User talk:Cjim63

Aikido: an example of a good martial arts article. [1]

"Cult of the Quan" in Martial Arts Professional magazine

Citation of web sites

Citation templates for journals, news articles, and websites. [2]

Abbreviated
{{cite web
  | last = Spiegel
  | first = Rachel
  | title = Research: Thalido…
  | url=http://science-educat…
  | accessdate = 2006-04-30 }}

Exhaustive
{{cite web
  | last = Hansen
  | first = James E.
  | authorlink = James Hansen
  | coauthors = R. Ruedy, M. Sato, and …
  | title = GISS Surface Temperature An…
  | work =
  | publisher = [[Goddard Institute for…
  | date = [[2005-12-15]]
  | url = http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gis…
  | format =
  | doi =
  | accessdate = 2006-09-28 }}

Citation of news articles

Citation with page numbers
{{Citation
{{cite news 
  | last = McGee
  | first = Maggie
  | title = Seabed 'scarred' …
  | pages = 12–27
  | publisher = CNN
  | date = [[2005-02-10]]
  | url = http://www.cnn.com/…
  | accessdate = 2006-07-03 }}

Citation with coauthors
{{cite news 
  | last = Andersen
  | first = David
  | coauthors = Witter, Lameen
  | title = Former Marine, Go Daddy CEO…
  | publisher = Marine Corps News
  | date = [[2006-02-17]]
  | url = http://www.military.com/Caree…
  | accessdate = 2006-06-02 }}

Other

{{cite court
  |litigants=Roe v. Wade
  |vol=410
  |reporter=U.S.
  |opinion=113
  |pinpoint=
  |court=
  |date=1973
  |url=http://www.law.corn… }}

Result: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

{{cite book 
  | last = Cordell
  | first = Bruce R.
  | coauthors = Jeff Grubb, David Noonan
  | title = [[Manual of the Planes]]
  | publisher = [[Wizards of the Coast]]
  | date = 2001
  | pages = pp. 198-203
  | month = September
  | isbn = 0-7869-1850-8 }}

Images

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:OYD_Herbal_Equipment.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:OYD_Altered_Photo.jpg

derivation:

http://www.oomyungdoe.com/Flyers/DiscoverThePowerOfYou.pdf

http://www.oomyungdoeschool.com/Handbook/8thGeneration.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kim_found_guilty.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:OYD_Kyong_Gong_Sul_Bope_lowres.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kim_and_instructors.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:OYD_Sae_Gae_Nae_Gong.jpg

OYD Research

Relevant news articles:

1. "The Continuing Controversy Surrounding Chung Moo," 2/8/98

1. "Chung Moo Doe or Quan," 12/30/97

1. "Man Sentenced in Tax Fraud Scheme Involving Martial Arts Schools," The Naperville Sun, 8/31/97

1. "Martial Art Expert Tried To Kick Taxes," Chicago Tribune, 9/10/96

1. "Chung Moo Doe is Chung Moo Quan, Kim's Arrest Report," 12/26/95

1. "Chung Moo Doe is Chung Moo Quan, John C. Kim Alias Jack Park," 12/26/95

1. "Martial Art School Faces Tax Fraud Charges," Cult Awareness Network News, May 1995

1. "Interview, Pam Zekman," Chicago Life, July/August 1992

1. "Fourth Amendment Complaint against John C. Kim," Ill Att Gen, 6/5/92

1. "Police Aid Feds in Karate School Probe," Naperville Sun, 9/7/90

1. "Ad Raises Woman's Ire Over Martial Arts School," The Lisle Sun, 1/18/90

1. "Cult Charges," The Lisle Sun, 1/9/90

1. "Attorney General's Lawsuit Targets Martial Arts Business," Daily Herald, 11/9/89

1. "Group to Monitor Karate Schools, Ex-members Speak," Daily Herald, 12/10/89

1. "CBS News Transcripts of Video," Nov. 2-7, 89

1. "CBS News Transcripts of Video," Nov. 2-7, 89

1. "Sign on the Dotted Line," Inside Karate, June 1988

https://arcc.co.san-diego.ca.us/services/grantorgrantee/search.aspx?SearchName=KIM+FAMILY+TRUST

