User talk:Janggeom/Archive 2

DYK for Daniel Trenton

Ucucha 00:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Janggeom (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Kim Ki Whang

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Kim Ki Whang. 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/Kim Ki Whang. 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) 01:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nearu

I put a note on this article recommending Kateda be included in the AfD discussion since it appears to be the same art. Astudent0 (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your note; I will reply further on the deletion discussion page. Janggeom (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

rollback

Following this request made by you and after reviewing your contribution history, I have given you rollback rights. Please keep in mind, rollback should be used only for reverting straightforward vandalism. You can also use rollback to make non controversial reverts in your own user space, or to quickly revert your own edits anywhere in the project space. You can read the policy at WP:Rollback. If you have questions, please ask me or another admin. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the rollback privilege; I was not expecting it, but will certainly try to make constructive use of it. Janggeom (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw how careful you are with edit summaries. Cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

ITF member

Janggeom,

How long have you been an ITF member?

Al Cole —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masteralcole (talk • contribs) 08:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You have yet to reply to me regarding your accusation of vandalism on 9 January 2010. Janggeom (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

William M. Callaghan

I've reviewed the article for GA (the review can be found here), and there are just a few things holding up the article from being promoted. I look forward to working with you to ensure the article meets GA standards. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking on this review and for your feedback; I will post updates on the article's discussion page. Janggeom (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Caleb Shang

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. Janggeom (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Kenshiro Abbe

Hi, I am reviewing your GA nomination. The main problem is a dead link that unfortunately is used very frequently as a reference[1]. Once the problem is taken care of, I will review the rest of the article at Talk:Kenshiro Abbe/GA1. I have made some copy edits to ensure prose quality and compliance with the MoS. Regards, Xtzou (Talk) 13:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking on this review; I look forward to receiving your feedback. Janggeom (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on the promotion of this article to GA. Well done! jmcw (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind note, jmcw. Janggeom (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Trevor Leggett

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Janggeom (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Roundhouse/Round kick

Hello! Could you take a look here and maybe answer (that'd be great)? :) Thanks --Jargon ^๏̯͡๏) 22:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Janggeom. You have new messages at Talk:Roundhouse kick.
Message added 22:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Heads up on image sizes

Just a heads up: putting hard sizes (i.e. 200px) into an articles' image(s) is discouraged by the Wikipedia:Image use policy. See Wikipedia:Image use policy#Displayed image size for more info. -- saberwyn 11:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your note; I appreciate it. Janggeom (talk) 14:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Keigo Abe

Hello. In March you added a citation to a book from the "Webster's Quotations" series published by Icon Group International to this article. Unfortunately, Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this). I'm removing a lot of similar references; many other editors have also been deceived by these sources. Another publisher that reuses Wikipedia articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences&Windows 22:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Also Kazuyoshi Ishii, it was referencing a very minor point. I've not removed text from either article. Fences&Windows 00:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on this. Janggeom (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Patrick Bittan

An article that you have been involved in editing, Patrick Bittan, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Bittan. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. jmcw (talk) 09:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:090912-Janggeom-DanCallaghan.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:090912-Janggeom-DanCallaghan.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [2], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Inniverse (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Boztepe article

Thanks for finishing it up, just to busy with other stuff to get back to it right now. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note; I will add more if I have the time. Incidentally, do you have the volume and issue numbers for the Hester (1999) article? I found a scanned copy on-line, but it did not have this information—and I am assuming the "xx" was not meant to represent "20" in Roman numerals. Not to worry if you don't have these details. Thanks. Janggeom (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:090912-Janggeom-DanCallaghan.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:090912-Janggeom-DanCallaghan.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Inniverse (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Enhancing Hiroshi Shirai's page

