Phoenix7777 (talk | contribs) Reverted edit by Guryeodo. a block evading sockpuppet of Philip126 |
→Pro-Wikipedia: new section |
||
Line 577: | Line 577: | ||
::*<small><s>We also notice that the statistical analysis is married with</s></small> There is a fine-focus attention to [[Senkaku Islands]] only. |
::*<small><s>We also notice that the statistical analysis is married with</s></small> There is a fine-focus attention to [[Senkaku Islands]] only. |
||
::<small><s>Also, the fact that we can discern a factional group does not diminish the</s></small> There are noteworthy differences among the "disputants" in this group. <small><s>It becomes evident that</s></small> The contributions of Bobthefish2 present an anomaly in this narrowed context.<p><small><s>I bring these facts to your attention in hopes that it helps you to better appreciate</s></small> These are some of the differences between your edit history and the contributions of others who are actively participating in our mediation <small><s>exercise</s></small>. --[[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] ([[User talk:Tenmei|talk]]) 01:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC) |
::<small><s>Also, the fact that we can discern a factional group does not diminish the</s></small> There are noteworthy differences among the "disputants" in this group. <small><s>It becomes evident that</s></small> The contributions of Bobthefish2 present an anomaly in this narrowed context.<p><small><s>I bring these facts to your attention in hopes that it helps you to better appreciate</s></small> These are some of the differences between your edit history and the contributions of others who are actively participating in our mediation <small><s>exercise</s></small>. --[[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] ([[User talk:Tenmei|talk]]) 01:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
==Pro-Wikipedia== |
|||
I propose a strategy to combat the contrived appearance of an [[WP:edit war]] by using words like this in all future edit summaries at [[Senkaku Islands]] and [[Senkaku Islands dispute]]: |
|||
::''This is a "PRO-WIKIPEDIA" edit. This edit is explained in detail and in advance on talk page'' |
|||
Please consider this pair of edits at [[Senkaku Islands dispute]]: |
|||
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Senkaku_Islands_dispute&diff=next&oldid=440335859 diff] 17:35, 19 July 2011 Tenmei (talk | contribs) (58,318 bytes) (''Undid revision 440335859 by Lvhis pro-Wikipedia -- This revert explained in detail and in advance on talk page'') |
|||
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Senkaku_Islands_dispute&diff=440335859&oldid=440254938 diff] 16:55, 19 July 2011 Lvhis (talk | contribs) (58,346 bytes) (''Reverted 1 edit by Oda Mari (talk): This is a POV title. rv Japanese POV pushing. (TW)'') |
|||
The edit summary of Lvhis is an example of [[Framing (social science)]]. We need to reject the [[false dilemma]]. Do you understand the meaning of the [[logical fallacy]] in a "false dilemma"? |
|||
Lvhis sets up a misleading pro vs con [[schema]]. |
|||
A better strategy is to emphasize a "pro-Wikipedia" foundation -- that is, to underscore that our edits are <u>not</u> |
|||
{{col-begin}} |
|||
{{col-3}} |
|||
*pro-Japan nor anti-Japan |
|||
{{col-3}} |
|||
*pro-PRC nor anti-PRC |
|||
{{col-3}} |
|||
*pro-ROC nor anti-ROC |
|||
{{col-end}} |
|||
In point of fact, an extensive edit history informs my belief that Oda Mari's interests are demonstrably "pro-Wikipedia" .... |
|||
For us, the first and foremost question is: What is best for the long-term prospects of our [[collaborative editing]] project? |
|||
What do you think? --[[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] ([[User talk:Tenmei|talk]]) 18:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
==[[Template:Japan Old Province]]== |
==[[Template:Japan Old Province]]== |
Revision as of 18:15, 19 July 2011
|
Archive 1 |
.
|
Daikanyama
I see you removed the paragraph about the embassies. But, aren't you mixing up Daikanyama-cho (the administrative name) and Daikanyama (the area name)? Sarugagucho is in Daikanyama, so the embassies are in Daikanyama. Here is a map:[1]. Best regards,--Mycomp (talk) 06:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think the article Daikanyama is about "the area name" but "the administrative name". The lead says "Daikanyamachō" and postal code is 150-0034 which indicates Daikanyamachō.[2]. And the "Daikanyama 代官山" in your map is not "the area name" but a station name. Please see next station "Nakameguro 中目黒" or zoom in appropriately.[3] I don't know what "the area name" Daikanyama means. Could you provide any information about "the area name" Daikanyama? I think it is probably a very vague name that no one can define explicitly. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- You are right about the writing "Daikanyama" (it was the Toyoko line station). Mea culpa. But look at this: it is 代官山エリアガイド (Daikanyama area guide):[4] The Danish Embassy is listed as one of the embassies in Daikanyama. But, it's ok, if you think the embassies should not be mentioned in the Daikanyama article we can keep them out of it. I go to Daikanyama regularly, and "everybody" calls the area where the embassies are Daikanyama (yes, I know that is not an acceptable reference for Wiki :). Have a nice day.--Mycomp (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Trikemike (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)trikemikeTrikemike (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)I think if it is to be claimed that a connection remains undemonstrated between Japonic languages and others, a citation is certainly called for! Thanks!
Timely contributions
Thank you for your thoughtful contributions to the thread at Talk:Order of Culture#Requested Move. In this context, perhaps it will be perceived as welcoming to point out the gilded figure atop the canopy structure used in Imperial enthronement ceremonies? Perhaps this 1917 image of a phoenix is new to you?--Tenmei (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the honorable picture. I am proud of my user name which derived from the picture. I put it to my user page ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
New message...
Hi Phoenix! Actually, those coordinates are for Shinjuku, the capital of the prefecture, Tokyo, which is different from the Greater Tokyo Area.
— Paine's Climax 03:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oops! you are right, Phoenix, I double checked and the correct coordinates for Shijuku are 35°42′2″N 139°42′54″E / 35.70056°N 139.71500°E. I was a degree off on the latitude. My bad. The latd has been corrected.
- — Paine's Climax 04:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- PS. I've incorporated the coordinates you gave me, 35°41′23″N 139°41′30″E / 35.68972°N 139.69167°E, into the infobox in the Greater Tokyo Area article.
Reverts
Took me lots of time collecting infos. Please discuss before reverting a whole set. All teas are from what I find and what I've bought in stores. aracha sencha japanese might be 煎茶の荒茶 rather than 荒茶煎茶 aracha gyokuro
Koicha / Usucha 抹茶
Then you can't reasonably place genmatcha as a type of tea, as this isn't a tea but a mix. Same thoughts with aracha (raw), and houjicha (roasted sencha with can also be bancha).
