Jump to content

User talk:Janggeom/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2


Welcome!

Hello, Janggeom, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.


If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  —

κaτaʟavenoTC 15:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Katalaveno, and thank you for the warm welcome. I don't know how much or how regularly I will be contributing to Wikipedia, but will hopefully have a positive effect on any article I work on. Janggeom 16:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:RIT(A)-Logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:RIT(A)-Logo.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Image renamed and revised.

Rhee Taekwon-Do

Thanks for getting the bits I missed. --Nate1481(t/c) 16:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel the article is ready to be taken through promotion steps - I left comments on the talk page. Good luck and let me know if you need help with the steps.Peter Rehse 13:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks communicated to Nate1481 and PRehse on the Rhee Taekwon-Do discussion page.

Greetings from WikiProject Korea!

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's Korea-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Korea? It's a group dedicated to improving the overall quality of all Korea-related articles. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! PC78 19:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind invitation to join the WP Korea project; much appreciated. My main focus is on martial arts articles, but if I start working more on Korean articles later, I would be honoured to join. In the meantime, I will continue contributing to Korean articles as I am able. Janggeom 03:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Karate

Welcome to the karate article! Good work at removing fat from the text. The Korean section had references because there have been many edit wars over the relation of Korea and Japan. The references were there to prevent future edit wars - that is why almost every sentence was referenced. jmcw 08:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent welcome, Jmcw37. I removed the Wikipedia citations from the Karate article because it is my understanding that Wikipedia articles should not be used as references. I appreciate the comment about the edit wars; hopefully that kind of behaviour will be minimised once the Karate article is thoroughly revised and appropriately documented with regard to sources. Janggeom 14:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I made a note about naming conventions on the karate talk page. The wiki standard distinguishes between names before 1868 and after 1868. jmcw 13:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your note about the Wikipedia guidelines for Japanese names (surname-first name for pre-Meiji, otherwise first name-surname). Janggeom 14:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

Just a piece of advice: when you create a redirect, there must not be a space between "#" and "REDIRECT"; i.e. it's "#REDIRECT [[Target]]", not # REDIRECT [[Target]]. - Mike Rosoft 08:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your note about the syntax for redirects; just a typing error on my part. Janggeom 08:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello

You revert this.[1] I think you are korean, so please read this. [2](in Korean) ITF 태권도인들은 최홍희를 태권도의 창시자라고 주저 없이 말한다. ‘창시(創始)’의 사전적 의미는 ‘처음 시작함’인데, 이는 최홍희가 태권도를 처음으로 시작했다는 말이다. 하지만 다르게 평가하는 사람도 적지 않다.

태권도 역사를 오랜 기간 연구한 한 교수는 “최홍희 총재는 태권도 창시자가 아니라 작명자다. ‘태권도’가 1955년 그의 제안에 의해 작명된 것은 부인할 수 없는 사실이지만, 그가 태권도를 창시했다는 근거 자료는 어디에도 찾아 볼 수 없다”며 “50~60년대 태권도협회 임원으로 활동했던 원로들조차 그를 태권도 창시자라고 말하지 않는다”고 주장했다. Manacpowers (talk) 04:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to assume what you wish … but you could be doing yourself a disservice. Janggeom (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Martial arts Barnstar

The Martial Arts Barnstar
I, Ryt 007 | Talk, hereby award Janggeom the Martial Arts Barnstar for valued contributions to WikiProject Martial Arts.
For your outstanding efforts in articles like Rhee Taekwon-Do, Chong Chul Rhee, and Wong Shun Leung
Awarded 23 July 2009


Hello Ryt 007, thank you for the WPMA Barnstar; that is kind of you. Janggeom (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Noting for the record: awarded 23 July 2009, not 24 July 2009. Upon checking, I discovered a problem in the WPMA Barnstar template ({{date}} was used instead of {{subst:today}}) and corrected it. Janggeom (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

seconded! Thanks for fixing that it's just another reason why you are an outstanding contributor. Great work on clean in up all the articles I came here to add this and realised Ryt 007 had beat me to it! I had done some editin on Wong Shun Leung before giving up & it is really good to see it as a balanced readable article. --Nate1481 08:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your positive feedback and generous comments, Nate1481. Janggeom (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent death tag

Please do not add the {{recentdeath}} tag to people who died more than one week ago [3]. The tag is only supposed to be used for one week. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your note; I had not been aware of that Wikipedia policy previously. Janggeom (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

