User talk:Subverdor

Welcome!

Hello,, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Stop by at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Martial_arts to see other activities in martial arts in Wikipedia. jmcw (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Your very own section
Subverdor! I've made a subversive (just a pun ;) ) section just for you right here. Please go and fill it up with all of the statements about Mr. Kim that you feel need to be addressed.

Thanks for your interest in improving the article! With your help, more and more people will be able rely on Wikipedia for information about Oom Yung Doe.Cjim63 (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your efforts. I've made some comments. I'll write a few of the others that have been involved in the past to try and see what the consensus will be. Later,Cjim63 (talk) 06:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Second Welcome!
I would like to apologise for the misunderstanding about my reverting your first edit of Oom Yung Doe. As Nate pointed out, I saw a new editor removing a referenced sentence without a meaningful comment. I can certainly see that you have given much consideration to the Oom Yung Doe article and I welcome your work.

The Oom Yung Doe article is a difficult Wikipedia article: John Kim is infamous rather than famous. This places the article in constant tension with the WP:LIVE policy. The tension is compounded by the general lack of authoritative, academic references for modern martial arts. The infamy and notability are veritably established by the court records and newspaper articles. The criticism, as you have pointed out, is the problem. A NPOV about a villain must have negative statements: from which source do we accept negative statements about a living person?

All of the modern martial art articles have this problem of lack of authoritative, academic references. The regular editors of the martial arts here in Wikipedia ( for example, Nate, Bradford, Rogue Ninja, PRehse and hopefully yourself) attempt to keep a level standard across the MA articles. There is SO much unreferenced information in the MA articles: much of it worthless, some of it potentially valuable. There are apparently 100 million middle school students who daily add their fantasies to Wikipedia (ask Nate how many articles he watches). It is very easy to become a deletionist and bite newbies: it is much more difficult to find a middle path. We tend to accept almost any statement if it is verifiable because there are SO many unreferenced statements. In the case of Oom Yung Doe and WP:LIVE, this may have lead us astray. You are quite correct to question the quality of the sources.

I think the discussion in the Oom Yung Doe talk page will resolve the problems. As a general tool, using the tag warns users about quality issues and signals editors of the need for references. The tags, , and  are also useful.

So, I would like to extend a second, warmer welcome than the first. Please look at WikiProject_Martial_arts, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Martial_arts and WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Martial_arts to become more active in the MA community in Wikipedia. Thank you for your considered work. jmcw (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I can easily understand why you would come to the conclusion that my initial edit was unjustified.  No harm done.


 * It seems that the article on Oom Yung Doe is written by people who don't have any experience with the school, and are basing their entire picture of things on decade-old sources dealing with one or two of the most controversial events. There's plenty of perfectly mundane information out there about the nature of the school, the training, the forms, and so on, but if you don't know anything about the school (and refuse to believe anything the students and instructors tell you about it), it's hard to write an article about it.  This article reminds me of a group of people writing a travel guide for a city they've never been to.  And they're at war with the city.


 * There's been an attempt at including some simply factual description of the school, but it seems that even neutral information, e.g. what styles are taught and how, immediately has to get a derogatory statement added after it. For example, "While Oom Yung Doe movements share common names with several other forms of martial arts, some practitioners of these other forms of martial arts have noted that they consider these styles to be very different," which turns out mean "my buddy on Yahoo watched some youtube videos and said that the movements looked 'terrible'."  That is not a problem caused by the lack of authoritative, academic references.  Subverdor (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear subverdor, In the spirit of jmcw (talk)'s welcome, I would also like to extend you a warm welcome. I understand that you may be involved with other Wikipedia projects and if that is the case, welcome to the Oom Yung Doe article. I would suggest that you might indicate on you user page that this user account is dedicated tot he OYD article. Also, I believe that it is a good idea to disclose any other accounts you have tot he great Wikipedia sysops that be, so that noone can accuse you of sock-puppeting.


 * As you may have noticed, I have been heavily involved with the article since its inception. jmcw (talk)'s comments about the difficulty of editing martial arts articles in general, and an article on a "villain" such as Mr. Kim indeed apply here more. The most "verifiable" information about OYD really are the court cases and media attention associated with the same. In the beginning of the article, that was essentially all that was reported about OYD.


 * Since you raised the issue of addressing information provided by "students and instructors" of OYD, I direct you to the edit made by one "MartialArtsStudent" done here. You will notice in the edits that followed, that an enormous effort was made to reconcile the descriptions provided by "MartialArtsStudent" with the verifiable, if somewhat less flattering, sources. The article has periodically been challenged by brand-new editors that have challenged sources and wording. I assure you that we have made a continuous effort to address issues that have been raised to bring the article to the highest quality possible. Unfortunately, these efforts have been plagued by heavy turn-over of these very new editors. You certainly appear to be quite dedicated to the Wikipedia project, so I suspect your collaboration with the Oom Yung Doe article will a longer one. In other words, Live long and Prosper. ;) Cjim63 (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I can absolutely understand the temptation from someone involved with Oom Yung Doe to totally rewrite this article. I would certainly like to.  I can also understand the firm opposition from the existing editors to such a rewrite, though, and I do see that some effort's been made to include the "believable" elements of that edit in the current article.  That's why I'm planning to proceed point by point, and have a lot of discussion; certainly I can understand that having a "grand unification" that tries to glue together two unrelated articles by totally opposing groups would be difficult and not really satisfy either group.


