User:Enkyo2/Sandbox-Q

Avatar

Avatar (film): It is hard to fill a cup which is already full.

Mentorship

For Complaints? ................................................................................ click HERE

He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool. Shun him.

He who knows not, and knows that he knows not is simple. Teach him.

He who knows, and knows not that he knows, is asleep. Wake him.

He who knows, and knows that he knows is wise. Follow him.

-- Richard Burton translation of Persian proverb -->

Mistakes are a fact of life. It is the response to error that counts. – Nikki Giovanni

Lowry, Paul Benjamin; Aaron Mosiah Curtis and Michelle Rene Lowry. "A Taxonomy of Collaborative Writing to Improve Empirical Research, Writing Practice, and Tool Development." Journal of Business Communication (JBC), Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 66-99, 2004.
Zhang, Xiaoquan (Michael) and Feng Zhu. "Group Size and Incentives to Contribute: A Natural Experiment at Chinese Wikipedia," American Economic Review, forthcoming

Wikipedia:Process is important

Messages? comments?

Add new threads below

Thanks for taking the time to tidy up my additions to John Tilley (diplomat). New user and a bit bewildered.

JCTilley (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

AFD

I have nominated two of your articles for deletion (Mohammad Gulzar Saifi and Joshua Greenberg). I know you're banned from editing now, but if you wish to participate in the AfD discussions, I will make a request to one of the bigwigs at ArbCom on your behalf. Can't say it will do anything though. After your probationary period is over, I also recommend that you consider deleting most of the idioms that you've added to Wikipedia (after copying them to Wiktionary if they're not already in there), according to the recommendations at WP:DICTIONARY. Things like "learning [something] the hard way", "teachable moment", "square peg in a round hole", etc. belong in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Akishino in Hague with Dutch PM August2009.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Akishino in Hague with Dutch PM August2009.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Mosmof (talk) 05:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Joseon procession in Edo 1748.jpg

That's an exceptionally thorough FU rationale that you wrote for this image! However, because it is from 1748, the author has certainly been dead for more than 70 years. Even if the publisher of the reproduction claims copyright, we can disregard it as an ineligible claim. If you read the relevant WMCommons policy, you might save yourself some time writing FU rationales in the future... Thanks,Lithoderm 17:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Friendly Suggestion

Tenmei, just a friendly suggestion--ArbCom is now voting on allowing you to resume editing under the guidance of your mentorship committee. I suggest that you stop posting to the Arbcom clarification page now and let them vote without prejudice. Your posts are sometimes rather inflammatory and borderline disrespectful. Just stop posting altogether and let them vote now. Just a suggestion. (Taivo (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

I will stop posting altogether. --Tenmei (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that:

1) Tenmei (talk · contribs) may edit Wikipedia under the guidance of his self-declared mentors (Nihonjoe (talk · contribs), Kraftlos (talk · contribs), Coppertwig (talk · contribs), Leujohn (talk · contribs), Jmh649 (talk · contribs), McDoobAU93 (talk · contribs)). The period of mentorship will last six months from the date on which this motion passes, although it may be extended with the agreement of Tenmei and one or more mentors. Tenmei is strongly encouraged to seek advice and guidance from his mentors regularly. Should they deem it necessary, Tenmei's mentors may return to the Arbitration Committee for clarification of any editing restrictions or questions with respect to the terms of mentorship. Editors who come into conflict with Tenmei are advised to contact the mentor(s) either publicly or via email.

2) Tenmei is reminded of the remedies from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty that apply to him. Specifically:

Tenmei is topic-banned from Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty for a period of six months. He is permitted to comment on the talkpage, so long as he does so in a civil fashion. (The six-month period will commence from the date on which this motion passes.)

Tenmei is instructed not to interact with or comment with regard to Teeninvestor or Caspian blue on any page of Wikipedia, except in the course of legitimate dispute resolution initiated by others.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK 15:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Congratulations

Hey Tenmei Congratulations you are finally allowed to return to editting. Drop me a note if you have any concerns.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Reference creater

Hey Tenmei here is a great tool for creating references. All you need is one piece of info and it formats the rest. More of use for pubmed citations but though you might find it useful [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW this tool can also be used for the ISBN number of books such as here [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well deserving of a Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		Hey Tenmei I am amazed to see you back at editing and improving the content of Wikipedia. Your dedication in the face of adversity is I must say impressive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Stub templates

Hi Tenmei ! I saw that you've started adding stub templates to various japanese mathematicians. I don't think that is really a good idea in that form. A single stub template might encourage a reader to contribute, though it often not really required. However this list of stub templates in article probably is more likely to irritate readers (personally I think it looks outright ridiculous).--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that a wider than average range of stub tags were added because similar articles already had different tags. Which was best? Which was tangential? Rather than making any guesses, I carefully respected the decision-making of those who originally added these various tags. In adding them to similar article, I simply replicated the decisions others made. As for what it all means in terms of practical consequences, who knows?

It is impossible to know how valuable or useless these kinds of tags might be. If this trivial gesture served to invite or encourage the contributions of a range of editors, good. It seemed a small enough step in a constructive direction.

You think the tags are too many -- fine. This mild concern is easily resolved.

None of the implied questions have easy answers. --Tenmei (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

References

Hey Tenmei I have added the bit about SSRIs and suicide in Japan Major_depressive_disorder#Suicide. Can you make sure the reference works for the text I have? I assume you can read Japanese better than I? Many thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Rice, baby!

I noted you put some work into NERICA; I found some news on the project's further development which might be interesting to you and/or benefit from your contribution. See here. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

elephant in the room

The following was copied to Talk:Elephant in the room. --Tenmei (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Tenmei,

this edit is not always a useful one. I often have a hard time researching/checking books from sources and citations here and, like you, I search with google books. Now I suppose this particular book (Journal of education) is on google books making the deleting of the quote less harmful in this article, but we shouldn't delete "in-article quotes" for the sake of it being hard to find some books so easily. :) Anyway, with that edit you also deleted Balbus the Younger :P but it's okay. I'm not a native English speaker so I do not feel extremely strongly about the article, but I found it rather weird you deleted it :P

The thing I wanted to know was that

"Most of the questions are infantine and less amusing than the prehistoric Balbus and his wall: "Is there an elephant in the class-room?"." __________. (1915). Journal of education, Vol. 37, p. 288; a factoid that "Balbus built a wall" comes from a Latin exercise book in use in British Empire education around 1900 -- exercises from Latin to English, vice versa or both with sentences like "Balbus murum fecit."

says factoid. Did that mean that the phrase "Balbus murum fecit" did not come from the Latin-Enlgish exercisebook? why doesn't it say where it actually comes from since someone on wikipedia thinks of it as a wikt:factoid, I didn't understand that. So I asked on the talkpage, but I see your point when you said "off-topic". The rest looks fine to me now

Greetings :) 81.68.255.36 (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I regret causing this off-topic problem.

In my search for information about the idiomatic expression "elephant in the room," I encountered a number of things I didn't understand. If something was off-topic, I set it aside. I did not use all the information I discovered. This is normal, is it not?

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) explained that the expression seems to have been coined in 1959. I also remembered reading an inconsistant sentence in a 1915 British journal. Per WP:NPOV, I posted the OED as a cited fact; and I paired it with a linked citation which contradicted the 1950s date. I hoped this would create a foundation for further investigation and clarification.

For the purposes of our Wikipedia article, the 1915 rhetorical question stands on its own -- "Is there an elephant in the class-room?" I was puzzled by the context; and I was vexed that I couldn't understand it. Perhaps I should have left it for someone else to learn the hard way? Instead, I reasoned that someone checking my source citations would likely wonder about the off-topic context in which the elephant in the room was found. This is reasonable, is it not?