Might need some more cleanup on this article, as most the the tea names are just different processings of gyokuro, sencha, bancha... Might need to sub-categorize.
FCartegnie (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
(Copied above discussion to Talk:Green tea#Reverts in order to catch the attention of more editors. Subsequent discussion should be made there not here.) ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Japanese ?
It is very important whether you are native Japanese or not, demoiselle.--Giapponese (talk) 05:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Special Forces and Ninjas
Please read the following article from Dean Rostar, Croatian Police Special Forces and 15 dan Blackbelt, Bujinkan Ninjutsu:
http://www.specwog.bujinkan.hr/tekst-en.php?subaction=showfull&id=1084266135&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1& —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.222.236.154 (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The banned user
Look, please read WP:BAN. Banned user's contribution is usually wholly blanked out, struck or deleted per the rule regardless of whether their contribution is good or not. However, the "discussion" was whole harassment campaign by Azukimonaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) against me. Moreover, the thread titles were named by "me", and I let the harassment campaign stay instead of blanking. Archived discussions' titles were fixed by editors in some occasions. In addition, you're no right to falsely accuse me of doing vandalism for that. That is a personal attack. Even if the banned user appears to claim his authorship, the sockpuppeter has no right whatsoever edit Wikipedia because at the time the "discussions" occurred while the troll was already banned by persistently block-evading. There is no honor for you to defend the banned user's dignity. --Caspian blue 14:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Daifuku
Hi. I restored the text you deleted, and added a {{fact}} tag. Unless the tag is there, readers and contributors are unlikely to know a reliable source is needed, and for the tag to be there the text has to be there too. --Una Smith (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Una, thank you for informing me of your revert. However if it is left with {{cn}}, no one will never add a reference as with many other {{cn}. So I will bring it to the talk page, however probably no one will respond to my post either because no one can prove the description is true. Even if it is proved to be true, I am sure it is too rare case to describe it as a variation of daifuku.
- I am concerned so many false descriptions are left with/without {{cn}}. Actually I removed dubious descriptions in Shumai recently.[5] In this case, I am not so confident as Daifuku, I brought it to talk page and Phillipine project.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- What is the rationale you removed tag[6] without adding a reference? ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Already given on Talk:Daifuku. If it is not clear, please say so there. --Una Smith (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
WQA
Hello, Phoenix7777. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --NeilN talk to me 05:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Sourcing for "Geisha"
Thank you for starting an effort to source "Geisha" honestly. Yes, I realize it was somebody unrelated who decided to employ fiction for this purpose; but anyway see Talk:Geisha for an attempt at an explanation. -- Hoary (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
KFC claim in Christianity in Japan
It occured to me I didn't know if you were watching Aphaia's talk page or not; anyway, I have replied there: User talk:Aphaia. Perhaps we should be having this conversation in Talk:Christianity in Japan? -- Joren (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- After getting the support from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard please do so. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 06:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Phoenix, thank you for your reply. I don't believe RSN is intended to be a place where all sources must be vetted before being used; if you read the noticeboard, you will find that RSN is more of a place to go if you have doubts about a source that has already been used in an article and want it checked out. However, I appreciate the intent. WP:V and WP:RS are better places to direct people if you want to convey what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source.
- I've been Googling and what I've found (filtering out blogs of course) are rather unsatisfactorily mostly news articles with bits of journal and encyclopedia sprinkled in here and there.
- Voice of America - Japan and Fried Chicken: A New Christmas Tradition? - Seems to give a good overview but would prefer something other than VOA.
- Reuters - It's Christmas! Have a little more bat meat! - This one is usable perhaps.... At least they had reporters in Tokyo.
- Reuters - In Japan, $850 Christmas chicken defies recession - This one references the tradition, but only does so as a side note.
- KFC Christmas (BBC, et al) - Kind of short, not terribly thorough; seems to rely mostly on KFC's own version of events
- On my next library visit I'll search their journal database and see what they have. Who knows, might discover something on my bookshelf too :O -- Joren (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- I apologize if I offended you by reverting your edit. Yes, you may be able to find a reliable source supporting KFC, however you may also be able to find a reliable source supporting McDonald's sells special chicken menus during the Christmas season. What is clear is that chicken is very popular in Japan during the Christmas season regardless of fried chicken, roast chicken, chicken burger or chicken nugget. So if you mention only KFC, it is against NPOV. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, no. I didn't state I was looking for a kind of source that talks about it being on sale. I'd be looking for a secondary source that authoritatively states that it is a tradition. But anyway... no offense taken, just, we seem to be miscommunicating. You seem to believe that "what is clear" to you is clear to me as well. It is not.
- You might want to keep this in mind before saying things are POV or NPOV; after all, unless you cite evidence to back up "what is clear", it just seems like someone's POV and you make as little sense to me as I made to you :P From what was "clear to me", there was a KFC tradition, anecdotal, news media, and article evidence seemed to confirm it, so I was not aware of any bias, and your calling it POV wouldn't have made much sense to me if I hadn't read Aphaia's reply before reading yours. However, Aphaia has actually explained her understanding in a way that makes sense, so I'm willing to go with that. In the future, instead of just asserting "what is clear", you might want to explain and back it up, as Aphaia has done, and we can avoid further miscommunication. Thank you,
- -- Joren (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- I apologize if I offended you by reverting your edit. Yes, you may be able to find a reliable source supporting KFC, however you may also be able to find a reliable source supporting McDonald's sells special chicken menus during the Christmas season. What is clear is that chicken is very popular in Japan during the Christmas season regardless of fried chicken, roast chicken, chicken burger or chicken nugget. So if you mention only KFC, it is against NPOV. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Ady Gil article, Peter Bethune's detention and arrest
Hello, You removed the referenced video showing Peter Bethune delivering his bill to the captain of the Shonan Maru 2. This video is important because another editor inserted the word "ostensibly" into the Ady Gil article, regarding the purpose of Bethune's visit to the Captain of the Shonan Maru 2. But the supporting news story which is referenced states that as a fact, and the video of Bethune knocking on the door of the bridge of the Shonan Maru 2 with a piece of paper in his hand also supports this. He was not attempting to sabotage or blow up the ship, for example. I'm going to revert your recent change based on this information. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Also, this is not a self-published source. Bethune did not take a video of himself on another ship or post it. It is evidence that he was there to contact the ship's captain. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
tenno title
1; there is no word in japanese for the latin word Imperator, or emperor in english or emperador in spanish, 2;the meaning of the title which belongs to Japanese monarch, shown in this publication is incorrect, there is no literal translation of the word emperor of origin in the Latin language,to the Japanese language,
3; As I explain here, is obvious and need no sources this 天 means, heaven or heavenly or celestial , and this 皇 NOT means "Emperor" or "king", this 王 means "king"...., this 皇 means some type of "sovereign" rather than king {王}, 天子 this means son of heaven, from 天 {Heaven} and 子 son or prince, that is why 天皇 {tennō} means "heavenly sovereign" Thats is why.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.129.106.213 (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Please discuss at Talk:Emperor of Japan#exactly meaning of the title tennō, not here. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Kofun Haniwa soldier
What can I say? I do agree with you Phoenix7777 about the caption being too detailed for a picture. Yet I still think the caption is far too laconic as it is. If you pay attention to my edits you will find out that I had actually started trimming down and redistributing the information to the more suitable Chokutō page. The Haniwa soldier holds a Chokutō indeed, additionally showing a slight though obvious inward curvature.