And don't use it indiscriminately too all recent deaths. The template instructions says that it "should only be used when many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) are editing the article on the same day. Do not use it merely to tag the article of a recently deceased person." Rettetast (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I had been using the tag following what I perceived to be normal usage, but having now read through the template in detail, I can see that that was not a good model to follow. Janggeom (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Cai_li_fo

Janggeom, thank you for reviewing the article, Cai_li_fo. Could you please explain your tags stating that there are not citations and the information is not verifiable. There are over 22 references throughout the article including some of the top most historians on the subject. Are you looking for a reference for each paragraph? If so, those references are already in the reference list. Is it possible to use existing sources to reference in multiple locations within the article? If so, how is that accomplished? Thank you. Clftruthseeking (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Clftruthseeking. Essentially, any time there is a significant amount of text or a significant statement made, there should be an in-line reference using the <ref> and </ref> code, otherwise someone could be adding 'information' that cannot be verified. Note that the tags I added each refer to one section, not the whole article. The tags are not saying that the article (as a whole) has no references or has poor references, just that certain sections need more references. If those references are already in the reference list, it is easy to use them more than once (across multiple locations) in the same article. Here is how to do it:
  • You need to give a name to the reference the first time you cite it in the article, using <ref name="Ref1">the reference</ref>.
  • Any time after that, you can use <ref name="Ref1"/> and an extra link to the same reference will appear.
  • One thing you have to be careful about, of course, is that you do not give two different references the same ref name.
You might like to try the procedure above on the article; be sure to edit the entire article when you try this the first time (not just a section), so that when you preview your changes, it will show the updated reference list. If you are unsure about anything, feel welcome to post here again. Incidentally, for the description line for edits in an article, the four tildes (~~~~) do not work as a sign off; you only need to sign off on comments you post on discussion pages. Trust this all helps. Janggeom (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again. Yes this is good information. Originally I thought the refs at the beginning of the article would be sufficient but now see the importance of utilizing them throughout. Instructions on naming the ref is very helpful.Clftruthseeking (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your note; good to know the information has been of help. All the best for your work on improving the article. I think that with sufficient referencing and a bit of copy-editing, it should be ready for assessment for C class. Janggeom (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion to become a participant of the WikiProject Martial Arts. It is an honor.Clftruthseeking (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC).

Still working on Jeong Yim page

Hi Janggeom,

I created the Cai Li Fo page and also created the Jeong Yim page. The Jeong Yim page is still a work in progress and I need to spend time putting in all the references and page numbers.

The historic information on the current Cai Li Fo wiki is referenced, validated, and accepted by the majority of all Choy Li Fut schools as well as martial arts historians and practitioners. I put in the history of how all the various Choy Li Fut branches started; and referenced and validated that information. (Of course I am still working providing more on that too) Because of it's balanced and neutral standpoint, it has seemingly been accepted by the majority of Choy Li Fut fanatics.

In the past, when various users tried to create a Choy Li Fut wiki page, they wrote it from a biased historical perspective of various branches, most of which were limited in scope and historically incorrect. Because of the limitations, it was often destroyed or vandalized by Choy Li Fut fanatics who questioned that information.

There is a Hung Sing Choy Li Fut group who wishes to revise history by trying to say that Choy Li Fut was created by Jeong Yim. Even within this group, there is Buk Sing Choy Li Fut revisionists who say that one of Jeong Yim's student's, Tam Sam (Tarm Sarm) is the true founder of what Choy Li Fut is as practiced today. They are fanatics - they don't necessarily disagree with the information the new wiki page, just certain parts of history and its outcome.

That is why I created the Jeong Yim page. Those groups can put in there version of history there and not vandalize the main Cai Li Fo page.

In order to appease the Hung Sing and Buksing groups, I created the Jeong Yim page and presented some of their viewpoints. He was a real person who seriously affected the history and development of Choy Li Fut but there is little written historic records about him. For the Hung Sing and Buksing Choy Li Fut revisionists, I put in their versions of history in the Jeong Yim page which differ from the accepted norm.

So, I am still working on the Jeong Yim page. I can't always spend a lot of time on it, but I don't want it to be deleted or destroyed either. Sometimes I get burned out on figuring out the best way to present the material, reference and validate it, as well as trying to make it neutral as well as presenting the various points of view.