Coming back to see if I could make links of the names of Kanazawa and Enoeda, I saw you had already done so. Thanks. I also noticed you indicated that references are needed. Unfortunately I have nothing in writing on goshindo. Is it possible to make a reference to specific stages where Shihan Shirai made a particular comment. As for the comment made by Silvio Campari, I can provide the exact location and date. Of course this not verifiable without talking to any of the attendends of that meeting, but then nothing in any interview that is published is verifiable without doing so. Is there an example for such 'personal communications' as they used to be called when I was using LaTeX and BibTeX? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AvdN (talk • contribs) 19:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, AvdN. You will probably find Wikipedia:Verifiability helpful. Personal communications would not count as reliable sources, although a case could probably be made if the source is available on-line (e.g., if I remember correctly, the Wong Shun Leung article has a scanned image of a letter from Bruce Lee as a source). If something does not have a published source, you could leave it in, but another contributor might challenge and remove it. If there was a disagreement in that situation, you would have to discuss it on the article's talk page and try to reach consensus. Trust this helps. Janggeom (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Taewondo article

See my comments on the discussion page, chu-say-o. Kam-sa-ham-ni-da.--S. Rich (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello S. Rich, thank you for your note, which I appreciate. I will reply on the article's discussion page later today, when I have a bit more time. Janggeom (talk) 08:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Billy Sing

Hi Janggeom, I posted a link to the Exservicemen Database page[3]. That page does not have the number, but if you click the "Browse Database"[4] link, it will take you there and shows 530 entries, one entry for each Chinese Australian in the ADF during WW1 --User:Schmooey82 —Preceding undated comment added 13:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

Hello Schmooey82, thank you for your note regarding the Billy Sing article. When you click on the link you provided, the web page does indeed say "Chinese Australian WWI Exservicemen" at the top, but if you look at the enlistment dates on that first page, you will see several who enlisted in the 1930s or 1940s—well after World War I. If you take into account the Hui (2002) reference which says that around 400 Chinese-Australians served in 'the past 100 years' (as at 2002), it seems likely that the 530 people represent the whole of the 20th century rather than just World War I. Searching the list, you find Jack Wong Sue there, and he was born after World War I. There is also no mention of Billy Sing in the list, incidentally. For all these reasons, I consider that it would be inaccurate to use that list as a source to say that there were 530 Chinese-Australians serving in the ADF in World War I. On a different note, as you appear to be relatively new to Wikipedia, I have posted a welcome message with some useful links below. Welcome to Wikipedia, and I trust this helps. Janggeom (talk) 12:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ma Xianda and Saekson Janjira

I saw your comments on these two gentleman. I must admit I've had trouble finding what I'd call reliable sources. I'm pretty convinced they're both notable, but you're right about the lack of WP:RS. I'm sure if I could access and read stuff from their native countries I'd have plenty of sources, but I can't. I was hoping someone with more language skills might step up with some additional sources. Papaursa (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Papaursa. Finding reliable sources is a perennial problem for martial arts articles on Wikipedia, and there are probably more than a few articles I've worked on that might not survive a nomination for deletion if this were to happen just now. These days, I tend to avoid working on articles unless I am confident they are going to survive nominations for deletion. Janggeom (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Ken-Shin-Kan

I see we're back with the same old problem. I believe the founder is notable (less so the art), but I can't find independent sources to show that. The lack of sources says I should vote delete, but I don't really want to. I see you've contributed to the article and you have a decent martial arts book collection. Do you have some sources that discuss him? Papaursa (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Papaursa; yes, here we are again. I don't have any references to Akamine myself (since I'm not a Goju-ryu scholar), but looking around the Internet just now reaffirms my opinion that the subject is notable for introducing Karate (or at least one of its major styles) to South America. Whether we can introduce adequate references to the article remains to be seen. In any case, if there is no consensus in the deletion discussion, I understand that the default outcome is for the article to stay. If I have time later today, I'll see what I can do. Thanks for your note. Janggeom (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Judo Ranking System

a 7th degree black belt is a red white belt. [5] for Rena Kanokogi 24.239.153.58 (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The Robinson (2009) article specifically states that Kanokogi was ranked a 7th Dan black belt (not a red and white belt). Do you have sources that specify that Kanokogi's 7th Dan was a USJA rank? Thank you. Janggeom (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