The listing of "styles" does not make sense. "Kung Fu" isn't a "style" its a catch phrase for Chinese martial arts in general, of which Tai Chi and Bagua also fall under. I.E., they are both under "Kung Fu". I would advise changing it to "Tiger Style" or finding a reference to what actual style" they are teaching. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey Marty, are you familiar w/ oyd? we all know kung fu is not a style and whatnot. the point is, oyd does not know that. they literally list it as a style. it is typically written as follows on school windows "Goong Bu (Kung Fu)". i consider it part of the body of evidence that oyd is mostly fabrication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.196.224 (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now posted several of the most serious issues I see with the Oom Yung Doe article in the format you'd suggested, which does seem good to me. I'm not sure what you mean by a "bolus" -- to me it makes the most sense to deal with the issues at least somewhat gradually (ten at a time or so); it seems like more would tend to overwhelm people's ability to give proper time and attention to any issues they felt they needed to give input on. Also, see my comment about the copyright on the SGMD seminar image, below. Subverdor (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually scrolled further down and read the text, you would see that I did not delete the text, but simply shifted it further down in the paragraph. Mx08 (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually had no intention of deleting that phrase, it must have been inadvertent. On my diff view, it was still there. As for the other part being unsourced, I only summarized what was said below, because it is the introductory paragraph. There is no need to have citations in both places, especially in the intro paragraph. If you feel that that information is unsourced, then it should be removed from the main body of the article below. Mx08 (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you being cooperative about the editing! I see your point now, about the citations in the opening paragraph, I will try to come up with some to support that. I suppose I could just cite the same ones used in the main body of the article, as long as the statements are the same (as I tried to make them). As far as the criticism, I only mentioned that, because someone gave it as a reason for removing one of my edits (I put in the word criticism to begin with). They referenced an article which mentioned that using the word criticism was discouraged as it may affect the NPOV. I actually agree that "criticism" should be there. Mx08 (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first you should be aware of the recent change to the criteria for B-Class, making it much harder for an article to be assessed B-Class (see

1. It is a bit vague, but the short version, of my understanding, is that if its a self published source is probably won't be classed as a

reliable source for claims etc. However, for saying 'OYD practitioners say this...' etc it can be used as a primary source

as all you are sourcing is that the do say that. It cannot be used to support claims of efficacy, and the like, of the practices as possibly biased in the same way as a press release, i.e. anything from putting things in a good light to, out & out exaggeration.

2. A list of companies would be some what promotional, referencing to a couple in the sentance where it says this happens would be the best option.

3. It self Identifies as a martial art so that would be

that info box, but you could add the religion one if you felt that was more appropriate, my rule of thumb

is use the one that wil get more fields populated.

Hope that helps. -Nate1481 08:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cjim63!
We thank you for uploading

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the

--John Bot III (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I've handled this with the GNU license.Cjim63 (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that this is particularly related to anything, or critically important, but I'm surprised to see that you're claiming to be the copyright holder on this image. Did you personally take this picture? Subverdor (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The individual is actually a gentleman (lady?) named "deadmoneydoe" on a yahoo user group found here: http://profiles.yahoo.com/deadmoneydoe. He/she gave me permission to use the image as my own since he/she personally took it and provided me with the image. Despite that, I've still included a link to deadmoneydoe anyways even though I do have full permission to use it as if it were my own.Cjim63 (talk) 06:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Would you mind asking at which Sae Gae seminar on what date it was taken? Subverdor (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you like to know which seminar and date it was taken at?Cjim63 (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that that individual didn't actually take that photo, and I'd like to investigate that suspicion a little bit more. The "herbal equipment" photo on the Oom Yung Doe page is definitely being used inappropriately (I know because I know the person that really did take that photo). The Sae Gae photo I don't know 100%, but critics of Oom Yung Doe are almost always either unaffiliated with the organization or people who trained for a short time and then stopped. A person in a position to take that photo wouldn't be either of those; whatever else may be true of the school, protocol in something like a Nae Gong Sae Gae is extremely strict. It's very hard for me to believe that a short-time student (whether involved in the lesson or not) would simply walk up to the front of the room and say, "don't mind me, I'm going to take a few snapshots."

The reason I'm asking that specific question is that if you refuse to ask, or the person refuses to say when and where the photo was taken, then that gives me a further indication that the photo probably wasn't taken by "deadmoneydoe". If the person does answer, and the answer either fits or doesn't fit with what I know of Nae Gong movements and the teaching schedule for the instructors in that picture, then that gives me a much stronger indication about who really took the picture.