I am so tired right now, I hope this talk section makes some sense. Huo Xin (talk) 05:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Huo Xin, thank you for your note about the Jeung Yim article. Please note that placement of a notability tag on an article is not a threat of sudden deletion; it simply indicates that the article's notability may be questioned, and the main implication is that the article needs to establish the subject's notability more clearly. In my comment when I placed the notability tag, I suggested that rephrasing the paragraph might be an option. While it might be true that a subject is not well documented, putting emphasis on this in the article's lead section will naturally lead other Wikipedia contributors to ask why the article is there (since notability is a key requirement for all Wikipedia articles). One suggestion I might make to you is that it is better to start small and build up from there; better to have less information, but to have it reliably sourced, than to put in a whole lot of information without reliable sources—you might know (or believe) the information to be accurate, but without reliable sources, others have no way of knowing (and so they will be more likely to challenge or remove it). Trust this helps. Janggeom (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

HELP! with Lama Pai article

After an experience with the Chan Tai San article, many associated with the "tibetan martial arts" agreed in the interests of the articles on the subject it was best to not turn every article into a long list of "me, yes me, I am part of it" or just old blatant self promotion. Now, after several edits and re-edits and polite requests, we have a fellow apparently from Mexico who can't seem to help himself. Might we get a moderator or moderator action on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nysanda (talk • contribs) 00:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Nysanda, thank you for your note. I would have been happy to help in discussion, but I see that Gwen Gale has protected the article, so it looks as if this has been sorted out for now. Janggeom (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Your assistance Janggeom, or that or another member of WikiProject Martial arts would really be appreciated. I see you have helped here before, perhaps being a mediator of sorts will help resolve the continual reverting of the article without anyone being banned especially when Nysanda has done so much good work. Insinr8 (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Daniel J. Callaghan

I noticed you have been doing a lot of good work on this article. I have been going through and reviewing the status of all the Medal of Honor recipient articles and noticed this was rated as a stub but meets the criteria for B so I reassessed it as such. I realy think that it meets the criteria for Good article, with some minor tweaking. Not sure what your plans are but if you need help with it please let me know. If your not interested in GA I understand, just let me know and I can take care of it. --Kumioko (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your note and your reassessment of the article, Kumioko. Feel welcome to make recommendations on the article's discussion page, and I will see what I can do. You might also be interested to look at the article on William M. Callaghan, which I also rewrote, and was what led me to the Daniel J. Callaghan article originally. Janggeom (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

notability question

Hello Janggeom! I am responsible for maintaining this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_of_arms

I don't know very much about Wikipedia, so it's difficult for me to maintain this article correctly. I noticed that you recently added a "notability" tag to the article. Thank you for expressing your concern about the article. I was wondering if you could offer some advice?

I read the FAQ but I'm still not sure how to make the article more "notable". The school is a non-profit and the instructors volunteer their time for free, so there is no commercial motive for the article. The school has been written about by two major newspapers, one of which is amongst the biggest in the US. The school is an educational organization, one of the few places in California where students can learn historical German fencing. The article, though small, also contains links to other wiki articles, improving the connectedness of the wiki.

So I am trying. :) Do you have any other suggestions on what I can do? Your help is appreciated! I don't want the article to be deleted. Thanks, Janggeom.

Lazfin (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Lazfin, thank you for your note about Academy of Arms. Notability is not about an article, but the subject of the article. In brief, if a subject is notable (by Wikipedia's definition) then a Wikipedia article on it is justified; if a subject is not notable, any Wikipedia article on it will most likely be deleted. If you have not done so already, you should probably read Wikipedia's guide on notability. Assuming that the Academy of Arms is a notable subject, the easiest way you can establish that is by adding reliable, independent references to the article, such as references to newspaper or magazine articles (or better, scholarly works) on the subject. I hope this suggestion helps. Janggeom (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Janggeom, our article does list two newspaper sources. Someone recently marked them as dubious. The LA Times came out and made a video of our sword practice. After a certain period of time, they no longer host videos in their site unless you have paid access. So we kept a free copy of it on our site. The video has the LA Times logo and one of their popular reporters doing the story. It obviously isn't faked. Our group is a non-profit run by volunteers so there is no profit motive. There are very few places out there where people can study historical fencing and we just want people to know about this educational opportunity! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazfin (talk • contribs) 23:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Lazfin, thank you for your recent note. Two newspaper articles (in and of themselves) do not necessarily make a subject notable. If you have not yet done so, please read Wikipedia's guide on notability, which I provided a link to previously. Whether your group is non-profit or not, and whether it provides a good educational opportunity or not, is not relevant (as far as Wikipedia policies are concerned) to whether the subject of an article is notable or not. If you have not already received a welcome message, please take a look through the links of the welcome message I will post below (using a standard template); these will be a great help to you in understanding what Wikipedia is (and is not), and what kinds of articles are acceptable (in terms of notability and other issues) on Wikipedia. I hope this information helps. Janggeom (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