"For dan ranks, the first five are colored black, 6th, 7th, and 8th dan have alternating red and white panels (dandara), and for 9th and 10th dan the belts are solid red.[34] However, holders of grades above godan (5th dan) will often wear a plain black belt in regular training." [6]

Judo has 3 federation in the US. USJF, USJA [7], and USJI. Rusty was a board member under USJF. It is considered to be universally understood throughout Judo that after 5th Dan blackbelt you are awarded a Red/white belt. There is no such thing as a 7th degree "black" belt. There is a 7th dan which is a red/white belt. [8] The red/white is more prestigous than a blackbelt. This site here does show her membership with the USJF. [9]24.239.153.58 (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You have cited some sources about Judo Dan ranks, and given some specific references to organisations for which 7th Dan is marked by a red and white belt, but you have not supplied any sources that state Kanokogi received her 7th Dan from the USJA (or another Judo organisation that uses red and white to denote 7th Dan), which is what I had asked. Membership of an organisation is not necessarily proof of rank awarded by that organisation; it is not unknown for people to be awarded Dan ranks by one organisation and yet be members of another organisation. Broad statements like "universally understood throughout Judo" and "no such thing as a 7th degree black belt" do not help your case, in my view. One could just as easily point out that black belts (for arts which use belt ranking systems) do not necessarily denote Dan ranks, so while someone could claim that black belts are universally understood to denote (at least) Dan rank, it is not necessarily correct that black belts always denote Dan ranks (i.e., the 'universal understanding' can be wrong at times). Short of doing some serious archival research, I suppose the easiest way for you to support your case would be if you could provide a link to a reliable on-line source that shows Kanokogi wearing a red and white belt. Just a few thoughts. Janggeom (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

USJF ranking system http://www.usjf.com/public/rank_requirement.pdf
USJA ranking system http://www.usja-judo.org/Docs/nat_rank_sys.pdf
Traditional Judo ranks [10] 24.239.153.58 (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"Once a student reaches black belt it takes 15-20 years of consistent training and competing to be awarded the rank of Rokudan (6th dan). At this rank the student has absorbed the entire Judo syllabus. A student obtaining the rank of 6th - 8th dan may wear a red and white panel belt. The colors were chosen by Kano to represent the colors of Japan. It should be noted that this belt is for formal occasions and is never to be worn during training or competition." [11] 24.239.153.58 (talk) 05:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Help!

I have just uploaded a photo (Queen Mary's School for Boys, Basingstoke (1938 building).jpg) and have apparently done something wrong. I am being told that "This media file does not have sufficient information on its copyright status." I cannot figure how to correct this. Can you help me please? Oldfarm (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Oldfarm, I believe you will need to edit the source page and replace {{no license|month=March|day=31|year=2011}} with {{PD-user|Oldfarm}}. See the Wikimedia Commons copyright page for more information. Trust this helps. Janggeom (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Janggeom, I had read the instructions but was unable to make sense of them. I appreciate your help, regards, Oldfarm (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

All looks to be in good order now, as far as I can see; glad I could help. Janggeom (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Need help with Cai Li Fo review