I'm not saying this to accuse you (particularly since you're passing the picture and the copyright release on from a third party), and you don't have to take anything I just said (particularly in the first paragraph) as the truth. That's the reason I'm asking, though. Subverdor (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has tagged this for a speedy deletion, have you got any back ground on the copyright status? --Nate1481 08:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image that you uploaded or altered,

Dear Lucasbfr, I am writing with regard to the image being considered by deletion. The original photo did indeed come from the Yahoo Group that you were unable to get onto. You were unable to get in because you need an account in order to look at the group's files. At any rate, even though I originally got it there, it probably originally came from a licensed poster and book, which I've tracked down and listed in the Non-free use media rationale. Hopefully this was the correct course of action to take since the images are useful in Oom Yung Doe article. You will have to believe that I uploaded the photos in good faith, albeit with limited knowledge of how to correctly upload media.Cjim63 (talk) 01:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your help. I have fixed your license to put {{Non-free historic image}} instead (book cover and posters are meant to be used when discussing a movie or a book). As you can see when reading the tag, its use is fairly restrictive and I must admit that I don't think that it is a good idea to keep it, in the current state of the article (the image is not discussed at length and seems to be here only for decoration purposes). Thanks again for your help in improving the encyclopedia! -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was that the image was classified as a "Book Cover." I've reclassified it as a Non-free use historic image.Cjim63 (talk) 05:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of lines of conversation about Oom Yung Doe seem to have sort of petered out with unanswered questions or arguments still remaining. Could you please have a look at the following and make some response, or say explicitly that you're not planning to respond any further?

• Why to include the translation of "Bagua" in Talk:Oom_Yung_Doe#Lineage_and_Origin_of_OYD
• What information from "Herding the Moo" supports the faked-photo statements in Talk:Oom_Yung_Doe#.22..._photograph_..._edited_....22
• Where and when the Nae Gong Sae Gae photo was taken in User_talk:Cjim63#Image_copyright_problem_with_Image:OYD_Sae_Gae_Nae_Gong.jpg
• Why you feel that a bibliography implies verification in Talk:Oom_Yung_Doe#FMC:_.22Monitoring_by_the_Freedom_of_Mind_Center.22_continued

Thanks. Subverdor (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was investigating the notability of the death of Robert Ludden, because I was considered challenging its inclusion in the article altogether. I ran across some of your communications about it on other forums, and they honestly really, really disturbed me. It looks like the sequence of events was, in order:

• You added information implying that Oom Yung Doe was linked to the death of Robert Ludden to the WP article.
• You asked third parties whether or not what you'd written was accurate (!).[[3]]
• One third party with apparent personal knowledge of the events answered that he didn't think Oom Yung Doe was implicated in the death.[[4]]
• You wrote on bullshido.net that Oom Yung Doe was "linked to the death of a student several years ago. (i.e. a bloody severed arm was discovered by police)".[[5]]

Is there a missing step between 3 and 4 where you found new information that led you to believe that there was a direct link between the school and this man's unfortunate death? It seems like in the absence of some sort of new information coming to light, a reasonable step 4 would have been to retract what you'd already written on WP about the link between the school and this sad story. Continuing to promote the story (again, if there's not anything I'm missing) would be a very strong indication to me that your primary interest is to criticize the school rather than to determine and communicate the truth as best you can.

I hope that's not the case -- I can see that it would be to my advantage if I could demonstrate such a clear conflict of interest, but I wasn't kidding when I said that slanting the story of another human being's miserable death to advance a private agenda is a really shocking and disturbing idea to me, so much so that I'd rather that it not be what's going on here. Reading "lookoutbulldog88"'s account of events put a human face on Robert Ludden for me and made this all a lot more concrete than just a big argument about policies and words on a web page.

Would you mind explaining a little more about why you concluded that the school was probably linked to the death? It doesn't have to be verifiable; I'm just interested to know where you heard this information (particularly about the contact between Ludden and instructors soon before his death) and how you concluded that it was trustworthy. Subverdor (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your concerns, my primary interest has been to write an article about OYD that is as accurate as possible. One might question your motives as well, but I'd like to think you are aiming for the same thing. With regard to the Ludden section, your sequencing of events is inaccurate. Go back and look at the dates when I first wrote the section on Robert Ludden and when those other discussions occurred.

I believe the section on Robert Ludden handles the matter in as respectful and accurate a manner as possible. I personally suspect that his death may not have been linked to the schools. However, the information is very well cited and was already included in the article. You can see how I got the idea that his death was linked to the schools based on the many, many articles written to the effect in the media. It is not reasonable to retract what "I said" because I didn't say it. I summarized it and provided the citations. Regardless of what I personally may believe about his death, the information is there.Cjim63 (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A

]

Request for mediation not accepted

A not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Oom Yung Doe . For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 09:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the effort to upload the court documents. jmcw (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cjim63.

I've posted to

Subverdor (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the

talk) 03:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Orphaned non-free image File:Kim and instructors.jpg

Thanks for uploading

claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the

Stefan2 (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

File permission problem with File:OYD Herbal Equipment.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:OYD Herbal Equipment.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the
  CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list
  ) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter
  OTRS pending
  }} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on

Stefan2 (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

File permission problem with File:OYD Sae Gae Nae Gong.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:OYD Sae Gae Nae Gong.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the
  CC BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list
  ) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter
  here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending
  }} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --TheImaCow (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]