I googled "balbus"; and a short blog-thread suggested helpful theories here. In addition, I located the following excerpt from a 1906 book review in the New York Times.

"Some years ago an educator had an idea; instead of requiring his pupils to write about Balbus and Caius, who always "muros aedificabant," he had them translate into Latin stories of Padius, who built the stairs in his new house very steep, because he said he found that for one time he went up them he came down half a dozen times. That idea made even Latin prose composition interesting to the compositors." -- "Amusement and Instruction," New York Times Review of Books.February 3, 1906.

In Google books, I searched for "Balbus murum fecit," and the first "hit" here identified the phrase as an ancient paradigm. This led me to conclude that I had encountered one of those phrases which were assumed to be common knowledge. In other words, I guessed that this Latin phrase was considered within the English lexicon of the Victorian era. If 21st century readers like me don't understand the context and signficance, that knowledge-gap is not necessarily significant.

I also found a book which mentioned Balbus in the context of an elementary textbook here. I leared that James Joyce incorporated references to Balbus in the pages of Finnegan's Wake.

At this point, I believed I had aggregated sufficient verification to support a brief inline comment which was flagged with the term "factoid."

I was wrong. This was one of those times when the attempt to be helpful produced results which were unhelpful. I'm sorry.

According to the Wikipedia article, a factoid is something which is repeated so often that it is believed to be valid or true. The factoid in this instance refers to Balbus and an associated activity — building walls.

As I read it, the noun "factoid" bears no realtionship to the explicit provenance of the phrase. Children in the 19th century learned to write by copying and translating the Latin phrases about the Romans. For example, my guess is that the textbook which was famous around the turn of the century was perhaps this one -- Heatley, Henry Richard and Herbert Napier Kingdon. (1882). Gradatim, an Easy Latin Translation Book, Oxford: Oxford University Press. OCLC 77762862

THE RELATIVE. § 21. (a) The Relative is used to avoid repeating a word
(called its Antecedent) already used once. Video murum, quern Balbus aedificavit. / see the wall, which Balbus built. If there were no Relative we should have to say, Video murum, et Balbus eum murum aedificavit. I see the wall, and Balbus built that wall. Thus it has also the force of a Conjunction, and serves
to connect Sentences. -- Heatley, Henry Richard et al.
(1882). Gradatim, an Easy Latin Translation Book, p. 34., p. 34, at Google Books

It is a fact that Balbus and his activities are linked to childhood learning, but anything about what Balbus did or did not do would have been a mere factoid in the absence of other corroborating data.

I have not discovered whether Balbus in the children's books is a generic figure or whether it was intended as a reference to a specific historical person.

Do you see the difference? Does this answer your questions? Does this mitigate the problems my misjudgment has caused?

I wonder, did Balbur become something like an "elephant in the room?" --Tenmei (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, at first I thought you had it mixed up, but I had not read your explanation well enough. I understand it now :) I will be honest with you, though. The way you put it confused me a bit, but in the end the sources you provided gave me enough to understand what you said. About the R. J. Schork "Latin and Roman culture in Joyce", the Balbus mentioned there (and consequently James Joyce's A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man or just Portrait how Schork calls it) is on a graffito painted by some English schoolboy on a door of a closet. So that is not actual usage of Balbus in schoolbooks, but of course it shows that "Balbus built walls" was used to teach those kids. :) Oh yes, the Balbus actually is the Elder and not the Younger, because of the triumvirs and relation to Caesar. I noticed you already knew that ;) About the relation between Balbus and the elephant in the room phrases, I think (I'm not a native English and I don't live in 1915, so I don't know) that the phrase 'elephant in the room' was by the time worn out, but not as much as 'Balbus built walls' (at least from 1882-Gradatim, an easy Latin translation book- to 1915-Journal of education-). The writer of the Journal of education did find Balbus more amusing than the elephant, though. Thank you and greetings! 81.68.255.36 (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of John O. Merrill

A tag has been placed on John O. Merrill requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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. Etrigan (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, but the questions on my talk page are ones you need to think about. On my talk page where you asked about restoring the article, I asked two questions. If you can comment on them it would help. So far the article's history is as follows:

Speedy deletion requested by user:TransporterMan May 21 - deleted May 22.
Request for a copy of the text to work on, and reconsideration, on my user talk page June 16/17. Text provided by email and questions asked to help identify status of topic.
No reply on these, but article directly recreated instead June 17.
Speedy deletion requested by user:Etrigan June 17, for the same reason as before.
Speedy delete request removed by yourself, about 4 hours later.

I have moved this article to your user space at User:Tenmei/John O. Merrill for now, where you are welcome to continue working on it, and removed the recreated version. Before reinstating it in mainspace, may I ask that you consider the issues raised now by 2 users and on my talk page though? Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Enkyo2. You have new messages at Etrigan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've done a bit of copyediting to the John Merrill article (diff). Mainly I haven't changed the content, I've merged short paragraphs together, fixed some grammar points, and it now flows a lot better. A few points in one place probably need citing on each statement not just one cite at the end of the paragraph, I've tagged them as "cite needed". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This may interest you.....

WP:RB#20th_century_architecture.

GA is quite achievable for the John Merrill article. Perhaps others too. You may need to do some extra research, but it looks like "your kind of thing".

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

G-20 Participants

Let's continue this on the G-20 Toronto summit talk page as you've said. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Citation format

Tenmei - I just noticed that on 2010 G-20 Toronto summit, you've been diligently adding references (which is good) but doing so without using the proper reference templates and removing the template format from pre-existing refs (which is bad). Please don't remove the template from references that already use it and, when adding new references, use one of the templates available here. Thanks. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see my response and comments at Talk:2010 G-20 Toronto summit/Archives/1#Citation format. --Tenmei (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Summit preparations

Hello, I noticed you've created the preparations page already. But as of now I sort of have second thoughts as to whether there really should be a separate article for preparations. The preparations section in the main article seems to look much simplified to be described in one article. In the meantime, I feel preparations of the summit isn't all that notable enough to have it's own page, but if you could expand that page a lot larger than the preparations section of the main article, that could probably better justify the split. εεℓαм sтуℓεz (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see my response and comments at Talk:2010 G-20 Toronto summit preparations#Summit preparations. --Tenmei (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Rationale Standardisation

Thanks, have added the appropriate template from your information :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

G-20 template

Hello, that edit was kind of a trial actually. Just wanted to see if it could be possible to have them together for easier access. It can always be reverted if it is found inappropriate. εεℓαм sтуℓεz (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I never had any doubt that your edit was open-ended. --Tenmei (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

AU, AESAN and NEPAD

Yes, I have the same problem as well. The links rerouted to unrelated pages which had me confused for sometime until I saw you had the same problem. For me, the second external link you gave me redirected to a previous edit of the Telugu language article; very odd...