Hi Janggeom, As one of the primary editors of the Cai Li Fo wiki, we ran into a problem. TexasAndroid has put in a copyright block on our wiki page because a site called http://kungfucertificate.com/Bird_Form_Kung_Fu.html copied the wiki text into their website. I was wondering if you can please help us by being an external investigator and help us unblock the Cai Li Fo and Jeong Yim wiki's? I presented some evidence to help show that it was a reverse copyright and discussed it with him on his talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TexasAndroid but I don't think much as been done with the investigation yet. The contributors and I have put in a good 2 years of solid editing and verifications to try and conform to all the wiki standards. I mentioned to TexasAndroid about looking at the Bird Kung Fu site's source code and path names, as well as demonstrating that the information for all the Chinese Martial Arts on that site has been copied from Wikipedia, including wiki pages that I did not start. I don't know what else to do, but wait for the investigation to be completed, but their doesn't seem to be any indication when this is going to happen or how long it will take. Is there any proactive things I can do? Thanks! Any help or advice would be appreciated! Huo Xin (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I found another reverse copyright on there site beside the praying mantis pages. Look at their Wing Chun page: http://kungfucertificate.com/Wing_Chun.html and look at the one here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_chun Work on the wiki page goes all the way back to 2001. I don't understand why the Cai Li Fo wiki only gets blocked when it is blatantly obvious that the http://kungfucertificate.com/Bird_Form_Kung_Fu.html site is copying from other pages as well. Huo Xin (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Huo Xin, I have read the discussion you are having with TexasAndroid and things seem to be proceeding smoothly. Please note that, assuming I am one of the "wiki admins" you referred to on your talk page, I am not a Wikipedia administrator. Thanks. Janggeom (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Janggeom, Thank you so very much for you assistance in this manner and letting us know what is going on. It has been some what frustrating and your involvement is greatly appreciated! Sorry, I did not know that you were not a wiki admin. Huo Xin (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Caleb Shang

No worries. Noted your corrections and added a few more details. Thanks :L42A1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by L42A1 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Info restore

{{help me}}Would it be possible for you to contact me privately? Rakufire (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I have contributed to Wikipedia for a few years and never had the need to contact another contributor privately. All relevant questions regarding Wikipedia can be handled through posted messages. If you believe you have a justifiable reason for needing to contact me privately, please outline your reason here in sufficient detail for my consideration. Thanks. Janggeom (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Not appropriate for a public forum. Weblink was removed as the site has been deleted. Rakufire (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Rakufire, as you have not joined discussion at the Harry Cook talk page (so far) and you consider it would not be appropriate to indicate here your reason for asking me to contact you privately, all I can suggest is that you read the dispute resolution page and follow the advice there. Without knowing your specific concern(s), I am unable to help you further. Janggeom (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Janggeom, I am Harry Cook's son and I would appreciate it if you would contact me where I will happily prove my identity to you and the veracity of the claims. We have already contacted Wikipedia multiple times trying to get our names removed but nothing has happened and I would add you are causing my family considerable personal distress by reverting edits when we do not wish to have our names on the article any more.

Hi Janggeom. Just so you know for another time, reverting the names of family members into the article was not appropriate per WP:BLP, which indicates in WP:BLPNAME that there is a strong presumption of privacy for family members. It was good that you suggested that they contacted Wikipedia (incidentally WP:FEFS might have been a clearer link,) but in the meantime the names should have stayed out of the article, reliably sourced though they are. Also another time it might have been good to have accepted off wiki contact from Rakufire, as it appears likely that there is a very, very good reason why the family didn't want their names in the article, one that absolutely should not be discussed on Wikipedia. I have, by the way, deleted some revisions from this page in order to remove some personal information. The main thrust of the information remains, however. Slp1 (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Slp1, thanks for your note. I appreciate your correction on the BLP issue. If I ever make a mistake that contravenes Wikipedia policy, which happened in this case, I am happy to learn from it. I think it needs to be borne in mind that—up until a relatively late point in the recent sequence of events—the edits to the article appeared to be mostly or wholly vandalism, as far as I was concerned. Removal of information that was relevant and had been in the article for several months without complaint, addition of a serious accusation without reliable sources, anonymous/SPA edits, and edits without regard to leaving the article in a sound state (e.g., grammar) all point towards vandalism. If the accusation or concerns were real or justified, corrective action would have needed administrator or staff intervention anyway, which is why I recommended (twice) that those concerned contact Wikipedia directly. (I am not an administrator or a Wikipedia staff member, in case that is not clear to anyone reading this.) With the limited time I had available, and not having found any evidence to support the edits, my only logical choice at that point was to try to protect the integrity of the article and its (living) subject as best I could. Thanks again for your note, Slp1. Janggeom (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your openness to learn, and I do agree that you did many good things (including contacting Gwen Gale, though unfortunately she has been inactive for a month). You also quite correctly removed allegations that are currently difficult to verify. However, I can't really agree that your only logical choice was to protect the article by restoring the names of family members. They are living people too, after all and our BLP policy is quite clear that they are entitled to privacy as well. It was also clear fairly early on why they might be wanting privacy at this precise moment. When it doubt, leave it out, is a good mantra to remember. And as I said, seeking administrator assistance from Gwen was a good idea; another time, given that she was inactive, posting at WP:BLPN or WP:ANI would have been a better plan. Slp1 (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello again, Slp1. Please consider "my only logical choice at that point" to be amended to "my only logical choice from my perspective at that point." I could go on further to elaborate on my thought processes, but I have already covered the key points above, including acknowledgement that I had been acting based on an incomplete understanding of BLP policies. I appreciate the specific administrator contact links you've provided, as they will help if a similar situation should arise. Janggeom (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Google Gwen Gale