Hi Janggeom, I have read the faqs you suggested. It seems that the article needs more substance and content, would that be correct? I was thinking about writing in more detail about the history of the material the school teaches, and maybe some specifics. Would that satisfy the requirement? If not, please advise on how to proceed. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazfin (talk • contribs) 23:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Lazfin, I appreciate your sincere desire and good intentions to improve the Academy of Arms article. The main problems that I can see are:
  • The subject does not appear inherently notable to me—there are many historical combat groups across the world, and there is no indication why this one is particularly special (i.e., notable). If this is true, then no amount of work on the article will transform the subject into a notable one. If this is not true, however, then it would certainly be worth trying to improve the article.
  • Writing the article to let people know about an educational opportunity, while well-intentioned, contradicts Wikipedia's goals. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, even if it might be for a noble cause. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a community directory. I write this not to attack your motivation, but just to make clear that good intentions (in themselves) are not enough.
Perhaps a hypothetical scenario might help. Imagine that Wikipedia is a professionally-produced encyclopaedia, like the Encyclopædia Britannica. You are writing a proposal to the editors to demonstrate why their encyclopaedia should include an article about the Academy of Arms. Bear in mind that they are receiving hundreds of thousands of proposals from other people who think their subjects (including at least a hundred other historical combat groups) are important enough to be included in the encyclopaedia. Ask yourself: why should the editors consider including an article about the Academy of Arms in their encyclopaedia? Now put these reasons into the Academy of Arms article. If there are sufficient reasons, the article will stand. I hope this suggestion helps. Janggeom (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rapido Realismo Kali

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Rapido Realismo Kali. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapido Realismo Kali. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Shodokan Aikido

Mind discussing what cleanup you think is necessary on the talkpage? It seems reasonably well-structured to me. I'll grant you the unsourced tag; I'll see about adding some references this weekend (I have a few books on the subject, and I think I have a copy of the official shiai rulebook hiding somewhere). — Gwalla | Talk 18:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, Gwalla; always good to hear from someone who is interested in helping improve Wikipedia, and in this case, who has relevant knowledge or expertise where I do not (Aikido). I will post comments on the article's talk page. Janggeom (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

James Rossant

Could you please check citations/references added to James Rossant? Saw your name on the article history. Many thanks - Aboudaqn —Preceding undated comment added 17:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC).

On 23 December 2009, I was browsing through Wikipedia and came across the James Rossant article. I saw that it had no references provided, so I added the 'unreferenced' tag. According to the article's log, you added references on 17 February 2010. One day later, another user apparently removed the tag. If you were asking me to remove the tag, that is actually something you can do yourself, once you have added some references—even if you are the article's creator, as in this case. If you were asking me something else, please clarify. Thanks for your note. Janggeom (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Nate, I was looking at the WPMA article review page that you kindly set up, and noticed that there are a lot of double spaces (and some triple spaces) throughout the page. My first thought was that you might have a sticky spacebar on your keyboard. I'm not sure if this will have any effect on links (it does not appear to have an effect, from what I've seen so far), but I thought I'd let you know just in case this becomes a technical issue later on. Thanks. Janggeom (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A bit odd, i'll see if it clears up thanks!--Natet/c 08:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

List of taekwondo grandmasters

Outstanding work on List of taekwondo grandmasters. TJRC (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello TJRC, after what seems to be a phase of people complaining about martial arts articles in general, or about me in particular (I was accused of vandalising an article, amongst other things), your note came as a pleasant surprise. Thank you. Janggeom (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Although I had voted for merge on this article, I think you are doing great work. jmcw (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your note, jmcw; I appreciate it. While I am writing to you, I would like to applaud your constructive work in WPMA recently. If you feel like doing some critical review or collaborative work, please feel welcome to take a look at some of the karate articles I've been working on recently. I would value your input if you have the time and inclination. Thanks. Janggeom (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Gunji Koizumi

Janggeom, thank you for rewriting the article, Gunji Koizumi

I think you have done a excellent job of making my original rough draft very readable.