 * Is it really necessary to disclose multiple accounts to the sysops up front? I've got no problem with doing so, but I think any accusations of sock-puppetry will come whether or not I talk to the sysops.  Subverdor (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if disclosing is absolutely necessary, but I did it myself just to be on the safe side. This is a page that explains the process. Maybe you can look it over and decide whether it is something you'd like to do or not.Cjim63 (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do think that sounds wise, and I've done so. Thanks for the heads-up.  Subverdor (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply
Dear Subverdor, you said:


 * 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
 * What information from "Herding the Moo" supports the faked-photo statements in Talk:Oom_Yung_Doe
 * Where and when the Nae Gong Sae Gae photo was taken in User_talk:Cjim63
 * Why you feel that a bibliography implies verification in Talk:Oom_Yung_Doe


 * Thanks.

Here is my answer: 1) I think the bagua translation is important to the article for the reasons that I have already stated. To summarize, we've translated most foreign words int eh article already and giving a complete translation seems to be important based on the differing views of the origin of the Bagua style. I don't think that I really have anything more to say about that. 2) You need to get the resource "Herding the Moo" yourself. While I have provided information in the past, that does not mean that I am the great keeper of the information. I believe that I have made a good faith effort to accurately report on the sources. If you would like to challenge that, you need to do the research yourself. I am unable to easily create a copy of Herding the Moo for you, and I am unwilling to spend more time on it due to the fact that it is cheap and easily accessible online. I certainly don't have a problem with you getting the resources since I think that constructive criticism is useful. However, if you are going to level a criticism I think you also need to do some of the work looking at the resource. 3) I don't see how where and when the photo was taken has any relevance. I am reporting the information that I have about the photo as accurately as possible. If you'd like to challenge it, and other administrators/editors agree with you, then I suppose it would be deleted. The photos are included to improve the article. However, they are not completely necessary for the article itself, and if there is consensus that there is a legitimate reason to remove them, then they could easily be removed. 4) I am not sure what you are referring to here, but you direct to the discussion on the FMC source. You are of the opinion that the FMC should not be permissible as a source. I believe it is. Obviously some consensus must be reached that rely upon the opinions of more than just the tow of us. For the moment, further discussion about the FMC article does not appear to be bearing fruitful results.

I'll be back in a couple of days.Cjim63 (talk) 05:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW when I come on next, I think I will spend time to: #1 develop the legal section on OYD like I have been planning to do for like a month now, #2 I'll go over the articles on Ludden again, #3 I'll then go back to commenting on the talk page. That way I can do some more work ont he article and spend a little less time commenting.Cjim63 (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Fair use rationale for File:Weeklong 2006 385.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Weeklong 2006 385.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Oom Yung Doe Weeklong P1016459.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Oom Yung Doe Weeklong P1016459.JPG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 72.88.107.31 (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Weeklong 2006 385.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Weeklong 2006 385.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 72.88.75.41 (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
"Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute." We have discussed at extremely great length the article about Oom Yung Doe and John C. Kim.

You appear to wish to present Oom Yung Doe as a 'nice' martial art because you know nice people who train you. I do not believe that the martial art Oom Yung Doe meets the standards for notability to justify inclusion in Wikipedia. I do believe that the person John C. Kim does meet the standards for notability. I have therefore opposed each of your edits where you remove information about John C. Kim.

I appologize for this incorrect approach. I will in the future extract the information about John C. Kim from the Oom Yung Doe. This should prevent the confrontational edits we have in our past. jmcw (talk) 06:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Journal
I have never personally had access to the journal myself, but this doesn't mean it is an unreliable source. I've read papers from it and all of them are top notch. I looked around and the journal was apparently started by Greg Bissell, a translator of martial arts-related material. His name appears in a lot of scholarly martial arts books. I found one page that says the journal was recently (?) changed to Chen Journal. I'm contacting someone about this and I will get back to you. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The journal was indeed started by Greg Bissell during the early 1990's. It was physically printed in Hawaii at one time. The person I corresponded with says they lost track of Greg and the journal when he moved to the U.s. around 2000. Since I can't find any websites for it, it's possible the journal is now defunct. However, this doesn't in any way discredit the validity of the articles that survive it. Although an extreme example, it would be like if the NEJM went out of print. Just because the journal was no longer around doesn't mean the medical papers automatically become invalid. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 05:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Er, why would a journal being physically printed imply that it's reliable? Do you know who it was published by?


