User talk:SooBahkDo

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Soo Bahk Do, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Harland1 21:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:SooBahkDo

Thank you for your contributions to Soo Bahk Do however Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which is not the place to post warnings about legal action and one should not sign contributions either with your username or your real name (except on talk pages). Also 'modifying edits' is what Wikipedia is based on see the third if the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. I have removed your comments and will do so again. You might also like to look at WP:OWN and WP:COI as relevant policies. Further discussion continues on the talk page of P:MA. By the way it is polite to sign talk pages with four tildes thus: ~~~~. Harland1 14:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soo Bahk Do is a federally registered service mark (USPTO 3,103,190)and readers should be informed of that fact in the context of discussions about Soo Bahk Do. The intentional exclusion of this fact from wikipedia entries about Soo Bahk Do when due notice has been posted could be considered tortuous interference with the service mark owner's rights and failure to fully disclose relevant facts about a topic is unencyclopedic and a violation of wikipedia's own tenants and policies. Surely with all the notices posted throughout wikipedia about sensitivity to copyrights, it should not be necessary to engage the wikipedia dispute department in order to have the simple fact of service mark ownership become a valid part of an article. Absent that fact the acticle is misinformative and misleading to the public. SooBahkDo 04:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest warning

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User name policy

You might also like to look at Wikipedia:Username_policy, specifically this Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of United States Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan Federation, Inc.

A tag has been placed on United States Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan Federation, Inc. requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I created the page with "Inc." in error and it appears to already be deleted. The page name should not have included the "Inc.' Perhaps when I have the page article prepared, I'll recreate the page named correctly and run that up the flag pole. SooBahkDo 22:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Moo Duk Kwan

Your recent edits could give editors of Wikipedia the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that this is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a genuine dispute with the Community or its members, please use dispute resolution. —Random832 21:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to most recent post.

I do understand the difference (pointed out by another user) and ask you (him) to understand those postings were not directed at editors, rather they were intended to emphasize facts that are relative to trademarks that readers should know and it is a reasonable, prudent and responsible action for wikipedia editors to assure that articles inform readers of the aspects of trademarks and respect the trademark owner's rights on an article page especially when that page is named with the trademark as is the case with the Moo Duk Kwan page. MOS:TM

Someone did a relatively nice job on the Soo Bahk Do page by posting,

"Moo Duk Kwan and the fist logo are trademarks of the U.S. Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan Federation. and Soo Bahk Do is a service mark." with links from the term "trademark" to the wikipedia article of the same name, a link from the term "service mark" to the wikipedia page with the same name and they even courteously linked the organization name to an organization page. The statement could be improved by including serial number citations and as has been nicely done on the Moo Duk Kwan page. If that statement with citations appears at the top of the wikipedia Moo Duk Kwan page so a reader is informed BEFORE reading the page, then at that point readers have access to the relevant information my posts have been advocating. This is no more than the way information appears on other pages with trademark names like Coca Cola or Rolex.

The trademark ownership statement with citations and links to the trademark page positioned in the introduction at the top of the Moo Duk Kwan page would satisfy my concerns about this particular issue on the Moo Duk Kwan page.

That all said, and I have not raised this issue pending some concensus on the first issue: technically since Moo Duk Kwan is a trademark like Coca Cola or Rolex, the wikipedia page by the same name should present page content in full compliance with MOS:TM and should do so neutrally and in a manner that is not potentially harmful to the trademark owner's rights. For example statements representing that there are "two" Moo Duk Kwan's impinge upon the trademark owner's right to be exclusively identified by their mark. However, a slightly modified statement stating that there are individuals unaffiliated with the trademark owner who may have displayed or do display the mark would more accurately describe the actual state of affairs and does not as blatantly impinge upon the trademark owner's rights.

Whether or not a particular individual or organization's use of a trademark is authorized or licensed or not is a business matter between the user and the trademark owner and may or may not be public knowledge.

A neutral article would respect the trademark owner's rights and would not be inadvertently encouraging trademark infringement which is basically another form of identity theft whereby trademark infringers represent themselves to the public using another's identify, i.e. trademark.