I wrote the original back in 2006, but have since had health problems (heart attack and stroke) and was unable to finish it. I had received a barrage of incomprehensible messages from various critics, and had given up contributing to Wikipedia. It became more trouble than it was worth.

By the way I was a student of Koizumi at the Budokwai in the 1950's.

Regards Oldfarm (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Oldfarm, thank you for your kind comments regarding the Gunji Koizumi article. I am sorry to hear about your health problems. If you have any troubles with critical feedback or image use, as I see from some messages above, feel welcome to ask me if you think I can be of help. I also ran into some of these issues when I first started contributing to Wikipedia. Thanks again for your note. Janggeom (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

LAMA article

I have left my comments on the page's discussion page. Please review at your leisure Nysanda (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Reflected reflection

Hello Nate, the saying 'it is easier to destroy than to build' has come to mind often during the past few months of working on Wikipedia. The silver lining to that cloud is that I've been encouraged to spend more time on what I consider to be profitable, and less time on what others seem to consider to be profitable. Just a brief reflection, to a fellow builder. Janggeom (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

First Thanks. I was getting a bit ranty again wasn't I. I would also like to say thank you for being one of the most tireless contributes and a level head who is willing to spend several weeks researching building up an article.
On a side not I don't know if you've come across WP:AWB a semi-automated editor that allows you to make similar or tidying edits on lots of articles, one way to keep ahead or the destroyers is to build faster... :p --Natet/c 09:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note and suggestion about AWB; although I do work in bursts at times, I'm probably closer to the tortoise than the hare. Janggeom (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Daniel J. Callaghan

I just waned to say good job on this article. I reassessed a B class based on all the work you did to it but I think is actually pretty close to being GA status. I was wondering if you intend to submit it to GA? The reason I ask is because I am woking on buiding up the articles for the Medal of Honor recipients and he is one of them. If not, would you have a problem if I submitted it? You have bee by far the primary editor so I wanted to ask what your inentions were before I go stepping over yor edits. Thanks again--Kumioko (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Kumioko, thanks for your note. I did not have plans to submit Daniel J. Callaghan for GA review, but if you believe that it is worth a GA nomination, I would support you putting it forward. I would be pleased to work on the article further if there are recommendations for improvement. Janggeom (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

MA Barnstar

Hello Nate, I noticed that you fixed the date substitution code for the MA Barnstar; I'd tried solving that problem last year, but ended up just adding a field for people to manually enter the date. Thanks for your good work on fixing the code. Janggeom (talk) 07:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No probs, there was much messing around if you look @ the history, finally cribbed the solution from the PROD template... --Natet/c 09:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Lauren Burns

Updated DYK query On April 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lauren Burns, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Materialscientist, thanks for your note regarding DYK; I appreciate it. Janggeom (talk) 06:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Was this the correct format

Since you are a veteran at this I was wondering if the bio format I used for Stephen K. Hayes is correct [4] I just thought I should ask to avoid an edit war. Dwanyewest (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Dwanyewest, the two changes I see at Stephen K. Hayes are: (1) an image placeholder was deleted, and (2) the Martial Artist infobox was changed to the Person infobox. Regarding image placeholders, there has been no consensus on whether to use them or not, as far as I am aware. Regarding infoboxes, the more general Person infobox might be seen as more appropriate because the subject appears to be notable for involvement in Buddhism as well as the martial arts, but I am not aware of any specific policies on deciding between infoboxes. Janggeom (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Kenshiro Abbe

Thanks for the work you've done on the Kenshiro Abbe article. I've been meaning to tackle it for some time, but real life keeps getting in the way.

A couple of issues could still do with being ironed out, but I don't want to tread on any toes :) ...

The article currently neglects his main activity while in the UK, which was the formation and development of the British Judo Council, the second largest judo organisation in the UK. A number of smaller judo organisations, which all have their roots with a man named George Mayo (a self-declared 10th Dan) have erroneously claimed to have been formed or developed by Abbe, which may, at first glance, appear to complicate matters. However, any temptation to treat these organisations on an equal basis should be resisted. Henry Ellis, a direct pupil of Abbe, covers the relationship (or lack of relationship) between Abbe and these organisations in some detail (and with some passion) on this web page:

http://www.british-aikido.com/kenshiroabbe/articles.html

Another related issue is the use of Bagot's article as a reference. Zen Judo is an offshoot of Mayo's organisation and this reference should probably be treated with a degree of caution. A better reference is Alan Fromm's book, which Bagot's article relies heavily on:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KLQ9AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=alan+fromm+judo+the+gentle+way&hl=en&ei=cre9S6DlF8StONey9OEJ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Unfortunately the pages of interest (12-14) aren't on the Google Books preview. Let me know if you need any help in accessing the relevant text. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Catfish Jim and the soapdish, thank you for your note about the Kenshiro Abbe article. It does seem that political/organisational factors did make things complex in the subject's later years. I appreciate the help you have offered and the links you have provided, and will include those documents in my research. As an aside, you might be interested to read the article on Gunji Koizumi, which I rewrote in February. Thanks again for your note. Janggeom (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Here is the text in question:
The 1950s also saw the founding of another national organization, the British Judo Council. The BJC was - and still is - unusual in that it was the only British national group ever to be founded as much upon a set of philosophical principles as the inspiration of one man. Kenshiro Abe, born in the Tokushima province in 1916, became a very able Judoka at a young age. Starting Judo in 1930 at the age of fourteen, he was awarded his 2nd Dan a year later from the Butokukwai - the national martial arts organization. At eighteen he was awarded 5th Dan from the Butokukwai, the youngest Judoka ever to hold the grade. In his fighting career he won a number of major championships, including the East Japan versus West Japan contest, and the 5th Dan championships held in the Emperor's Palace.
From a young age, Kenshiro Abe regarded the martial arts as expressions of deeper ideas - significantly, he was strongly influenced by personal contact with Morihei Ueshiba, the founder of Aikido. And though Abe also studied Aikido, Kendo and Jukendo (The Way of the Bayonet) and during the late 1930s taught at the Special Judo College of the Butokukwai in Kyoto, he was gradually forming his own philosophy which he later called Kyu-Shin-Do.
In 1938 he was promoted to 6th Dan, the youngest in Japan, and in 1945 7th Dan. He became chief instructor of Doshisa University (the same university, incidentally which Tani represented nearly fifty years before) as well as the instructor for the Kyoto Police.
In 1955 he came from the Kodokan to England at the invitation of the London Judo Society, a South London Club, but a year later left to form his own school.
Strongly independent and even unpredictable to the point of eccentricity as a person, Kenshiro Abe was nevertheless regarded with great respect as a Judoka and as an instructor and the BJC attracted thousands of members fairly quickly.
He was, however, certainly something of an enigma. He possessed very definite and uncompromising ideas about life in general and Judo in particular. For instance, after years of thought and study, he approached the breaking of the balance in Judo in a greatly simplified way to the standard Kodokan manner (see chapter 3) and his system remains controversial. At other times, however, he would go to the extremes of complexity, breaking down a throw into as many as fiteen or more component parts in an exhaustive analysis.
His courses often involved long lectures and hard, concentrated periods of training - but then he would take the Judokas out to a local playground to the swings or do Aikido moves in a sandpit. Many English Judoka were bewildered by this kind of unpredictability, yet he maintained respect not least because his own Judo was very light and very fast.
There were other sides to him too - during his years at 10 Stuart Road, Acton, the home of Masutaro O-Tani and for years the centre of the BJC, he transformed the garden into a carefully nurtured Japanese garden.
Kyu-Shin-Do was the central statement for Abe's personal approach to Judo. Loosely translated, it means the Seeker's Way to the Essence of Things, or the Truth. He felt there were three fundamental principles within Kyu-Shin-Do which should be reflected both in the Judoka's Judo and in his outside life:
1. That all things throughout the universe are in a constant state of motion (Banbutsu Ruten).
2. This motion is rhythmic and flowing (Ritsu Do).
3. All things work and flow in perfect harmony (Chowa).
One of the essential practical expressions of Kenshiro Abe's Kyu-Shin-Do was that it was not enought to win at any cost. Success in contest, he felt, was only important in that it demonstrated superior skill. This approach was fundamental to the whole concept of Judo in its pure form, but it was not a popular approach at a time when the Olympics was making its influence felt, and Abe encountered considerable opposition over these and other points.
In 1960 Abe was badly injured in a car accident and four years later, still not fully recovered, he returned to Japan. His place as the active leader of the BJC was taken by another Japanese figure, Masutaro O-Tani (1898 - 1977).
Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