I have been researching this particular ancient sword and its roughly 5 different pommel based sub-varieties. I have personally visited the largest collections of Kofun Period material including Kofun period swords, and engaged in discussions with resident experts and archaeologist versed in this topic. One particularly important reference is one publication by the Chikatsu Atsuka Museum (Osaka prefecture) which documented the most ample collection of Kofun period swords from various museums across Japan. I will soon enough provide this reference, amongst other equally valuable references published by the Tenri University Museum which I also visited. I have pictures, which they allowed me to take, of two exquisitely well preserved Chokutō (one Kantou-tachi and one Kentou-tachi), which I would like to add to the Wikipedia Chokutō page, though I have never done it, tried once but failed for some reason. Can you help me do it?--Luxgratia (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Phoenix7777. Thanks for the changes you are making to the article and for the message. I am dropping a line just to say that I am receptive to more suggestions about this or other articles, and that I will learn how to use properly the Harvnb template. Frank (Urashima Tarō) (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, Taro. I hope the readers will find it useful. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. In February you added a citation to a book from the "Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" 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, see e.g. [7]). I've only removed the reference, not the text it was referencing. I'm removing a lot of similar references as they are circular references; many other editors have also been duped by these sources. Despite giving an appearance of reliability, the name "Webster's" has been public domain since the late 19th century. Another publisher to be wary of as they reuse Wikipedia articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences&Windows 17:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks....
... for your contribution to the article Nureongi! Chrisrus (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Tributaries of Imperial China
As you can see, I supplemented and slightly modified the inline citation at List of tributaries of Imperial China which was restored by JamesBWatson here.
The actual copy of the book you used must have Pratt listed as first author; but OCLC lists Hoare as first author. I used the version which was online verifiable. Under the circumstances, I wondered if there might be a need for me to explain this?
I do not have a copy of this book, but I was able to verify the accuracy of the citation using Google in a non-obvious way:
- re: Goryo (173 tribute missions)
- using "173 tribute missions" as search topic in Google books yields several "hits", including this one — http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=173+tribute+missions&btnG=Search+Books
- re: Baekje (45 tribute missions)
- using "45 tribute missions" ... yields ... — http://books.google.com/books?id=e7pyBEWioLsC&pg=PA482&dq=45+tribute+missions&hl=en&ei=_4ViTLTYBYS8lQeF_7jTCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBA
- re: Unified Silla (63 tribute missions in 8th century)
- using "63 tribute missions in 8th century" ... yields ... — http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=1&tbs=bks%3A1&q=63+tribute+missions+in+8th+century&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
I hope this mitigates a "problem" which was never really a problem. --Tenmei (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, Tenmei. I am not sure the intent of your edit. I rearranged the refs.
- Why did you discard my template {{cite book}} of "Korea: a historical and cultural dictionary"?
- Why did you remove the Google book link to "Korea: a historical and cultural dictionary"?
- "Why did you change the author's name from "Pratt, Keith L.; Rutt, Richard; Hoare, James (1999)" to "Hoare, James et al."?
- Why did you concatenate the refs like "Hoare, p. 482; Korea Herald. (2004) Korea now, p. 31; excerpt, "The Chinese also insist that even though Goguryeo was part of Chinese domain, Silla and Baekje were states subjected to China's tributary system.""? I think this is not a standard practice.
- ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello folks, as expected, the POV tag on whale meat is preventing it from hitting the front page as DYK. I would really like it to make it. As you know, DYKs get thousands of hits. A whale meat DYK might get 5 thousand or more.
This would be very good for the article, as editors would improve it, and neutrality issues would certainly be resolved. Also, if you feel strongly about whale meat consumption, this is a good way for it to get exposure.
So, please, could we remove the tag? Or, if there are issues, could we remove the contentious text for the time being. After DYK, other editors will restore it or leave it out, based on consensus. I hope this seems fair. Time is short, so please act quickly.
I also sent this message to User talk:Malick78. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
See also DYK nom. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you think it's POV, please remove the offending text. Then, in your eyes, it will be neutral, yes? Then please remove the tag. Then, we can let the new eyes decide. Does that seem fair? If not, what do you suggest? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think it is now too late for the article to get DYK exposure. Now there will probably be a POV tag and extended dispute over content. A real shame. I am wondering why you didn't take the time to respond. You objected to removing the tag. I offered a solution. You didn't reply. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Re-visiting a proposal
Please give some thought to my arguments in support of Elmor's proposal to rename Eulsa Treaty -- see here. Do I need to explain any part of this using different words?
Do you have any questions or suggestions? --Tenmei (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, Tenmei. I responded to Talk:Eulsa Treaty#Requested move. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Phoenix7777 -- You may not have noticed that I relisted the projected move of Eulsa Treaty at WP:Requested moves#Current discussions/August 31. It is only prudent for me to alert all contributors in our discussion about changing the name of this article.
Please consider Talk:Eulsa Treaty#Relisting at WP:Requested moves. On one hand, this can be construed as an unnecessary delay. On the other hand, this ensures the possibility of wider community input which may bring out any points-of-view which remain unstated or glossed over. --Tenmei (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Phoenix7777 -- You may not have noticed that I relisted the projected move of Eulsa Treaty at WP:Requested moves#Current discussions/August 31. It is only prudent for me to alert all contributors in our discussion about changing the name of this article.
Void
I understood you well enough, but I questioned one word in the following context:
- "An opposition without a valid refutation is void."
In my opinion, "void" is provocative without suggesting a way out of the dispute which may ensue. Another way to say the same thing might be:
- "An opposition without a valid refutation is counterfactual thinking."