Anyhow, I don't understand which edit you were talking about. I don't think I made any major edits in the past 24 hours regarding AU, AESAN, or NEPAD in the 2010 G-20 Toronto summit article. I only remember changing African Union to AU on both the List of G-20 summits page and the Toronto summit page. Can the edit(s) in question be explained a little more, disregarding the links? Eelam StyleZ (Talk · Contributions) 20:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The current edit with the Toronto summit article is fine as well, however it might benefit if there was a way to highlight the fact that one leader represented two bodies at a time. That would however be a bit difficult but I guess we can put that aside for now. With regards to the word sherpa, I am not familiar with the word completely--I took the word from this site which I used as a source in some places in the Toronto summit article. And about my role with developing the Toronto summit article: thank you for the compliment, though I didn't really consider myself to be a "guide." It was sort of my intention from the start to document all the dramatic events of the Toronto summit in a quality Wikipedia article, which resulted in our end product (usually I develop some existing Toronto-related articles to encyclopedia quality). Eelam StyleZ (Talk · Contributions) 02:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved your question from Wikipedia talk:Village pump to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#System errors

Wikipedia talk:Village pump is for discussion about the Village pump itself. I moved your question to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#System errors and replied there. Anomie ⚔ 20:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Toyohara Chikanobu

I'm not quite certain that Chikanobu documented both wars. I'll do the research (his senso-e) is not my specialty.

///// I've done the research and Chikanobu documented, employing triptychs, the "Korean Disturbance/Uprising"(*1), the First Sino-Japanese War, and the Russo-Japanese War. In other words, there are dated, signed triptychs which is sufficient proof (I hope for anyone), that he documented these wars. An auction house pamphlet, in my mind, is poor documentation - these houses can and do make errors; on-line ones, such as artelino, have been known to make errors as well, and quoting them as sources is not as reliable as reading the date and signature on the actual print.

1 The Satsuma Rebellion/Boshin War (I prefer to think of it as "The Japanese Civil War") may have been documented first-hand; that and the "Korean Disturbance" may have been documented with single ōbans, as well as triptychs.

I don't know if it's your error as an editor, or a reprinting of the actual entry in Christie's and the entry in Gobrick's, (footnote #'s 4,5,6,8) but Chikanobu's art name was Yōshū Chikanobu, not Yoshu Chikanobu. The "ō" is not the same letter in Japanese as the "o" and the "ū" is a different letter than the "u." Any source that mistakes the two letters is not to be regarded as reliable in any way; if the source cannot spell an artist's name correctly, then any other information that source propounds must be regarded with question. Would you confuse zahler und zähler; would you confuse ano y año? If the dash above the "o" and "u" is not available to the editor, then the simplification of "ou" and "uu" may be employed. In the near future I'm going to attempt to improvethe English you've employed; it is choppy and lacks coherence. If you wish to discuss my changes in this format I'm quite compfortable with it.. GaryD144 (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Your edit here represents the conventional spelling for this article -- Yōshū.

I draw no inferences from the absence of macrons in The Japan Times or Christie's sale page. The relevant citations were not homogenized with the spelling of the first paragraph of the article. Please do feel free to create spelling consistency in this article. I hope in future you will not construe my neutral intentions or questions as disputing or disagreeing. However, there is an inherent flaw in the otherwise reasonable approach you have taken to this subject. This doesn't in any way imply or impute factual error Please try to understand that this so-called "flaw" is somewhat outside your off-wiki expectations.

A core principle of Wikipedia is "verifiability" which means something different in this online venue than in real life. This concept is summarized in this way:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

In my view, you appear to be primarily concerned with whether something is true or not true or correct. Yes, this is a core element of academic credibility; however, verifiability as construed in our Wikipedia venue is a little different.

As far as I'm concerned, this does not need to be resolved today, nor perhaps anytime soon. If it becomes a problem at some point in the future, we can address this together at that time. --Tenmei (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly:

A writer mistranlates a word, misunderstands a sentence and has this information published (even though it is untrue), it then becomes gospel as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Is this what you are saying? GaryD144 (talk) 06:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What I'm trying to understand is the concept of "verifiabilty."

Is this a writer who states something in a published article/book? Is this a piece of printed, dated, and signed artwork (which is obviously "published"), such as woodblock prints made during the Meiji era? If there should be a conflict between the magazine article written in the 21st Century and published in a current magazine/journal versus the woodblock print, which is more "verifiable", or is stating the information seen on the piece of artwork considered "primary research"?GaryD144 (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurdum -- yes. Obviously, an absurd outcome is not the ultimate goal of this core policy. Compare WP:Fringe; but yes, sometimes the logical reasoning of WP:V has produced an unwelcome consequence. For example, you may be interested in a strange thread which unwinds at Talk:Sakanoue no Tamuramaro.

I do not want to be argumentative, but perhaps I do need to mention that WP:V is to be construed in conjunction with advisories which emphasize that Wikipedia allows no original research. A difficult concept for me is the policy which discourages synthesis.

I am no expert on these matters, but I did notice that there are no specific sources cited which would make clear -- even to someone who knowns nothing about Japanese art -- that the article about Toyohara Chikanobu is reliably accurate. I simply mention it; and you are free to ignore this observation, if you like.

If this is not a topic which interests you, that's also fine; but there you have it. --Tenmei (talk) 07:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I would very much like to discuss the concepts above with you at a later time.GaryD144 (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the "formatting information" to a repeating footnote. I would like to introduce the concept of "genres", i.e. sensō-e, bijin-ga, etc. to the article, accompanied by a representative example of each to the right. Would this fall within the Wiki guidelines for articles such as this? This would fall just above "selected works" and below "formats."GaryD144 (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you be comfortable with: "He also created works which illustrated the period of domestic unrest which led the samurai supporting the shogunate into an uprising against the Emperor which might have delayed Japan's entry into the modern world." rather than: "He also created works which illustrated the period of domestic unrest which encompassed the samurai uprising which tried to delay Japan's entry into the modern world." I'm afraid nuances of the word encompassed doesn't provide the meaning I wish to impart. GaryD144 (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryD144 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend the removal of footnote #6:^ Gobrich, "Edo to Meiji," Japan Times. March 6, 2009; excerpt, "[Chikanobu] was originally a samurai vassal of the Tokugawa Shogunate who saw action in the Boshin War (1868-69), which ended the country's feudal system." this is alreaady encompassed in the obituary. Do you feel that another citation by Gobich is required? GaryD144 (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryD144 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

GENRES What I would like to accomplish (with your help) is to place a copy of http://chikanobu.com/shinrefer.asp #28 just to the right of "bijin-ga" as an example. GaryD144 (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

//// It works rather well - thank you. But I would like to place 5 more examples (from 5 different series) across in a row under bijin-ga next to the one I've placed there already, to demonstrate why he was considered a master of this particular genre. Can you tell me how to accomplish this?GaryD144 (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

//// Would appreciate any comment re the current image display formatGaryD144 (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

////Re the triptychs: I would be happy to bow to your aesthetic sensibilities, but I think the layout looks far better with only two triptychs per row.GaryD144 (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

//// What I would like to accomplish in the "genre" section is the placement of differing size thumbnails horizontally adjacent; e.g. placing a triptych (widths=300px heights=150px) next to a oban yoko-e (widths=150px heights=100px) on the same row (rather than vertically - easily done but usig too much space). Can you suggest a method?GaryD144 (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but I decided to take a different tack to enter/format the different size images.GaryD144 (talk) 07:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I corrected the date (Meiji 8) to 1875 from 1876. Reference "The Kanji Dictionary" by Spahn and Hadamitzky, Tuttle, Boston**Tokyo, 2nd Printing, 2002, pg. 1664 (as well as many other resources). 1868 was 元年 gannen the first year of a reign. For simplicity I subtract 1(one) from the first year and add the number, e.g. Meiji 8 = 1868-1 8=1875.GaryD144 (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. For your convenience in future -- see Gregorian calendar/nengō conversion chart associated with succession box at bottom of the page at Meiji period. --Tenmei (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

RFC/U

Hello Tenmei. I feel honoured by your request. However, I am no Shakespeare, either. :-) From what I take from the comment by the arbcomm member, you have every right to post your view in the RFC/U as you've just done so, so no worries. :-) Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Teeninvestor RFC

Hi, I read your outside view, it certainly looks moderate and forward looking and you've done a good job looking at the issue from different sides. Im not the best at copy editing Im afraid, especially when I dont really understand where someones comming from. Despite mostly likeing your view I havent endorsed as I dont agree Teeninvestor should be under any preasure to comply with the "desired outcome" unless he wants to. It might seem to imply that hes admiting hes at fault, and yes while theres been some valid criticism that I hope he takes on board, I dont think the RFC overall has been fair to him. Anyway Im not planning to take much further part in it, lets see what others think. Thanks for the note! FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Treaty of Chemulpo

These works documented the Korean Riots of 1882 leading to the Treaty of Chemulpo, Why was this removed - there are prints signed by Chikanobu in existance documenting this problem . GaryD144 (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see explanation at Talk:Toyohara Chikanobu#Treaty of Chemulpo.

