliable source
3. which is independent of (not affiliated with) the article subject

In addition, we need at least two of these sources to be outside the local area of the article subject and outside niche coverage. By outside the local area, we mean not just the local newspapers, etc. By outside of niche coverage, we mean not just coverage in a religious or martial arts magazine unless that magazine has a national audience.

If there are not three such sources, the subject isn't suitable for a Wikipedia article. That's pretty much the end of it.

I'm willing to look at three (and only three) sources you feel best represent significant coverage in independent, reliable sources that aren't purely local coverage, if you'd like to give me links. Be very aware: I am not going to look at thirty sources, so give me the best three that fulfill these requirements. Don't pick the ones that are your favorites; that doesn't matter. I need to see three (and no more than three) that fulfill all of the above requirements.

Best to you! Valereee (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Which article are you speaking of? The Christian martial arts article? Bushido77 (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Any article. All articles need this basic level of sourcing. It is the minimum standard for determining whether a subject is appropriate for inclusion. Valereee (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Bushido77, I really recommend that you take Valereee's offer. She's highly experienced and very patient, and I think her advice will be really helpful to you.

I just closed the deletion discussion for one of your articles, which was a clear consensus to delete. Instead, I've moved the article for you, and it's now at User:Bushido77/Robert Heisner. I think it might be possible for you to get this article to meet our inclusion standards some day. You had three things going very strongly against you. For one, the newspaper articles the subject would be in are not recent, and so there may be many useful sources that are just too hard to find right now. The other two major problems are much easier to fix: the current state of the article, and your conduct during the discussion. It's always going to be harder to convince other editors to vote "keep" on an article you've written when it looks "promotional" to them and you're driving them crazy responding to every comment.

My advice to you is that you hang onto this article for a while, and get used to Wikipedia editing first. Now that it's in your userspace, it won't be going anywhere, and you can relax. Once you're more used to how things work around here, it will be much, much easier for you to get the article into a better state and make a clearer case for keeping it. Happy to answer any questions. -- asilvering (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Here's the other one: User:Bushido77/Christian Martial Arts. Again, now that these are in your userspace, there's no deadline to work on them (if they really can never become Wikipedia articles, we don't want to hang onto them forever - but we can worry about that later). I should clarify that by "get used to Wikipedia editing first", what I meant was improving articles that already exist - I don't want you to spend a lot of time on creating another article only for the same thing to happen again! Are you interested in martial arts topics more broadly? I can help you find a task list to work on. -- asilvering (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I have been doing martial arts for more than 40 years. But I am not sure if Wikipedia is worth the effort. Many in the discussion did not assume good faith about me, but repeatedly and falsely accused me of not assuming good faith. Bushido77 (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate you not completely destroying all my work. I will think about future Wikipedia editing. It seems to be a bit of a biased platform. Maybe it is just me. Bushido77 (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)