What do you think? --Tenmei (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Mediation
I sought assistance here — Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-10-04/Eulsa Treaty. I do not know what happens next. --Tenmei (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Summarizing the so-called discussion which began at Talk:Eulsa Treaty in early August here:
- A. In an attempt to help us start discussion, options were proposed here and refined here.
- Leave it at its current name?
- To Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty?
- To Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905?
- To 1905 Protectorate Treaty?
- Or what?; see the second paragraph of page Eulsa Treaty.
- A. In an attempt to help us start discussion, options were proposed here and refined here.
- In the many weeks of so-called discussion thread development, those opposing the move have either been unwilling or unable to present refutation or counterargument; and therefore, I propose we delay no longer.
In other words, I suggest that there is a consensus to act now on the basis of the Lexis-Nexis search outcome. The time has come for this article to be renamed Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905. --Tenmei (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Move edit warring on Senkaku Islands
Please do not engage in move edit warring on Senkaku Islands. The proper way to take care of the issue would have been to raise your concerns first on Talk:Senkaku Islands, let everyone come to a consensus, and then request that the article be moved according to that consensus. Further POV-pushing by moving the article without any discussion may result in an escalation of consequences. Thank you for your cooperation. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you are talking about. I posted a comment to Talk page immediately after the move. If you were a neutral admin, you should have revert the move to the long standing stable name and suggested the new comer to review the past discussion and to read Naming convention. The result is you encouraged the user to insist a POV because of your action. "An admin (nihonjoe) and I have moved the page...."[8] ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Phoenix7777, your move of neutral Pinnacle Islands to Japanese Senkaku Islands seems to be based on a flawed google search with a careful choice of keywords. Correct me if i'm wrong. Anyway, Wikipedia is not a place for nationalists to claim sovereignty and it's hardly productive to stir up a move warring between the use of "senkaku" or "diaoyu" as we can see in Liancourt Rocks and Sea of Japan which become an unproductive gala for Korean and Japanese nationalists but left nothing to the community. --Winstonlighter (talk) 05:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 11:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Fénix
As you may know, en:Phoenix (mythology) = es:Fénix.
Did you notice that "Fénix 2" was the name of the rescue capsule used in the 2010 Copiapó mining accident? --Tenmei (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism
I'm not sure how long you've been working on Wikipedia, so please don't feel like I'm being patronizing, but I do think you want to re-read WP:VANDAL. The edits you marked as Vandalism (the one's you're talking about over on User Talk:Magog the Ogre, weren't vandalism--they were content disagreements. By definition, vandalism primarily involves things that the editor thinks will make Wikipedia worse. While you or I may not agree with Winstonlighter and other's edits, they certainly aren't making them with the intent of harming the encyclopedia, or defacing it, or spamming it. Even if they added things Senkaku Islands with "These islands obviously belong to China, anyone can see that, because Chinese are just superior," that wouldn't even be vandalism (although might possibly rise to that level if they removed major chunks of sourced info). It would be an extreme POV, it would violate WP:NPOV and WP:OR and WP:V, but it still probably wouldn't be vandalism. In other words, you reverting them was okay (as long as you weren't going so far as to edit war), but you probably shouldn't label their edits vandalism. You may want to consider retracting your claims of vandalism, and just saying that you weren't aware of the exact definition. Note that I say this even though I think their edits and plans for the article are quite often wrong, but I still think that what they're doing isn't vandalism. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for enlighten me with your explanation above. Actually I haven't read the policy before. Although I rarely used "identified as vandalism" in my edit summary except for an unexplained removal of a citation or a cited material which I believed as a vandalism, I will follow the policy from now on. Thanks again for your input. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- This seems like a relevant read for you. I reckon that it can help newcomers understand Wikipedia more. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Senkaku Islands dispute. Thank you. —Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Tolstoy
In part, this is a follow-up to the problems you are helping to resolve at Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute.
I wonder if you have previously stumbled across this quote?
For me, this concept has resonance in a variety of Wikipedia settings. These sentences were introduced to me by someone interested in Metonymy and WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion ≠ WP:Straw poll. Although I still haven't resolved what I think about the context, I do come back again and again to Tolstoy's words.
Perhaps these words might be usefully stored in the back of your mind? --Tenmei (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
RfC Senkaku Islands
The RfC provides an opportunity for additional comment by other interested editors. Can you frame a constructive response to Bobthefish2 pivotal question: Even if the policy does not recommend the use of Senkaku/Diaoyu-style dual names, is our situation exceptional enough to make it a good solution?
In this RfC context, please consider an overview here? --Tenmei (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Locked article
I'm very sorry that Senkaku Islands dispute was locked -- not because of a short-term problem with the current version of the article, but because of the unintended consequences.
Even if this action does succeed in mitigating some kind of short-term dispute, I anticipate longer-term problems as a result of Nihonjoe's decision. I tried to explain at User talk:Nihonjoe#Locking of Senkaku Islands dispute; but the effort was not well received:
- diff . . User talk:Nihonjoe; 04:07 . . (-33,990) . . Nihonjoe (talk | contribs) (Reverted to revision 411729997 by Nihonjoe; rv edit war spllover from Senkaku Islands, please keep your discussion on THAT talk page, not here.)