In addition, please review the edit history at Toyohara Chikanobu. You will notice that the edit summary does suggest that further explanation will be found on the talk page --

dif 22:24, 22 July 2010 Tenmei (talk|contribs) m (23,834 bytes) (→Career: moving to talk page the Korean Riots of 1882 leading to the Treaty of Chemulpo?)

If my prose on the talk page is unclear, please give me a chance to explain again in different words. --Tenmei (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

American official war artists

Good job, great article. Where did you get the idea, out of curiosity? Sadads (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for asking an open-ended question.

A. On one hand, the simple answer is this painting: File:Munnings draft-horses Dreux 1918.jpg. I can't remember where I saw it, but I think this painting or something very like it was put up for auction at Christie's during the early 1990s.

B. The more complicated answer is that American official war artists fit into the schema of a number of other articles I created or worked on, e.g.,

In each of these broader topics, I'm paying attention to the changeable relationships within related cohorts. In other words, I'm treating the research and article development as a series of concurrent historiography exercises. This is still a work in progress. --Tenmei (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Haha, great. I just noticed that it wasn't created until after United States Army Art Program got a DYK and I was wondering if that had triggered the interest. But I see you have a much broader learning objective and I think that is great. I find, when I am writing papers for school, I can do work on Wikipedia that will help me become much more familiar with how the knowledge behind the subject comes together. And in anycase, boldness in new subjects often creates great learning points. Keep it up, and if you need someone to review something, etc. Feel free to contact me, Sadads (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: 2nd opinion: War art, Military art

I am noting allot of WP:OR, namely Wikipedia:Synthesis in your edits/talk at both of these articles. You seem to be having a problem sorting WP:V from WP:OR. I have noted the specific problems at Talk:Military art and since you seem to be (or were) under a mentorship program I have left a note with one of your mentors. Ohioartdude2 (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban proposal

Hi. Not completely sure whether you are allowed to post your opinion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Interaction ban proposal, but I believe you have a right to know that some plan to impose the same ban on me as they did on you. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Chinese economic reform

Would you mind if I undid this edit? I'm not concerned about it appearing as if the article is based on lots of books (looking at the bibliography for a few moments should demonstrate that), but giving the authors their due. I don't know if they're chapters of a book, or essays within a compilation but Brandt and Rawski aren't the only people responsible for the ideas in the article. Nev1 (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Your note

Hi, and thanks for the message but my editing involvement with Teen has been limited to our exchanges on Talk:Roman metallurgy; those exchanges are the only reason for my involvement at the RfC, my comments there and my further comments on the Admin notice board. I've given my input and opinion. I heartily agree that larger issues are involved; however I believe these would be best addressed by some change in wikipedia editing policies, or (more optimistically) by a more stringent use of current policies. Somehow. They won't be addressed in an RfC. Regards. Haploidavey (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Harold Parker by Peter Quinn NLA.jpeg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Harold Parker by Peter Quinn NLA.jpeg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Acather96 (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

War artist

Thanks for the message. I'd simply copied the image description from Commons. I've just checked, and as I thought the description had been copied from the image info at the Library of Congress when the image was uploaded to Commons. I assume the Library of Congress is a reliable source, so could be referenced as such to integrate the text into the article? I'll leave it to you if that's what you think best. Man vyi (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2010 protest Toronto.jpg

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:2010 protest Toronto.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your work on Japanese Sign Language. If you have time it would be great if you could check out the Japanese Federation of the Deaf page. Cheers, Colincbn (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Toronto Summit GAN Comments

Hmm about the first one, originally the inline citation for the sentence "Recently appointed heads of government, namely British Prime Minister David Cameron and Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan, made the G8 and G-20 summits their first diplomatic conferences" (which was actually cited on the sentence after this sentence) did not exactly mention the Muskoka and Toronto summits as the first "diplomatic conferences" for David Cameron and Naoto Kan after being elected. Instead, I believe the cited source only mentioned their presence at the summits, but not whether it was their first or not. So since the sentence "Recently appointed heads of government, namely British Prime Minister David Cameron and Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan, made the G8 and G-20 summits their first diplomatic conferences" did not initially have a citation for itself and for a more clearer verification, I cited another source that mentioned that both the Muskoka and Toronto summits were the first summits for Kan and Cameron.

And the second one, pretty much same as the first but was done inadvertently. Back in June I slightly misquoted the original statement from the source, so during the GA nomination correction, I had to copy the quote from the source correctly so that both quotes matched word to word. Hope these help and thanks for fixing up the rest of the errors on the article! EelamStyleZ (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Your upload

Regarding your upload File:Zeniya Gohei.jpg, I notice that you tagged it as non-free. Do you know when the artwork was actually created? Since it depicts someone from the 1800s, I'd think it would be likely that some form of public domain copyright tag might be more appropriate. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion.

The cartoon-like quality of the digitized image suggests that it is a contemporary impression (presumably rendered from the original portrait). No provenance is presented on the Nippon Foundation webpage from which I copied it, nor is more specific data made available on the website of the small local museum in Ishikawa Prefecture where the drawing likely originated.

In due course, perhaps another image can be substituted? --Tenmei (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Museums in Japan?

Horse equipment

Hi! Montanabw recommended you as an expert on Asian horses. For the last entry in this table (唐鞍) I am struggling a bit with the meaning or translation of Japanese terms (I don't know anything about horses, which makes it very hard to make sense of it.). Maybe you can help. The terms in question are: 八子, shirigai (尻繋), sashinawa (差縄), aori (障泥), uzu (雲珠), munagai (胸繋), ginmen (銀面). For most of these terms, I have a vague idea of what they are (translations or suggestions nevertheless welcome). The only term which I cannot really make sense of is hassi/hane (八子). (also see this discussion) Would be great if you could help me. bamse (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

National Museums Liverpool, Lady Lever Art Gallery — Saddle and harness, Japanese, 1812 and later
Powerhouse Museum — Samurai armour and horse tack which consists of: saddle, stirrups, halter, reins, girth strap and bit. See images #2 and #4.
Equine Museum of Japan (馬の博物館, Uma no Hakubutsukan); Equine Cultural Affairs Foundation

flanchards (八子, hane); compare mawashi and sagari of sumo wrestlers
crupper (尻繋, shirigai); strap running from the cantle of the saddle to the horse's dock
braided reins (差縄, sashinawa)
mud guards (障泥, aori)
ornaments (雲珠, uzu); compare sutra case, decorative bolls on roof hips
breastplate (胸繋, munagai); see NDL: 胸繋
chamfron (銀面, ginmen)headpiece resting between the ears and along the nose ridge, supported by browband; synonyms: frontstall, testiere