Perhaps when time permits I'll propose some article content. SooBahkDo (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "wikipedia should not do this because it is (something legally actionable)" has been considered a kind of legal threat before, I was just trying to warn you so you wouldn't cross the line. For an example that is more familiar to most readers, it would be unencyclopedic for Wikipedia to not discuss the generic use of terms such as "xerox", "kleenex", or "photoshop"; even though those are all trademarks. It would even be inappropriate for wikipedia to pass judgement on such behavior (the article should not be slanted towards "People should not use 'xerox' to refer to all photocopying, and all such usage is incorrect", due to the NPOV policy). Also, the trademark in your case appears to only apply in the United States, and Wikipedia presents a worldwide view. Acknowledging the fact that there is a trademark is a reasonable compromise, though.—Random832 15:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your points and I am only seeking reasonable and prudent respect for the trademark owner's rights in the context of articles on wikipedia. (3 to be exact) I do not expect wikipedia to endorse or pass judgement on aspects of trademark law; however, it is prudent and reasonable in articles to adhere to MOS:TM in a manner such that wikipedia articles do not achive the reverse of endorsement, which is the degradation of a trademark owner's rights by allowing unverifiable statements.

For example, a statement like the heading appearing on the Moo Duk Kwan page stating that the Moo Duk Kwan is split into two is unverifiable and can be dispproved by valid trademark ownership of the Moo Duk Kwan phrase as the existence of an in force trademark assures the owner of unique association with the [trademark]]. An improved statement would assert something more neutral to the trademark owner's rights and which does not impinge upon them. Perhaps, something like, "Some former Moo Duk Kwan practitioners embraced a different martial art called Tae Kwon Do." Language something like this accurately reflects what transpired and does not pass judgement for or against the trademark and it respects the trademark owner's rights while describing what transpired. However, how does one go about proposing an edit or change to that sectionof text? I do not see how it and the "boxes" on the page are modifiable.

It is unfortunate that misinformed, inadvertant or intentional trademark infringement may result in misrepresentation, fraud, counterfeiting and even a form of Identity Theft by the individuals engaging in infringing activities, so when wikipedia at least includes neutral language that does not impinge a trademark owner's rights and includes appropriate statements of trademark ownership in conjunction with known trademarks, then the wikipedia reader at least has an opportunity to educate themselves in the course of reading the article. Absent neutral language and adequate trademark ownership notices, a wikipedia article could unintentionally contribute to those unfortunate activities by seeming to misinform the reader.

I trust you understand my position and the resolution I am seeking. Thanks for your supportive information. SooBahkDo 21:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Needed

Why have you placed A notice about the fact that Soo Bahk Do is registered trademark on Wikipedia:Citation needed? I thought that we went through this before, this is not needed! And why here of all places? Harland1 ^t/_c 16:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The citation page states that the Soo Bahk Do page was cited because an editor felt that "Soo Bahk Do is the name of the art taught by Hwang Kee, his successor Hwang Hyun Chul, and instructors who are certified by member organizations of the World Moo Duk Kwan, Inc.[citation needed]" is a dubious claim.

I provided a verifiable citation indicating Soo Bahk Do is in fact a service mark which entitles authorized users to be identified by it. That seemed appropriate information. If the citation was not properly formed or should include other "proof" of the statement's veracity, then what information is the editor that placed the citatiton tag seeking?

I am at a loss to understand various editor's resistance to including notice of, and references to the Soo Bahk Do and Moo Duk Kwan trademarks in their respective articles when due respect is accorded Rolex, Coca Cola and other trademarks. What is the harm in the publication (citaiton, reference or whatever the correct wiki terminology is) of the information, when the absence of the information may be harmful to the trademark owner's rights? SooBahkDo (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that if you look at either Rolex or Coca Cola you see a (very) brief reference to the fact that the name is trademarked. That is it. What you don't see is a section header labeled "Trademark" with a section dedicated to that -- nor do you see thousands of words going on and on about the Trademark in the discussion section of those brand names. SunSw0rd (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Tang Soo Do do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SooBahkDo. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Soo Bahk Do, you may have a conflict of interest, or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]