IMO, this is a problem which didn't need to be a problem. I do not know how to be a force for good in this context, but I will think about it over the next few days. --Tenmei (talk) 08:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Your opinions
This is not a site for your opinions. Your bias is impeding the proper reporting of history. Just because you believe something is fictional doesn't make it so. If you find facts contrary to what has been said, please site your sources. Your own stubbornness should not influence this site. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popeyeatucb (talk • contribs) 18:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with this assessment - the templated warning was entirely inappropriate. I've already asked you to assume good faith and to stop referring to other editor's changes as vandalism. You had no idea if this editor was doing so on purpose or not; in this case, he was not. So let me state this point blank: if you continue to bite our newcomers and other editors with false accusations of vandalism, I will block you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- If I may chime in as a talk page lurker, I believe that the problem was the use of the vandalism template. The new user's edit was incorrect, because it asserted something to be certainly true when it is merely the opinion of a single historian (at least, according to the reference given). As such, I went and changed the article statement to read properly. However, Popeyeatucb's edits don't qualify as vandalism, because they were done with good intentions. Vandalism, by Wikipedia's definition, is always something done to harm the encyclopedia. While Popeyeatucb violated WP:NPOV (by asserting an opinion as a verified fact), I suspect that's more a problem of not understanding how we work here (i.e., how to properly attribute opinions). You could have gone ahead and reverted, just not called it vandalism, and instead made a more clear comment to Popeyeatucb (which I'm going to do now, actually).Qwyrxian (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry I made a mistake again. I used a wrong template. What I originally intended to use was an unsourced template instead. I corrected the user's talk page. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- If I may chime in as a talk page lurker, I believe that the problem was the use of the vandalism template. The new user's edit was incorrect, because it asserted something to be certainly true when it is merely the opinion of a single historian (at least, according to the reference given). As such, I went and changed the article statement to read properly. However, Popeyeatucb's edits don't qualify as vandalism, because they were done with good intentions. Vandalism, by Wikipedia's definition, is always something done to harm the encyclopedia. While Popeyeatucb violated WP:NPOV (by asserting an opinion as a verified fact), I suspect that's more a problem of not understanding how we work here (i.e., how to properly attribute opinions). You could have gone ahead and reverted, just not called it vandalism, and instead made a more clear comment to Popeyeatucb (which I'm going to do now, actually).Qwyrxian (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oh OK well then thank you. It sounds like an error on your part, so no need to get worked up; apologies if I was forceful, but I was under the opinion that you were doing so carelessly. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Good step in process of collaborative editing
Please take note of my apology to Historiographer for delay in responding to his edits of January 24 -- please read Talk:List of tributaries of Imperial China#Good step in process of collaborative editing. --Tenmei (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Attributing the Remin Ribao statement on Senkaku Islands dispute
Currently, 4 editors have been able to come to a compromise wording on the sentence in Senkaku Islands dispute about the Remin Ribao article. We've agreed (Tenmei still disagrees) that we should change the sentence to say "The Japanese government and U.S. researchers have claimed that a 1953 article in The People's Daily, a daily newspaper which is the organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), stated that the Senkaku Islands were a part of the Rykuyu Islands, and that this further implied that the Senkaku Islands were a part of Japanese territory." I believe that you have objected to this wording in the past, on the grounds that since this is already the Japanese section, it's obvious that this is a one-sided claim. However, I think that since this is obviously a highly contentious article, and the subtlety here is that this is an interpretation of a translation, it is beneficial for readers to understand clearly that this not "literally" what the original article says, but specifically an interpretation. In other words, it does no harm to clearly attribute this opinion, but that not attributing it may be confusing. I'm hoping that since this opinion was arrived at in part through the comments by two previously uninvolved editors (Nlu and Ohconfucius), you might be persuaded to see that this version will make the article better. If you do agree, I think we can show a very solid consensus to make an edit request and have that line changed. I sincerely appreciate you providing your input on this; it would feel really great to know that we were actually able to move forward through a consensus decision. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Your unanswered questions
You mention an important concept when you use the word "refutation" here.
In one important paragraph, you make two related points:
Your point is simple, transparent, obvious to me; however, it seems to be ignored. I don't know why.
I am persuaded that Qwyrxian does not recognize the importance of this underlined sentence; and I do not know how to re-direct attention to the pivotal point you make.
In other words, Qwyrxian and others ignore it; however, you put your finger on the central problem with this so-called "compromise" sentence.
We need to figure out why your words are not understood to be significant. --Tenmei (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I was going to answer here, but I realized I should do it on the article's talk page...but the short version is that the sentence as written now is wrong--it states a falsehood, something which is not true. Phoenix's points about me misattributing are good, but the sentence just has to change somehow.Qwyrxian (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Qwyrxian repeats a characteristic mistake. Instead of investigating a specific question with research (WP:V + WP:RS), the focus of attention shifts to something else. This is a kind of con game or confidence trick in which misdirection is a key factor; but in this scam, Qwyrxian is a victim.
Qwyrxian is a person who has been deceived. This is not a personal attack. Rather it is a simple restatement. It is an accurate assessment of a what has been going on in this thread since Qwyrxian began to participate and things have gone horribly wrong.
In the diff above, Qwyrxian functions as a shill for the Bobthefish2 game of Cups and balls which has been evolving slowly for months.
The so-called "compromise" Qwyrxian sentence is not valid. It is incorrect. It is unsupported by WP:V + WP:RS. It is only a factoid. This word is defined by the Compact Oxford English Dictionary as "an item of unreliable information that is repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact".[1]
Qwyrxian has read Bobthefish2's use of the word "fraudulent" so many times that factoid and fact are indistinguishable. --Tenmei (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Qwyrxian repeats a characteristic mistake. Instead of investigating a specific question with research (WP:V + WP:RS), the focus of attention shifts to something else. This is a kind of con game or confidence trick in which misdirection is a key factor; but in this scam, Qwyrxian is a victim.
- Okay, I was going to answer here, but I realized I should do it on the article's talk page...but the short version is that the sentence as written now is wrong--it states a falsehood, something which is not true. Phoenix's points about me misattributing are good, but the sentence just has to change somehow.Qwyrxian (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Phoenix7777 -- Your question is the key. Your question is implied: "I cannot understand why pro-Chinese editors won't add the refutation."
The word "refutation" is key to why Qwyrxian's sentence is unworkable, not because I say so, but because the premises of the sentence are not supported by WP:V + WP:RS.
There is no refutation added because there is nothing to refute. This is only smoke and mirrors; and Qwyrxian has been seduced by the fraud.
In the context of the above, please review the following from the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. There is no evidence to support a belief that Qwyrxian has looked at anything outside the ambit of the talk page threads; and this means that not even the the MOFA website has been examined superficially In other words, if Qwyrxian looks at the following, it will be for the first time here on your talk page.
Counterargument/Japan Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA)
| ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Responding to Question 4: Some examples which contradict the PRC's post-1970s allegations include:
|
Summary conclusion. The often repeated lie that the translation of the first sentence of the article was "fraudulent" is a fantasy -- it is now shown that this lie is part of a bigger fraud. It is a scam.
It is demonstrated that this fraud was constructed by Bobthefish2 and not supported by WP:V + WP:RS. Nevertheless, Qwyrxian continues to be unable to distinguish fantasy from reality, factoid from fact, verified from unverified, etc.
The so-called "compromise" sentence is fatally flawed.
Do you understand what I have written. If not, please ask questions. Let me try to explain again in different words.
Can you suggest any part of this which could have been left out? Can you point to any sentences which would have been deleted? Can you help me see how this could have been shorter?