Hello again! Since you know much about Japanese saddles, do you feel like writing a short introductory paragraph (2-3 sentences) on Heian/Kamakura period saddles for this subsection (feel free to say no)? The text should somehow connect to the four saddles in the list. Some of the following could be (but don't have to be) mentioned: when did horses come to Japan, what material are they made of (lacquer, mother of pearl,...), what types of saddles are there (Chinese, Japanese, ritual,...), who used these saddles in which circumstances ... A similar approach with short introductory paragraphs I used in the featured List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts: swords). I'd be very happy if you could help with this. bamse (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

順風相送 reference

I don't understand this revert of your's. Maybe you can explain what problems you have with the 順風相送 reference? Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved.Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ninhon Odai Ichiran

Hello. Certainly there's no disputing the fact that the book is now in the public domain. However, it is less sure that the pictures we have are in the public domain. If they were scans or photographs that just showed the pages ("faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works"), they would surely be ok and could be tagged with {{PD-art}}. But they might not be. File:Ackerman1822.jpg (which should be {{PD-art}}) is something that clearly is a "faithful reproduction". You may can see a difference between that image and the Ninhon Odai Ichiran ones. So far as fair-use is concerned, there are photographs and scans of the translated book, and the Japanese original, out there on the internet which would surely by {{PD-art}} rather than having to be fair-use. The book could even be photographed in a library, so that a non-free image would be replaceable.

It is by no means certain that the image on Commons will be deleted. I could be wrong. I could also be wrong that there may be a problem with File:Nihon odai ichiran waseda.jpg. If you want more opinions, I suggest asking User:Stifle and/or User:Magog the Ogre and/or user:J Milburn about this question. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you identify the same problem I encountered when I was uploading similar images. The least controversial choice was to upload under fair use guidelines. I can continue to wait patiently while discussions about this subject slowly unfold. --Tenmei (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Please slow down on Senkaku Islands

While I think that the edits you are making to Senkaku Islands seem okay, you're making so many that it's very hard to keep up. Can you pause for a bit for other editors to review your work? If you don't what may happen is that someone will disagree with an edit you made ten steps back, and then end up reverting a lot of your edits in a row, even though many of them were useful. For such a contentious article, moving slower is better, I think, even on non-contentious issues. We have shown over the past several weeks that even things that seem non-controversial to one editor actually turn out to be a significant problem for others. I believe that a collaborative atmosphere will be increased if you don't make so many edits at the same time. There is no deadline--even though the article has a lot of problems, there's no big loss if some citation or spelling isn't perfect today. Of course, you are welcome to ignore this; I'm just trying to think about how best to improve the editing atmosphere there. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC

I am wrapping up a few issues for Senkaku Islands dispute. Since you are a regular participant of the page in the recent times, it would be appropriate to notify you of the discussion I started. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Senkaku--please stop

Please immediately stop adding more information to the dispute section of Senkaku Islands. We very intentionally moved all of the dispute information to Senkaku Islands dispute. The Senkaku Islands article should contain information about the islands themselves--geographical, botanical, etc. It should, in addition, contain a few paragraphs summarizing the dispute--who is involved, what are the arguments in a very very simple short way, and that is it. At least 4 different editors have said that what is there now is too much, and yet you're adding more and more. You are not only editing against consensus, you are making highly controversial additions on what is clearly a highly contentious article. Please stop--you have to understand you are making a difficult situation much worse by not checking for consensus first before making major changes. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, don't feel discouraged by this. Even if the content is too detailed for the Senkaku Islands page, it may still have its place in the Senkaku Islands dispute page. Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Maritime boundary?

Non-response is only constructive option

Why are you linking articles to the above non-existent article link? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd assume Tenmei has not noticed the discussion you started. While I doubt I will care to participate in it, I think it will be fair for him to know some people are deciding whether or not his page should be scrubbed. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to me? I didn't start the discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Setting up to fail: This thread begins with a negative assertion, a rhetorical question. It signals a cognitive bias filter which rejects all comment. --Tenmei (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

My question was not rhetorical, nor was it setting you or your answer up to fail. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I hereby award this barnstar to editor Tenmei for excellent work expanding important articles such as 2010 G-20 Seoul summit.FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yale University‎

Hello, I've posted on Talk:Yale University‎ in regards to your concern about purging the list. This has been a regular occurance which has been discussed before on many WikiProject Connecticut and wikipedia articles in general. The usual MO is to allow a little "bragging" but not to duplicate too much of the list article. If you disagree with a particular removal I can understand that but as it is a lot of lesser-notables had been added over time. Markvs88 (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Bilater/multilateral in Article: Treaty

No offence Tenmei, but the edits you made confuse the matter more for me. The material you added switches between referring to states, parties, and countries. Moreover, even under the analysis presented, it's still wrong by definition to say that a bilateral treaty can have more than two parties. As for whether a treaty between an international organisation and a state outside the organisation is considered bilateral, can you post a link to the actual agreements between Switzerland and the EU on the articles talk page (Talk:Treaty/Archives/2013#Multilateral-Bilateral_treaty_section); or if not that, a cite; or if not that, the specific name of the treaty. I'm still looking at removing the section and working one or two sentences into other text as any more would be undue weight on the matter, but even shortened, I do want it to be correct. On a more positive note, I hope I can find the Nicolson work in the library. Great to have a reference. In this case a more general, modern replacement might be better in the future, but solid start. IMHO (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

We are on the same page here. The unsourced material is now removed; and the three remaining sentences are very short and clear -- see snippet here in a 1988 reprint of Nicolson's slim book.

When I encounter text like this, my normal editing strategy involves adding innocuous prose which is scrupulously cited; and then I wait to see what happens.

In this specific instance, my guess is that the awkward parts of this section had to do with the the Schengen Agreement which was signed in the town of Schengen, Luxembourg, in 1985. The provisions of the Schengen treaty were absorbed into European Union (EU) law by the Amsterdam Treaty in 1999. As you may know, the "Schengen area" officially includes three non-EU member states, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, and de facto includes three European micro-states, Monaco, San Marino, and Vatican City. Without a specific cited source, this remains no more than an hypothesis. --Tenmei (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Duplication

Stop

660gd4qo -- Do not post any more diffs on this page.

I will not respond.

This cannot continue.

This is an impossible-to-follow attack because

you changed words while I was responding to them -- not good
you re-ordered the sequence of my diffs -- not good
you altered the thread in ways which change meaning -- not good

This makes it impossible for me or anyone else to follow the thread of discussion you have shredded.

This makes it impossible for an objective observer to parse the development of this thread.

Non-response is the only constructive option

THESE WORDS WERE DELETED here
Why you copy and paste exactly same thing at eveywhere? duplication. I feel likeit should be removed. Even same sentence at martime boundary page is out of topic. 660gd4qo (talk) 06:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

THESE WORDS WERE SUBSTITUTED here
Hey, thanks for your work on the articles about the martime boundary with both korea. I'm especially grateful for the sources you've been able to find and add; they are a valuable resource for anyone doing research on these topics.

THIS SUBSTITUTION CREATES DISJUNCTIVE RESPONSE

660gd4qo -- As you must know, there are common elements which link each of the individual articles which deal with the chronology which has unfolded in the Yellow Sea since 1953.

It bears repeating for pedagocial emphasis that these articles do have some things in common.

I have been re-writing and re-configuring the sentences which mention these common factors. The editing is chiefly concerned with ensuring that the new sentences fit into the flow of several articles which were conceived and drafted by others. At this stage, my primary objectives concern parsing the cohort.