Apparently Wikipedia editors are NOT ALLOWED to use a major search engine to do background checks on administrators. Honest, outside opinions are NOT ALLOWED inside. Even in discussions where the admin is clearly IGNORANT OF THE SUBJECT and appears to be using their admin position to suppress accurate information.

No, there is no “admin culture” at Wikipedia, everyone agrees that all admin’s are objective and honest.

Any honest admin can email me any time at thepluton2@gmail.com or my real name (it’s all over the place).

That’s all, I hope you read fast, because Favonian and company are sure to suppress this. Thanx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.50.21 (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Teruo Chinen

I was curious about some of your references in this article. Chinen Sensei is my teacher. I was actually his assistant for a couple years. Chinen Sensei has been a public figure for many years, and he tends to ignore what people write about him as it is never accurate. He read me an article once when I was a beginner from Inside Kung Fu magazine and pointed out several of the inaccuracies. While I have no intention of refuting anything in detail, I am interested in being sure you don't misrepresent him. So what I am looking for is a little more detail on who awarded him the title Shihan and when he was promoted to 9th Dan.

I have heard people that are not associated with Jundokan International refer to Sensei as Shihan. None of his students do so. He does absolutely deserve that title, but it just isn't used in our organization and is therefore not something that can be earned or awarded. If another organization has recognized him in such a way; that is the reference that should be listed.

Chinen Sensei is also the absolute head of the organization with no one to promote him. He has had no affiliation with the Okinawan Jundokan, that I am aware of, since the death of Miyazato Sensei. I know for a fact that his rank was 7th Dan as of 2008 and given the situation I don't see how that could have changed. Your sources are mostly from magazines and internet articles which seem pretty shaky to me. Please understand, nothing would please me more than to see Chinen Sensei's dedication and discipline recognized, but I know him very well and he would not wish to be misrepresented. That's why I am questioning your source.

It is a small world and articles like yours are used as evidence that the individuals you write about are making false claims. Masters that make false claims are not respected in traditional martial arts circles, so I am sure you can understand why it would concern me.

Rnjbilliards (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Rnjbilliards, you will find that every piece of content I have added to the article on Teruo Chinen has at least one reference attached. It is always possible that there are better, more reliable, more accurate references out there; if so, I have not found them yet, or do not have access to them. On looking at the article again just now, I notice that the first linked reference is not currently available, which is unfortunate. You are welcome (indeed, encouraged) to edit articles with the general proviso that if a point is contested (e.g., one reference says one thing, but you say another) then you need to provide references to support your claims. Please be very careful about accusing any contributor of misrepresentation. Like many other contributors here, I conduct research and report what I find. If it becomes clear that there is an error in the finding, and better references to support the correction are available, then the article is amended. The best way you can improve the article or correct any perceived errors or misrepresentations is to find reliable sources that support the edits you want to make. Janggeom (talk) 06:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yasuhiro Konishi