This is not simple. --Tenmei (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- You are kindly requested to stop guessing my motives and/or reasoning; none of this is relevant. However, I must sincerely thank you for your listing of the info above; while I had read the MOFA cite before I hadn't realized how badly we had misinterpreted it. I'll bring this to the article page. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the interpretation of the MOTA site is not that important to this stage of the discussion. While the attribution part of your proposed compromise is not necessarily 100% accurate, I believe we've also explicitly made it known that whatever you proposed is just a basic idea or a draft. If we want to make the attribution 100% appropriate (which we probably do), then it's only a simple matter of opening up another small discussion on how to make it right. But for now, I think we are at the stage of debating whether or not there should be any attribution at all (which, according to the discussions in the talk page, seems quite necessary for WP:NPOV).
By the way, railing against the imperfections of a draft does not help the overall editorial process especially if no constructive input is given. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)- Nevermind, it appears User:Qwyrxian was not referring to the issue of attribution after all, but something else. Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Let's block bobthefish2
Hello User:Phoenix7777, how's it going? It appears that User:John Smith's has filed a complaint of misbehaviour on User:Bobthefish2. Since I am under the impression that you have much to complain about this pesky Chinese editor as well, your opinion on this is going to be very helpful to our friend User:John Smith's cause. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Table
- Table deleted from Foreign Relations of Japan#Disputed territories
Please review the table I have re-created here at Counterargument#Counterexample.
- Do you have suggestions about improving specific cells in this matrix?
- Are you willing to make suggestions about how the information in the table can be more effectively explained
for those who are unfamiliar with this subject?
In the coming weeks, perhaps we can locate and upload additional images which verify this counter-argument to irredentism in a way that words alone can not convey. --Tenmei 23:43, 24 February 2011
I have uploaded File:Atlas 1960 Senkaku.jpg and it is added to this table.--Tenmei 02:19, 25 February 2011 --Tenmei (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
RFC/U on Tenmei
As an editor who has interacted with User:Tenmei on the Senkaku Islands pages, I would like to inform you that I have filed a Request for comment on user conduct of Tenmei. You may read that RFC/U at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei, and are welcome to comment on it as explained at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance2 once it has been certified. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
WQA
Hello, Phoenix7777. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for my belated reply. The thread was already archived to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive99#User:Phoenix7777. I checked the thread, but there is no comment by reviewers. I haven't seen such an unanswered thread in WP:WQA before. Was there any problem with your thread?
- By the way, I noticed that you haven't replied to User:Diannaa's talk page where you requested for comment yet. I think it is a courtesy to show your appreciation to the response you requested to User:Diannaa. Diannaa replied "Many of your comments towards other users are inflammatory and are leading to an un-collegiate atmosphere on the talk pages you choose to edit. Perhaps a relative newcomer such as yourself might be better off starting out editing less contentious articles at first and then coming back to this work later in your Wikipedia career." ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Woo... this has been a while. Wikipedia is a place anyone with any qualification can participate. Since there is close to zero quality control in this place, I wouldn't place such a high regard to the consensuses established or the feedback from admins or other individuals.
- With that said, I've offered you a non-combative response and I think we can leave it at that.
Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Bridge used by everyone
Phoenix7777 -- Have you encountered this Nikkei (日系人, Nikkeijin) poet?
- With new hope.
- We build new lives.
- Why complain when it rains?
- This is what it means to be free.
- -- Lawson Inada
When you try to be a bridge to the future, it's not easy or simple; but it is a good investment. --Tenmei (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Formal mediation has been requested
Formal mediation of the dispute relating to Senkaku Islands has been requested. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. For an explanation of what formal mediation is, see Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy. Please now review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then, in the "party agreement" section, indicate whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 04:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Please consider what I have written at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands#Additional issues.
- Would adding these corollary issues make you more willing to agree to mediation?
- Would you recommend re-writing any part of this draft text?
- What are your thoughts? --Tenmei (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted your edit in good faith: it doesn't make sense to compare a 2010 figure from one source and associate it with a separate variable elsewhere from 2009. It would be similar to comparing 2007 Toyota car sales in Manhattan, New York, as reported by the Washington Post, with 2006 Toyota car sales in New York, as reported by the Chicago Post. Such a comparison would also be WP:OR in itself.
As for the discrepancy in figures, I've replied to your post on my talk page; I've thought of a few possible situations, but nothing can absolutely explain the mismatch with absolute certainty. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 12:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. I just wanted to clarify the difference between 127,282 and 66,159 is not presumed to be a figure for Hong Kong and Macau. How about adding "(including 21,518 in Hong Kong and Macau)" immediately after "127,282"? Then we can easily tell there is a considerable discrepancy between the two census. The figure 21,518 in 香港総領事館(p.36) includes the figure in both Hong Kong and Macau.(p.64) ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that seems fine. Though, doesn't Japanese people in Hong Kong already mention the figure quite clearly? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 04:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right. However as I explained above, I myself misunderstood the figure for Hong Kong. I will also add "nearly a half of the Japanese statistics." to the last sentence in order to indicate the discrepancy between the two stats. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that seems fine. Though, doesn't Japanese people in Hong Kong already mention the figure quite clearly? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 04:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I understand your desire to delete the association of horse meat with Dog meat
The meats I have listed are viewed in similar/logical consequence here in American culture, and in readership of English Wikipedia, namely American people(and closest international constituents) typically find consumption of the following meats: cat, dog, horse among various others as unusual or even immoral. I understand your need to maintain a certain level of white pride and Asian cultural-secessionism: disassociating certain European and close western-ally Asian taboo meat culture/nations with others and make an outright disconnect in these taboo meat articles relative to dog meat, which have their largest proportion of consumers in such places as China, Korea and Vietnam: whereas cat and horse meat the partiality toward the eastern/central Asians and that of non-Asians is far less. But this is nothing to do with proper presentation of white people's eating habits, or the eating habits of American's closest ally nations should be seen. The inclusion of horse meat in the See Also section constitutes a consistent American reader-observation of relevant facts and comparative study to the culture of eating these animals to which American and other "democratized" people should objectively examine, and not feel humiliated, like how the editors and Dog meat article-controllers here are doing here by omitting direct reader-access to these relevant articles for comparative examination. Of course, as difficult as it may be for some of you to accept, the link to horse meat and other relevant "taboo meats" will be included in the See Also section. 99.130.8.150 (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Request for mediation accepted
This message is to inform you that a request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Senkaku Islands, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. Mediation of this dispute will begin within two weeks (once a mediator has been assigned to the case), so please add the case page to your watchlist.
- For an explanation of what is involved in formal mediation, see Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy#Mediation
- For a guide to accepted cases, see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide#Case phase
The entirety of the above two pages (the MedCom policy and the guide to formal mediation) are also important reading for editors who are new to formal mediation. If you have any questions, please post them onto the case talk page, or contact the MedCom mailing list.