In other words, my "value added" contribution focuses on these common elements. Others are focused on other parts of a complex narrative.

Your question and comment cause me to ask two questions

Is there a specific set of sentences which bother you? If so, please share the diff with me so that I can look at it.
What article or article especially deserved my immediate attention?

Thank you for your interest in my recent edits. If there is any part of this response you don't understand, please let me know. I will try to explain again in different words. --Tenmei (talk) 06:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see. Wikipedia:Duplicate articles

unnecessary duplication of content, significant overlap with the topic of another page, and minimal content that could be covered in or requires the context of a page on a broader topic.

--660gd4qo (talk) 06:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing this link; however, there is a significant difference between articles which are unavoidably related and those which are the same. This accounts for the edits I have made, but again, I can only ask for more specificity. If you identify a specific sentence, I will be glad to work with you. --Tenmei (talk) 06:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to let you know your copy & paste edit significant overlap with the topic of another page.

In addition, Maritime boundary page (you created) is significant overlap with Border. For more information, you can read Wikipedia:Duplicate articles --660gd4qo (talk) 07:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

3RR Warning

{{collapse top |premeptive warning is deprecated}} You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 660gd4qo (talk) 07:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC) {{collapse bottom}}

POV word

Your POV wording is not discussed yet. Don't revert again. [3][4] 660gd4qo (talk) 07:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing objectively improper or problematic in any of my edits. You seem to have a subjective problem. Discuss this on the talk page as my revert suggested. Whatever your problem might be, this is not the venue for addressing it. --Tenmei (talk) 07:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

660gd4qo -- I see from your contributions that you have been contributing to Wikipedia since 2009; and therefore, it is reasonable to ask you to indent your comments so that the sequence of diffs is less confusing.

I will not respond to these complaints here because the article talk page is the appropriate place for it. However, I will say that it will take me longer to respond than it took for you to type this bullet list. You will need to allow a more reasonable time frame for responding.

As a gesture of good will, I have responded already to one very simple problem. The word "unilateral" is in the text of the Time article which supports the sentence in which you discovered cause for offense. You can read this article for yourself by clicking on the embedded hyperlink which was always part of the inline citation.

The mere fact that you use the short hand letters "POV" proves that you are familiar with the way things work in our Wikipedia venue. Good. We are in agreement in the pursuit of neutrally-written prose in all articles, and especially in ones which are topical and controversial. --Tenmei (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Overlapping Topic

Your copy & paste style edit is significant overlap with the topic of another page

In addition, Maritime boundary page is significant overlap with Border -- 660gd4qo (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

660gd4qo -- Thank you for this list. I will take a second look at each; and as I re-read the sentences, and I will think of ways to edit them. However, the overlap of topic is not a problem I recognize; rather, these are necessary enhancements of missing aspects of these related articles.

IMO, this should be continued on the talk page of each of the articles you have listed above. This will take some time. No one can be expected to address these kinds of issues quickly. I cannot accept the unstated premises which are not explicit, but only implied. --Tenmei (talk) 07:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I urge that you should better stop overlapping same topic on the many pages. For example, your recent edit at Maritime boundary, Military Demarcation Line almost same thing. You can using overlapping topic with "{{main|....}}" tag. it will make it sound much more reasonable and verifiable. --660gd4qo (talk) 08:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Dispute section of Maritime boundary

Maritime boundary page should be like more academic, geologic. This page is not not history of war. this content already overlapping with List of countries and territories by maritime boundaries. If you think dispute section we needed. then what justificable reason? 660gd4qo (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing objectively improper or problematic in any of my edits. Without more specific explanation, I can only guess that you have a subjective problem. Discuss this on the talk page as my revert suggested. Whatever your problem might be, this is not the venue for addressing it. --Tenmei (talk) 07:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I feel like entire "Disputes" section should be removed.

Out of topic
Same section already exist List of countries and territories by maritime boundaries
Only one case is pointless
the example is not the good case. two conflict is "Inter-Korea" dispute. Not international dispute.
Editor's own POV Problem. (eg. unilaterally drawn)
The editor justified this section. "Many disputes have been resolved through negotiations, but not all." I feel nonsense. This is not inductive logic. 660gd4qo (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Duplicated wording

"There is nothing objectively improper or problematic in any of my edits. Without more specific explanation, I can only guess that you have a subjective problem. Discuss this on the talk page as my revert suggested. Whatever your problem might be, this is not the venue for addressing it. --Tenmei (talk) "

Like your edit style, Why copy and paste this same sentence at every discuss topic? --660gd4qo (talk) 07:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The function of repetition is to create emphasis and clarity. I wonder what part of the following is not understood? In this talk page thread, that question is rhetorical; but in the proper talk page venue, the same question is reasonable and appropriate.

For emphasis and clarity, I repeat:

A. There is nothing objectively improper or problematic in any of my edits. If you will allow time to do it, I can and will support, defend or explain each sentence.

B. Without more specific explanation, I can only guess that you have a subjective problem. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

C. Discuss this on the talk page as my revert suggested. You have an obligation to explain per WP:BURDEN. Please do so.

D. Whatever your problem might be, this is not the venue for addressing it. The talk pages of the articles you are following have talk pages for just this sort of thing. --Tenmei (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

660gd4qo -- Your rapid cascade of diffs come too swiftly.

The speed of one new diff after another allows no opportunity to respond.

You block meaningful response by posting additional complaints; and this stifles any chance for responding to anything.

As I explained again and again, your complaints can be posted on the appropriate talk page, but your gambit is no longer tolerable here.

Stop. Your aggressive actions undercut any arguable point you might otherwise seek to make. --Tenmei 09:12, 27 November 2010 Tenmei (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You attitude is highly uncivil. You should better focus on content dispute, not personal attack. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Uncivil. And, By you request, I will not post at here. 660gd4qo (talk) 09:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I will not interruption your edit. if you want delete this section, do it freely. I think dispute is waste of time. 660gd4qo (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Tenmei, I've been loosely following this dispute. I understand you have a fascination for your particular type of linguistic style, but even scientific publications written in English do not follow such a convoluted style of communication. You might find it easier to convince others of your position if you express yourself in a clear and concise manner. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

My response has two parts

On one hand ...

Bobthefish2 -- Yes, "clear and concise" is a conventional trope. As a general rule, the phrase is almost always good advice -- but not in this istance. In small ways, my writing has been modified by this wiki-collaborative writing experience; and I presume you intend your critical comment as a kind of encouragement. Thank you for your good intentions; however ....

On the other hand ...

Bobthefish2 -- No, your comments are not fair. Your assessment is not justified in this thread.

The otherwise all-purpose trope is off-target. This is because the organization of serial complaints was entirely the work of 660gd4qo.

In contrast, my diffs are only responsive.

I hope I could have done something which would have converted this into a more profitable investment of time and thought; but what? I don't know.

In the immediate press of rapid-fire, sequential diffs, my initial task was simply to respond -- to demonstrate that I was (a) willing and able to acknowledge what 660gd4qo was posting and (b) willing and able to engage the substance of what was in the jumble of diffs.