 * I don't have any reason to think the journal _isn't_ reliable (other than my low personal opinion of the articles I've seen from it), but physical existence is certainly not a sufficient argument. Subverdor (talk) 05:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The point I am trying to make is that the articles are reliable. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 10:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Heh. I haven't really 100% made up my mind about this (Stanley Henning does seems to be acknowledged by the academic community as an expert, so anything he writes "may be acceptable" regardless of where it's published according to policy) -- but rest assured that I do feel comfortable concluding that I think this source is unreliable even if you keep asserting that it is reliable :-).


 * In any case, thanks for looking into this a bit more; I appreciate it. Subverdor (talk) 05:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Happy to help. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 09:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Wudangquan
Hi Subverdor, The Wudang / Shaolin dichotomy is so ubiquitous in China that it should not need reference; but people fight me again and again on this issue. My teacher is a Wudang Grandmaster, and he has been telling me this for years. When I talk to Chinese people, they say the same thing. Stanley Henning's paper is rock solid; please check out his references. The Alibaba link I reference in the article should be a strong indication, even though it is a "weak" reference by Wikipedia standards. The reference in Sun Lu Tang's "Xing Yi Quan Xue" is on page 3, which was written by Dan Miller (the guy who published BaGua Journal). Miller states that the arts were grouped this way "in the past." I believe this is because he is propagating the belief that the internal arts are called Neijia in China instead of Wudang. Again, my teacher is Chinese; and the Alibaba link is current. The problem I see is that Westerners are trying to define Chinese terms with English explanations. I have tried to write, cite and edit the Wudangquan definition as it used in China-- which is all that matters. I hope you can talk to some Chinese people, and I hope this helps. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 03:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think I've sorted out what you're saying. You're saying that "Wudang" is a classification describing three specific internal lineages (Bagua, Xing Yi, and Tai Chi), and that "Shaolin" is a term for all external martial arts within China.  Is that accurate?  Are you saying that "Neijia" is used additionally as a term for all internal arts (including Bagua, Xing Yi, Tai Chi, and some others) within China, or that it isn't?


 * Your appraisal of my understanding is accurate, with the addition that the classification (dichotomy) is used within China. In the West, Neijia is used preferentially as the classification instead of Wudang because the erudite, Western Tai Chi and BaGua practitioners do not like the term Wudang; this is due to the widespread understanding that Tai Chi and BaGua were not created at Wudang by ZSF. In China, "Neijia" is a much more broad term including every kind of internal practice. The way you have rewritten the into invites erudite Westerners to simply redirect the Wudang page to the Neijia page, which they have done many times before and will again. Your rewrite uses the references that dubunk the ZSF myth to propagate it; the Atlanta Wudang reference is complete propaganda compared to Henning's fully-referenced paper (yeah, Henning's is not academic writing, but at least it's well-referenced). Your rewrite substantially skips the meat and potatoes of the separation between internal and external by omitting the differences between the two. I'm failing to understand what you're trying to convey with "some think this" and "others think that." I appreciate the stab you took at it, but I feel like your rewrite is confusing, misleading, and missing the most important information about the Chinese dichotomy. In a nutshell, I still like my description better; but I'm completely open to working with you on the neutrality of it. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm honestly not surprised that people "fight [you] again and again" about these things -- you seem to be looking for a fight :-). If you're right and other people are wrong, it's much more productive (and less stressful) to educate than it is to argue and belittle your conversation partner for being ignorant (or being the wrong ethnicity or whatever).  You can educate with solid sources; it's absurd to deal with someone who disagrees with you by saying that you're so obviously correct that you shouldn't need to provide any reference.  Just provide the reference; it only takes you about thirty seconds of typing.  It's hard for me to see what you're saying a lot of the time because you're so busy describing what other people say that you're vigorously disagreeing with.


 * In any case, I've taken a stab at rewriting the Wudang intro. It sounds like none of the facts are changing -- I'm describing the two different meanings for Wudang that you describe, just in slightly more neutral terms.  I still can't really tell which meaning you think is the "correct" usage.  Anyway, take a look and let me know what you think.  Subverdor (talk) 06:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Your undo on "Oom Yung Doe"
Please do not simply undo my edit, as I'm correcting links pointing to "Tai chi chuan" (which is a redirect) to T'ai chi ch'uan (the actual page). You have my apologies for assuming "Tai chi chung" was perhaps a misspelling (or alternate spelling) of Taijiquan, however, I believe it was within reason, considering that it is/was linked to the T'ai chi ch'uan page. I'm thus removing the link altogether, since there is no "Tai chi chung" page on WP as yet and it is something distinct from Taijiquan.

Thanks. InferKNOX (talk) 08:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure. I can see it either way; my understanding is that the two are related but not identical. Linking or not and how to do the romanizations has been a subject with some edit warring in the past, so I'm fine just leaving the current version in place. Subverdor (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Oom Yung Doe Weeklong 2009 Chung Su Doe.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Oom Yung Doe Weeklong 2009 Chung Su Doe.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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org, 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 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

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

And also: ✗ plicit  12:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * File:Oom Yung Doe Weeklong 2010 Dancing Dragon.jpg
 * File:Oom Yung Doe beach practice low side foogal.JPG
 * File:Oom Yung Doe beach practice T with equipment.JPG