For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 15:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Ridiculous -- yes
At Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute#"Simply being of the opinion", I repeat the words of John Smith's as if they were my own: It's ridiculous to keep proposing name changes until people come up with the "right" answer. Last October, John Smith's arrow hit the mark. I get it.
Repeating the invitations which are explicit here and here, I asked Qwyrxian to consider addressing issues and questions in the diffs posted by John Smith's and by you. Continuing failure to engage directly and meaningfully is not good. --Tenmei (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
My signature
Thank you very much for pointing that out. I guess I don't click on my signature much... CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 11:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Please self revert on Senkaku Islands dispute
The tag was placed in good faith. There is a clear dispute here, based in policy. I believe that, once we work our way through mediation, it will become abundantly clear that policy supports the current name. But there is a dispute, and those disputants are not just asserting an opinion--they are legitimately interpreting data and policy differently than you and I. Please, there is no harm in the tag being there while mediation is under way (presumably it will start once the Mediator comes back to editing). Qwyrxian (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- In order to answer your post on the talk page, I would have to make their argument for them. I would prefer not to do so. But they do have a policy based argument--several, in fact. In that very section, STSC advances a policy-based argument. Previous discussions also were based on policy, based on how exactly we interpret the search results. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is smoke and mirrors. The so-called arguments which Qwyrxian proposes are best compared to hot air balloons which are untethered to the ground. Despite all the time and words invested in "hot air" arguments, no fact-based data which are inconsistent with Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute have been shown. In other words, the current name is supported by verifiable sources; and the complaints are unsupported by anything except the intensity of preference of those who argue for anything and everything except "Senkaku Islands". --Tenmei (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Need your input regarding the new editor on Dog Meat
I just opened up a thread at User Talk:Anna Frodesiak#Personal attack? regarding comments by the new editor on Talk:Dog meat, and would like your input there if you don't mind. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Getting the most out of mediation
Hi Phoenix7777. I've noticed that your edits to Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands have been quite aggressive of late and that you've taken quite a combative stance with the mediator. That's your choice, but I'm not sure it's going to allow you to get the most out of the process. As a mediator, Feezo will be looking to find compromises acceptable to all parties - that's going to mean everyone being at least a little unhappy with the option, but maybe willing to give it a go to try and solve the dispute. Sometime it may also mean bending the rules a little - Wikipedia is meant to be a pretty flexible place and guidelines can be tailored to individual articles where individual consensus requires it. Feezo's task here is to try and find a consensus among editors who haven't been able to reach one by themselves. If everyone doesn't give way a bit, then there's no real chance of solving the dispute.
I suggest you engage with Feezo - and the other participants in the mediation - a little more calmly and consider whether you are willing to compromise at all. If the only solution you're willing to accept is 100% the one you want, I'm not sure why you agreed to mediation in the first place.
I really believe you'll get a lot more out of the process if you engage with it less aggressively. Don't edit war with the mediator - if you want to be part of the process, you need to work with them - not against them. All the best, WJBscribe (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would have been better if two sentences were underscored at User talk:Feezo#Archiving Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands:
- I construe "for the time being" to suggest that we may not need to understand or accept or refuse anything. I may be wrong; and I am uncertain about the rationale which informs Feezo's mediation plan. I do grasp that waiting -- simply waiting -- is what seems to matter most for today and for the near future. --Tenmei (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Search data
Sorry about that, sure I'll explain it. STSC (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
SPI
Since you've been involved with these editors before, you might wish to review the evidence and participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KoreanSentry. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 07:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Sub-headings
If you set up sub-headings, other editors can reply by clicking the "edit" function under the sub-heading. I suggest you sign your comments within any sub-heading so that the replies do not appear as inserting into your whole comment. STSC (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I removed sub-hedings. Thank you for your advice. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
(S vs D vs D vs T vs T) vs (S vs (D or D or T or T))
I know that my answer to your question in the JSTO section is probably still a little confusing; that's mainly because it depends (I think) on the input we get from WT:NCGN. When I was typing out my answer to you, I realized that it sounds unfair to put Senkaku up against 4 other names combined; but transliteration makes this a weird issue. I think you actually have more experience with this issue than I do (I think I've seen your name come up in some of the interminable discussions about Japanese transliteration at Wikiproject Japan and other places). My intuition tells me that we should be able to compare them all separately, but I can't develop a logical proposition to support that point. Note, too, that no matter what gets decided on this one tiny point, there's so many other points (the questionable reliability of search results, the debate about where our cut-off for "recent" usage is, the encyclopedia and almanac data, etc.) all add up to a huge knot that is, understandably, difficult and/or impossible to unravel. I so wish we could just say "Look, whose military ships patrol the coastal waters of the islands"? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- The four Chinese names are transliteration of two different native name 钓鱼 (Diaoyu or Tiaoyu) and 釣魚台 (Diaoyutai or Tiaoyutai). Then if we even accept different transliteration be collectively dealt with, we should compare three different names "Senkaku", "Diaoyu or Tiaoyu" and "Diaoyutai or Tiaoyutai". " "Diaoyu State Guesthouse" doesn't make sense. Please compare with "Diaoyutai State Guesthouse" 钓鱼 and 釣魚台 are quite popular name in China and there are many other places in China. See BGN and click "search" then enter "Diaoyu" (without quote). I am afraid you are too much emphasis on JSTOR. It is one of the many supplementary tests. Moreover its hit count are very limited. We should not determine a widely accepted name only by such a limited search. Basically the guideline recommend Google Book, and HathiTrust is another large database with 8.8million of repository. We should determine the widely accepted English name by overall evidences. I don't understand your recent comment "they are nearly equal". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- I said nearly equal only in JSTOR. JSTOR is just one part of the discussion, one part of the puzzle. Specifically, JSTOR looks at a certain type of academic source, which is useful, but not definitive. I just wanted to do a complete search on it so that we could be certain what the JSTOR data says. In fact, none of the searches we can do are definitive. However, if you are saying that some of the false hits we are getting, in general, from Diaoyu are not referring to the islands, then that is a definite problem. However, places like that almost certainly won't show up in JSTOR--I sincerely doubt an academic is writing about the Diaoyu State Guesthouse. Also, a scan of the titles/abstracts indicates that those articles are likely about the islands. But, again, I'm not saying this means that the names are equal--I'm only saying that the names are approximately equal in JSTOR. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- The search results from Google Books, WorldCat, and JSTOR can be easily manually verified. I've looked through them in the past and I have never seen any book talking about a Diaoyu Zhen. Diaoyutai State Guesthouse was also explicitly accounted for. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- It appears you don't take kindly to disagreements. I am a programmer and I do not work in the medical field. Hopefully, that answers some of your questions about my hours. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- The search results from Google Books, WorldCat, and JSTOR can be easily manually verified. I've looked through them in the past and I have never seen any book talking about a Diaoyu Zhen. Diaoyutai State Guesthouse was also explicitly accounted for. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- I said nearly equal only in JSTOR. JSTOR is just one part of the discussion, one part of the puzzle. Specifically, JSTOR looks at a certain type of academic source, which is useful, but not definitive. I just wanted to do a complete search on it so that we could be certain what the JSTOR data says. In fact, none of the searches we can do are definitive. However, if you are saying that some of the false hits we are getting, in general, from Diaoyu are not referring to the islands, then that is a definite problem. However, places like that almost certainly won't show up in JSTOR--I sincerely doubt an academic is writing about the Diaoyu State Guesthouse. Also, a scan of the titles/abstracts indicates that those articles are likely about the islands. But, again, I'm not saying this means that the names are equal--I'm only saying that the names are approximately equal in JSTOR. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Posting Pointless Templates
I understand you love posting all sorts of templates on other people's talk pages, but you should try not to do that in an unnecessary manner. Just a friendly advice. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you may have read ja:認知バイアス. At Note2 in that article, please consider this very small point:
- 一部の認知バイアスは主体の「動機づけ」を反映している[2]
The concept is treated superficially in a stub article Motivated reasoning. Over the next couple of weeks, I will try to improve the quality of the writing.