To sum up: 660gd4qo's overwhelming diffs allowed no possibility for "clear and consise" analysis nor for crisp prose. --Tenmei (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: File:Map of Korean maritime border.svg

It is not difficult to make and upload an alternate version where only 1 to 3 are marked. But I think we don't need to have such one. You see, now the place in this map are numbered in an order of importance, if you want the description more simple, just have 1 to 3 described (or 1 to 6, which includes the 2 large cities Seoul and Incheon), and ignore the rest, like the one shown on your right. If someone just want to know what 1-3 are, that'd be fine. If someone want to see more details, he could click on the map and view the details. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 04:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Your requests for commentary

I noticed you posted requests for commentary on a number of users' talk pages regarding the Senkaku Islands naming issue. My caution is that the selection of users you chose already have a pre-defined opinion on the issue (especially for John Smith's, who had already made clear his position). Since this RfC is about getting opinions of new people, I'd suggest you to instead get the attention of other non-regular users from Project China or Project Japan that you trust to be able to make objective analysis.

At the same time, you'd also want to see if WP:canvass applies to RfC's. If so, you may want to avoid doing that. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Bobthefish2 -- No, this illustrates a common English idiom — barking up the wrong tree.

If you review the RfC thread, you will notice that each of the ones I contacted were contributors in one narrow section of Talk:Senkaku Islands. If you re-visit the edit history of Talk:Senkaku Islands#What should the title of this article be?, you may notice that the blandly written messages were serially posted in the same chronological order as each of the participants' initial edits. No, there was nothing wrong. This was a good thing to do.

Yes, I am aware of WP:Canvass, but this was not canvassing in any sense.

What is more relevant is this: You have rightly complained that the RfC comments thus far were too limited, too superficial. You arguably anticipated more engagement and greater dialog; and I had hoped for more, too. In response to your express concerns, I invited added involvement from those who might have been inclined to think that, having already posted one diff, there was no need to re-visit any issues which might have been overlooked.

Please re-read the carefully drafted message which invited explicitly constructive responses to a question you have identified as an alternate way of expressing a core issue. I invite no specific action other than expanding the scope and quality of discussion. My overview comment is neutrally presented, identifying only the history which underscores this as one crux of disagreement.

On further reflection, perhaps you will come to see that this is precisely the kind of timely invitation which enhances our prospects for developing a broader consensus.

As an acknowledgement of this misunderstanding, I can do no more than to copy this to the RfC thread. This creates an opportunity for others to help me make better guesses about how this perceived problem might have been avoided. Perhaps there will be suggestions about how I could have written differently --Tenmei (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't accused you of WP:canvassing. Rather, I was simply reminding you not to be careful about that. I wrote the comment partly because I haven't seen some of the more prominent Senkaku Island editors being invited (i.e. Winstonlighter, STSC, Benlisquare, and especially PalaceGuard008). As one might find, their opinions on the matter can be expected to be quite different to the ones you've invited. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I take your point. Would it be perceived as a welcome gesture if I were to try to reach out to these formerly-active contributors at Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute? If so, I will gladly invest the requisite time. --Tenmei (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I personally don't think it makes a difference--either those people already have the article on their watchlist, or they are no longer interested in the issue (or possibly on temporary or permanent wikibreak). However, I do think it might show a wider sense of "fairness" if those 4 people were also invited (actually, 5--Phoenix7777 used to be active on the issue, too). I recommend that Tenmei do it, simply so that way it's not like "I'm inviting my side, you invite your side." I can see why Tenmei didn't previously invite the others; none of them have edited the article or talk page in the past month--I had to go back more than 500 edits in the history to find them (okay, PalaceGuard made an edit about 480 edits ago). Also, note that when I opened the RfC, I posted a message on the talk page of what I think are the relevant Wikiprojects: Japan, China, Taiwan, and East Asia. I think User:Oda Mari was smart to add a note to the talk page for Naming Conventions. If there's any other places (noting, of course, that we can't just go spam some place like the Village Pump), feel free to notify them as well (or ask me to, I don't mind). -- Qwyrxian 01:57, 1 December 2010

As a gesture of cooperation — and because of suggestions made by Bobthefish2 and Qwyrxian, I invested some time in reaching out to a few former-contributors who may still have an interest in Senkaku Islands and the Senkaku Islands dispute. I invited and encouraged further comments from these five:

However, I note that none have otherwise expressed an interest in the narrowly focused issues of our RfC. --Tenmei (talk) 07:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Ffd Threads

FfD threads collapsed

File: 1999 ROK naval action West Sea.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:1999 ROK naval action West Sea.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Update: I've also nominated a number of other images. You will see the full list on the FFD page. (I've removed a couple of repetitive notifications from this page.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File: Tertiary source 144.jpg

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Tertiary source 144.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

File: Princess Akishino JSL.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Princess Akishino JSL.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Do not reinsert that image at Bombardment of Yeonpyeong. It is long-standing policy that such images must be removed under our non-free content rules. This one is a very obvious case of inadmissible non-free use, recognisable as such to anybody familiar with current Wikipedia policy and practice. As an administrator I am obliged to enforce foundation policy in such matters, so I will block you if you reinsert it again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It is pointless when an administrator fails to explain -- especially when there is evidence of explicit, reasonable, and repeated requests for help in understanding. There is an implicit administrator obligation to participate in a teachable moment when it is coupled with the edit history here. If not, why not? --Tenmei (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation

I have deleted File:Re-enactment parade 1860-2010.jpg, a file you uploaded, under section F7 of WP:CSD. This was for two reasons - the file was replaceable (this was a public parade in the US, there must be about a million images on Flikr), and the image was from a commercial news agency, but was not itself the subject of sourced commentary in the article.

I recommend that you do not upload any more images from commercial suppliers. You seem to have no understanding of Wikipedia's non free content policy, and the use of such images on Wikipedia is a copyright violation. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought I understood; but my understanding apparently needs to be tweaked. When the edit was questioneed, I asked for more information so that I could modify the edit accordingly. Please restore the image so that I can modify it based on what I have struggled to learn in the past two days. --Tenmei (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no way you can 'modify' the image to make it acceptable to Wikipedia. This is why I am saying you appear to have NO understanding of the policy. Any image for which there is a free alternative may not be used on Wikipedia. This was an image of a public parade in the US. Images from commercial sources may only be used on Wikipedia if the image itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. All that stuff you keep repeating about the image's market role is nonsense - what it means is that you have to use low res, cropped images, to minimize the chance that people who would otherwise pay for images will just steal them off Wikipedia instead. You may not use a non free image in an article unless you can comply with all 10 points of the policy, and understand the guidelines at Wikipedia:Non-free content --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Advice

You will not be allowed to keep four non-free images in that article, so pick one, and argue to keep that.

Use in Wikipedia must be transformative. The guy who took all the little pictures of Myra Hindley and used them to make a big picture is an example of transformative. Using a copyright photograph in a photography course, to show how the photographer created the image is transformative. Writing a paragraph of text on how the image became the subject of poster campaigns, or how it shows clearly the damage to buildings which was not covered in the official news reports, these are all transformative. The articles into which you insert your images steadfastly refuse to mention the images at all in any way anywhere.

I cannot put this too strongly. You keep saying that your images are the subject of sourced commentary, when they are most definitely not. The published image of the man watching the re-broadcast event in the context of a subsequent clash is itself the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role) suggests that you have understood the more complicated part of the requirement (that it is the image, rather than the event, which is the subject of commentary), but "The subject of sourced commentary" does not just mean that a third party has published the image.

It means that in the article you want to add it to, you have some content IN THE ARTICLE which not only refers to the image, but is derived from a reliable source talking about the image.

Neither (a) to identify what the DPRK-ROK clash looked like, nor (b) to assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing description and critical commentary, are valid fair use reasons to use a commercial photograph. (b) is not a valid fair use reason for anything except book/album covers, film posters etc.