It was definitely at the invitation of the LJS that Abbe came to the UK:

http://www.british-aikido.com/i/AbbeBrochureBig.jpg

...and he was an 8th Dan by 1960, as evidenced by British Judo Council stationary of the time:

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/soundmanfilms/mayoshindo_uk/MrMayoMrAbbe.pdf

...this promotion is a bit of a mystery. He was apparently offered the 8th Dan around 1946 by Mifune who was soliciting donations to rebuild the Kodokan. The story goes that Abbe sent the cash donation to the Kodokan, along with the torn up 8th dan certificate. I've heard this story from a couple of Abbe's direct pupils, but there does not appear to be a reference, at least not in English. In any case, his 8th Dan appears to have been accepted at some time between the LJS pamphlet (1955) and 1960.

Also, I would steer clear of the piece written by Cavalcanti. It was the subject of some discussion on the Judo Forum...

http://judoforum.com/index.php?/topic/8640-the-teachings-of-kenshiro-abbe/page__st__40

Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello again, I notice that you have joined WPMA—welcome to the group. I think you have joined at a good time, as there are a few people actively involved at the moment (it had been quiet for some time). Currently, the main drive is reviewing martial arts article stubs and deleting them where appropriate. Janggeom (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting the Otani/Goodbody (1967) reference. Janggeom (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, you should enjoy this article on Kenshiro Abe, translated from a Japanese article by Syd Hoare:

http://www.sydhoare.com/Kenshiro.pdf

Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the article translated by Syd Hoare; a pity he does not include the original reference. Janggeom (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure he would be happy to give you the citation details, if you asked him. A poster on the Judo Forum thinks it is by Shirasaki Hideo and that it originally appeared in Tōsei kijinden. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 06:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Further details following on from his return to Europe from Japan in 1969 can be found here:

http://www.grigua.com/judo/Memories.html

Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the article by Elio Lamagna. Janggeom (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Rhee Tae Kwan-Do

Hello Janggeom, did you take these photos yourself, and add black outlines: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6? If not, where did you obtain them from? Thanks, Blurpeace 06:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Blurpeace, the photographs you listed are (as described on the relevant image files' pages) completely my own work. In what context are you making this enquiry? Thank you. Janggeom (talk) 07:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Do you have higher resolution copies, and did you add the black outlines yourself? To be honest, they looked like they were taken from a website on the subject (just a hunch). Editors regularly upload images from arbitrarily chosen websites with no regard for copyright. Blurpeace 19:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I can appreciate your point of view, given your current roles as an administrator on Wikimedia Commons and a member of the Wikipedia OTRS team, but I am puzzled as to why you have asked effectively the same question again. The implication seems to be that you have not accepted my reply above. Please clarify if this is, in fact, what you are saying. Thanks. Janggeom (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I was still probing (truthfully, can never be too sure), although the former part of the question was made because cameras usually create photos that have higher resolutions. Was hoping that we could get better quality copies (as the ones you've uploaded are quite good). Blurpeace 03:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Realistically, I think we both know that you cannot be sure about my authorship of the images without intruding upon my identity. (I am assuming that you have a reasonable knowledge of photographic processing, but if you are not clear about what I have just written, let me know.) Regarding high resolution images, I appreciate your sentiment, but I do not release high resolution versions of my photographic work publicly; there are far too many complications. Janggeom (talk) 02:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
That's fair enough. Thanks anyway, Blurpeace 20:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Zhuang Xiaoyan

Updated DYK query On April 18, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zhuang Xiaoyan, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Oceanh, thank you for nominating Zhuang Xiaoyan, and also Lauren Burns earlier this month, for DYK. Janggeom (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed the expansion because the two articles were on my watchlist, and nominated them for DYK as they seemed to be suitable candidates. Good quality contribution to martial arts articles from your side! Oceanh (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind comments; I'm confident we'll cross paths again, as I work on martial artists' biographies. If you are interested in some collaborative work, please feel welcome to join WP Martial Arts (of which I'm a member) if you'd like. Janggeom (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the invitation to Wikiproject Martial Arts. I normally do not sign up on particular wikiprojects or task forces, but made a minor contribution to the project by adding two former DYK articles on judokas to the list (Shokichi Natsui, from 2008, and Aurélio Miguel, from 2009). I also nominated Daniel Trenton, which you recently expanded, for DYK. Oceanh (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello again Oceanh, I didn't notice your reply above, until just now. Thanks for updating the WPMA project page with the two DYK entries, and for nominating the Daniel Trenton article. I appreciate your thoughts on WikiProjects; I find that being in just one keeps me busy enough. Janggeom (talk) 10:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Placeholders