I know that this is outside your normal editing area, but it may have a practical use.
Please watchlist this article. Do you have any suggestions to offer? --Tenmei (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Statistical analysis
Please give some thought to my edit here.
FACT: These are the identified participants in this thread, with the total number of edits and the percentage of edits which are in articles.
- Phead128 -- 260 edits ... 27.03%.
- Lvhis -- 329 edits ... 41.85%
- This is a single-purpose account since Feb 2011
- Compare, e.g., diff 04:28, 22 February 2011 Talk:Senkaku Islands (→The title of this article sounds quite POV: new section)
- STSC -- 548 edits ... 23.72%
- This is not a single-purpose account since Sept 2010
- Compare, e.g., diff 02:17, 24 September 2010 Talk:Senkaku Islands (→This article is now completely hijacked by the pro-Japanese contributors: new section)
- Bobthefish2 -- 1,381 edits ... 5.37% --> Wikipedia:Not here to build an encyclopedia
- This is a single-purpose account since Oct 2010
- Compare, e.g., diff 21:38, 4 October 2010 Senkaku Islands (I find the neutrality of this page to be in dispute)
- Phoenix7777 -- 2,888 edits ... 60.06%
- John Smith's -- 13,114 edits ... 49.24%
- Kusunose -- 13,417 edits ... 82.29%
- Benlisquare -- 21,609 ... 45.56%
- Oda Mari -- 24,104 edits ... 53.58%
- Qwyrxian -- 24,384 edits ... 50.13%
- Tenmei -- 54,839 edits ... 73.92%
I have sorted this list in ascending order based on total edits, but the percentages are also revealing.
The edit history of Bobthefish2 shows only 5% of his total edits are invested in articles. In contrast, 60% of your edits are related to enhancing the quality of our articles. --Tenmei (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- At Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy#Groups of disputants, factions in mediation are recognized; and they are identified as "a group".
For example, we are able discern a number of common factors in the contribution histories of Lvhis, STSC and Bobthefish2.
Stepping back, we notice thatThe edit histories of the group are characterised by a small number of total edits.We also notice that the statistical analysis is married withThere is a fine-focus attention to Senkaku Islands only.
Also, the fact that we can discern a factional group does not diminish theThere are noteworthy differences among the "disputants" in this group.It becomes evident thatThe contributions of Bobthefish2 present an anomaly in this narrowed context.I bring these facts to your attention in hopes that it helps you to better appreciateThese are some of the differences between your edit history and the contributions of others who are actively participating in our mediationexercise. --Tenmei (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- At Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy#Groups of disputants, factions in mediation are recognized; and they are identified as "a group".
Pro-Wikipedia
I propose a strategy to combat the contrived appearance of an WP:edit war by using words like this in all future edit summaries at Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute:
- This is a "PRO-WIKIPEDIA" edit. This edit is explained in detail and in advance on talk page
Please consider this pair of edits at Senkaku Islands dispute:
- diff 17:35, 19 July 2011 Tenmei (talk | contribs) (58,318 bytes) (Undid revision 440335859 by Lvhis pro-Wikipedia -- This revert explained in detail and in advance on talk page)
- diff 16:55, 19 July 2011 Lvhis (talk | contribs) (58,346 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Oda Mari (talk): This is a POV title. rv Japanese POV pushing. (TW))
The edit summary of Lvhis is an example of Framing (social science). We need to reject the false dilemma. Do you understand the meaning of the logical fallacy in a "false dilemma"?
Lvhis sets up a misleading pro vs con schema.
A better strategy is to emphasize a "pro-Wikipedia" foundation -- that is, to underscore that our edits are not
|
|
|
In point of fact, an extensive edit history informs my belief that Oda Mari's interests are demonstrably "pro-Wikipedia" ....
For us, the first and foremost question is: What is best for the long-term prospects of our collaborative editing project?
What do you think? --Tenmei (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for helping me to parse and evaluate a trivial problem. --Tenmei (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Stop harassing me
I don't know what your problem is, but I've been here on wikipedia for one month and you are already harassing me and following my every step like an obsessive person with a personal vendetta. And seriously, "thank you" for wanting to start a possible edit war with my edits (I really have no desire in participating, I noticed it on my watch page). Also, reasons:
- V-1_flying_bomb#Japanese_versions - "Ume" is a Japanese term and "plum" is the English term. Thus I replaced "ume" with "plum" in the translation in this English wiki.
- Fireworks - I've added basic information that you removed for being "unsourced" like that, but now I have provided a reference in detail.
- Vinegar#Fruit - I removed info of the byproduct Umezu (sour plum liquid) not being a true vinegar in an article about vinegar, trivial info as stated in the edit summary and there is no mention of it being considered a vinegar-ish product to warrant the info being in a vinegar article. Also it is unsourced, which I find ironic since you give anyone a hard time about basic info being unsourced (and remove it) while this is added back by you unquestioned too. Though this wasn't even a reason for me to remove it. Might as well make a list of what is not vinegar there.
Either report me for whatever you are accusing me or let me be. I'm dead serious, report me or let me be. Caca7 (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)