There is currently a deletion discussion going on for Yasuhiro Konishi. Would you mind taking a look at the article and the discussion and adding your comments? I don't care how you vote, but I'd appreciate your input. Thanks. Papaursa (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, but the discussion closed before I could look into the subject. I currently have limited time for Wikipedia, but will try to comment if this issue comes up again. Janggeom (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The closing administrator's comments lead me to believe it might not be long before this article and Japan Karate-Do Ryobu-Kai are both up for AfD again. I apparently didn't explain myself well in the discussion, possibly because it seemed like a clear keep based on the previous comments, but I thought the article made a good case for notablity and had independent sources. Of course, I did assume that Fighting Arts and Dragon Times were good sources. Even without them it looks like both of these subjects were mentioned in third party books. Papaursa (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:070617-Janggeom-Drill.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:070617-Janggeom-Drill.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 22:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Logan, thank you for your note. The file is my own, original work. I am the photographer, and I hold legal ownership of the image. The file has been deleted before I have even had a chance to contest the speedy deletion nomination. Please advise on this situation; I will monitor your talk page. Thanks. Janggeom (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello again, just a brief note to say that the deleting administrator (RHaworth) has responded to my query, so to avoid doubling up I will continue corresponding with him. Thanks again for your note. Janggeom (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello RHaworth, the file you deleted is my own, original work. I am the photographer, and I hold legal ownership of the image. The file has been deleted before I have even had a chance to contest the speedy deletion nomination. Please advise on this situation; I will monitor your talk page. Thanks. (I had posted a similar message to Logan's talk page, as notifying contributor, but have not had a response yet.) Janggeom (talk) 08:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

* I am highly dubious about your claim to be the photographer. You did not even manage to rip-off the larger version of the image available here. However I will be satisfied if you upload the original state of this image with its EXIF metadata still in place to the Commons. But to make sure, you should get the webmaster of rheetkd.com to grant permission as explained in Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and get this page to display a GFDL licence for the photos. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello again RHaworth, I am aware you are a busy person (being an administrator), so I appreciate your time in responding. I could meet your request to upload an original image file (with EXIF data intact)—but I choose not to, as I consider that this would compromise my rights as a photographer too significantly. Some photographers might be comfortable with releasing their original files for all and sundry to edit; I am not, having had poor experiences with this kind of thing before. As an alternative, the rheetkd.com website's director/owner has agreed to be contacted directly by Wikipedia or its representatives to verify that I (Janggeom) am the photographer who created the original image and holds copyright on it. You are welcome to contact rheetkd.com, ask to speak/correspond with the person in charge, and present your question from there, if you so choose. Separate to the issue of truth, my granting of permission to rheetkd.com to use the image predates my granting of permission to Wikipedia to use the image, so from my point of view, if one of the two has to be rescinded then it will be my permission to Wikipedia. If for any reason my moral and legal ownership of the image is not sufficient to restore the image for use on Wikipedia (under the terms specified when I first uploaded it to Wikipedia in 2007), so be it. I understand your position on being dubious about my assertion of authorship. Thanks again for your time. Janggeom (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

* If you want your images to be on Wikipedia, then you must supply evidence of permission being granted by rheetkd.com. If you forward an e-mail from rheetkd.com to you onward to "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org", that will probably suffice. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If I am able to arrange for an e-mail message to be sent to Wikipedia to verify my assertions (to a degree that would satisfy any reasonable person), and request that it is brought to your attention (as deleting administrator), will you help facilitate restoring the image to its former state (including original upload data) by undoing the deletion? Thank you. Janggeom (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

* Please do not insult Wikipedia by uploading thumbnails. If you are not willing to release the original version, you can at least upload this 600×400px version. Please do so to the Commons; give it a more meaningful title than you used originally; apply the {{OTRS pending}} tag and send the appropriate e-mail to the address above. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello RHaworth, I understand your perspective. Thanks for the pointers above. Janggeom (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Kokondō

Since you voted in the AfD I thought you might be interested in the deletion review that was started at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 10. Regardless of your comment, it would be nice to hear from an experienced martial arts editor. Frankly, I wish they would have notified me instead of me finding out by looking at my contribution list and seeing the article was back. Thanks. Astudent0 (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. Janggeom (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)