Hello Wizardman, the latest information I could find on image placeholders (when I looked some weeks ago) is that there is no consensus on their use. Is there a more recent or more conclusive article/guide you can direct me to? Thanks. Janggeom (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The way that discussion went, there was consensus for them to no longer be used. However, there is no consensus to do a mass removal (manual has been allowed, but automated has been attacked). Not sure why it's that way, but in particular for non-living people they should not be added in. Not really any more recent discussion besides some bickering back and forth on a couple pages. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note; that has provided a better context for understanding. Janggeom (talk) 05:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, suggestion

Thanks for all your work on the Tuttle Publishing article. However, I have a suggestion: please use the "Show preview" button and make multiple changes all at once (or in 5-6 edits) instead of spreading a whole bunch of rather small edits over 52 different edits. This makes the history longer than it really needs to be. It can also be frustrating when someone else may be trying to make an edit and they keep having edit conflicts because another editor is changing a bunch of small things one at a time. Please let me know if you have any questions about this, and again, I appreciate your contributions. You are making a positive difference. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Nihonjoe, thanks for your note. I appreciate your kind comments and constructive feedback. My editing pattern on Wikipedia is largely due to personal choice, of course, but has in part been influenced by past incidents. Some of the subjects I have worked on, such as those related to Korean martial arts, tend to be contentious in one way or another. With the editing pattern I use, if other contributors disagree with some of my edits, it is straightforward for them to target the exact changes they disagree with. I have also been on the other side, where someone has made substantial changes in one edit and it has been more work for me to disentangle things. I appreciate your comment on others trying to make edits at the same time, but it has only happened to me once (to a significant extent)—and in that particular case, both of us were working together (with mutual awareness) to prepare the article for GA review. For whatever reason (e.g., time of day), I don't find that I clash with other editors on this point, but I am aware of the potential for unintended clashing. Thanks again for your note. Janggeom (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, even if you don't combine all of them, it would be helpful to combine several of them. A significant number of your edits on that page were minor, and several in a row. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Over the past three days, I've tried your suggestion and—as I suppose happens when one tries to change a routine—it became clear to me why my editing pattern on Wikipedia is as it is (apart from the factor already mentioned). I made this attempt out of respect for your point of view as a Wikipedia administrator but, regrettably, I'm finding that it doesn't work well for me. Thanks for your note, and if you continue to see this as a problem, please let me know; thanks. Janggeom (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
On a different note, given your role in WP Japan, if you (or anyone else from WPJ) would be interested in reviewing or providing feedback on Japanese martial artists' biographies, I have worked on several of these over the last few months. I would be very pleased to help implement changes so that these articles conform better to Wikipedia (and relevant WikiProjects') policies and style guidelines. Thanks. Janggeom (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Tokaido image

Hello Blurpeace, I have come across File:Tokaido Nagoya factory.jpg, which is an image from Wikimedia Commons and has an 'ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain' description attached. The original image appears to be from here, with a clear copyright statement on that page. I am not sure how to proceed since the image is on Wikimedia Commons rather than Wikipedia, and I don't wish to create a new account. (I looked at Wikipedia's guide on possibly unfree files and it looks like I would have to create an account on Wikimedia Commons.) Would you be able to look into, or provide guidance, on this potential copyright violation, please? Thanks. Janggeom (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I have gone ahead and deleted the image. Also, since you already have an account on Wikipedia, just click on "my preferences" at the top-right of your interface, and then click on "Manage your global account" or "Merge this account" (not sure what it's titled). After that, you're automatically registered at all other Wikimedia projects under the same username and password. Blurpeace 00:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. I knew about unified logins, but since Wikimedia Commons didn't show up on the 'list of accounts unified' (when I did this some time ago) I assumed that I didn't have an account on Wikimedia Commons. Thanks for looking into the situation above and for your clarification on the unified accounts. Janggeom (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure. Now, about the image, unless it's a clear copyright violation or meets Wikimedia Commons's speedy deletion criteria, you should nominate the image at deletion requests. The process is a combination of the English Wikipedia's FFD and PUF. Hope that helps, Blurpeace 00:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it does look like it was there (or at least, it is there now), so I might have missed it before—if so, my oversight. Thanks again. Janggeom (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Janggeom/Archive_1&oldid=1143076716"