You may not use copyright images where there is, or are likely to be a free equivalent. Not a free identical image. In some case the equivalent will be text. You may not use images where text will do. The image must say something that text cannot - such as [[5]]. No amount of words can adequately convey the transformation from File:Syd6707.JPG. You have to see it. Your images fail, because they convey virtually nothing about the events you are describing.

In other cases, the answer will be a different image. I'll bet you can get plenty of images of South Koreans looking at tv screens in stations. Why is it so significant that you can see that they are watching a broadcast of old newsreel.

Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey event, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary is meaningless, and boilerplating it into every fair use rationale is not doing you any favours.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

File: 1999 ROK naval action West Sea.jpg listed for deletion ==

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:1999 ROK naval action West Sea.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Update: I've also nominated a number of other images. You will see the full list on the FFD page. (I've removed a couple of repetitive notifications from this page.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tertiary source 144.jpg

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Tertiary source 144.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

File: Princess Akishino JSL.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Princess Akishino JSL.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Do not reinsert that image at Bombardment of Yeonpyeong. It is long-standing policy that such images must be removed under our non-free content rules. This one is a very obvious case of inadmissible non-free use, recognisable as such to anybody familiar with current Wikipedia policy and practice. As an administrator I am obliged to enforce foundation policy in such matters, so I will block you if you reinsert it again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It is pointless when an administrator fails to explain -- especially when there is evidence of explicit, reasonable, and repeated requests for help in understanding. There is an implicit administrator obligation to participate in a teachable moment when it is coupled with the edit history here. If not, why not? --Tenmei (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation

I have deleted File:Re-enactment parade 1860-2010.jpg, a file you uploaded, under section F7 of WP:CSD. This was for two reasons - the file was replaceable (this was a public parade in the US, there must be about a million images on Flikr), and the image was from a commercial news agency, but was not itself the subject of sourced commentary in the article.

I recommend that you do not upload any more images from commercial suppliers. You seem to have no understanding of Wikipedia's non free content policy, and the use of such images on Wikipedia is a copyright violation. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought I understood; but my understanding apparently needs to be tweaked. When the edit was questioneed, I asked for more information so that I could modify the edit accordingly. Please restore the image so that I can modify it based on what I have struggled to learn in the past two days. --Tenmei (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no way you can 'modify' the image to make it acceptable to Wikipedia. This is why I am saying you appear to have NO understanding of the policy. Any image for which there is a free alternative may not be used on Wikipedia. This was an image of a public parade in the US. Images from commercial sources may only be used on Wikipedia if the image itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. All that stuff you keep repeating about the image's market role is nonsense - what it means is that you have to use low res, cropped images, to minimize the chance that people who would otherwise pay for images will just steal them off Wikipedia instead. You may not use a non free image in an article unless you can comply with all 10 points of the policy, and understand the guidelines at Wikipedia:Non-free content --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Advice

You will not be allowed to keep four non-free images in that article, so pick one, and argue to keep that.

Use in Wikipedia must be transformative. The guy who took all the little pictures of Myra Hindley and used them to make a big picture is an example of transformative. Using a copyright photograph in a photography course, to show how the photographer created the image is transformative. Writing a paragraph of text on how the image became the subject of poster campaigns, or how it shows clearly the damage to buildings which was not covered in the official news reports, these are all transformative. The articles into which you insert your images steadfastly refuse to mention the images at all in any way anywhere.

I cannot put this too strongly. You keep saying that your images are the subject of sourced commentary, when they are most definitely not. The published image of the man watching the re-broadcast event in the context of a subsequent clash is itself the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role) suggests that you have understood the more complicated part of the requirement (that it is the image, rather than the event, which is the subject of commentary), but "The subject of sourced commentary" does not just mean that a third party has published the image.

It means that in the article you want to add it to, you have some content IN THE ARTICLE which not only refers to the image, but is derived from a reliable source talking about the image.

Neither (a) to identify what the DPRK-ROK clash looked like, nor (b) to assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing description and critical commentary, are valid fair use reasons to use a commercial photograph. (b) is not a valid fair use reason for anything except book/album covers, film posters etc.

You may not use copyright images where there is, or are likely to be a free equivalent. Not a free identical image. In some case the equivalent will be text. You may not use images where text will do. The image must say something that text cannot - such as [[6]]. No amount of words can adequately convey the transformation from File:Syd6707.JPG. You have to see it. Your images fail, because they convey virtually nothing about the events you are describing.

In other cases, the answer will be a different image. I'll bet you can get plenty of images of South Koreans looking at tv screens in stations. Why is it so significant that you can see that they are watching a broadcast of old newsreel.

Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey event, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary is meaningless, and boilerplating it into every fair use rationale is not doing you any favours.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk back IChemE

Hello, Enkyo2. You have new messages at Steve Quinn's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Advice

Yes I am good with staying involved to a limited extent. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Tenmei (talk) 04:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for incorporating my suggestions!

		A beer on me!
		Here's a beer for your fine efforts on improving Wikipedia! Cheers! for your thoughtful consideration of suggestions related to Northern Limit Line and Military Demarcation Line. Thanks for sticking to the best WP:RS available! S. Rich (talk) 03:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your non-edit war comments! You are applying imagination and intelligence to the article. Only the basic problem is that "The NLL is the NLL and the MDL is the MDL, and never the twain shall meet." Best regards. --S. Rich (talk) 22:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Your recent note

Holiday activities have kept me from looking into the matter about which you left a note on my talk page. (I'm only checking my watchlist and maybe writing a little for the next week or two.) I try to be of help when I can, and if there's something ongoing after Jan. 3, please remind me. Best wishes for 2011, Cynwolfe (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary move/dab on SS Bonnington and others

Non-response is the only constructive option

I tried to undo your name change but for some reason cannot do it, maybe because the new Bonnington (sternwheeler) was somehow changed without "move"; can't find it in the move log, too big. All of these name changes you've made are not needed and contrary to WP:MOSNAME, where disambiguation is only used to distinguish between similarly-named items/objects. The "SS" format is standard for steamships in WP:Ships, and is also "most common usage"; there was no need at all for these moves, and they will also make linking to these items more complicated; please undo them all and bear in mind taht disambiguations are, again, ONLY for situations when there might be two vessels named Bonnington; unlikely that there would be a Sicamous or Moyie or Minto, also. Please also, without wishing to be tart about it, consider that developing the content of these articles is far more important than moving about the deck chairs, as name-moves of this kind are really only about. There is no need to "harmonize" article-name formats of this kind. It's more important to expand the articles; and always keep in mind t he utility of a link/name format. If for one don't want to have to type "(sternwheeler)" and then pipe and retype the actual name afterwards; I really would rather just type "SS Bonnington" and link that.....Skookum1 (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

See

20:08, 27 December 2010 (diff | hist) m Sicamous (sternwheeler) ‎ (moved SS Sicamous to Sicamous (sternwheeler): naming consistent with other steamboats in CPR lake and river fleet)
20:28, 27 December 2010 (diff | hist) m Bonnington (sternwheeler) ‎ (moved SS Bonnington to Bonnington (sternwheeler): naming consistent with other steamboats in CPR lake and river fleet)

No. --Tenmei (talk) 05:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Names in Early Historical Context of Senkaku Islands

I am unsure as to why you made this change where you deleted a mention of how the early Japanese text 順風相送 referred the island as "Diaoyu". While I suggested to keep the name usage as neutral as possible, I believe what the island was first called is quite relevant. If you feel the need to add in a Japanese-usage reference, feel free to dig up some legacy European-drawn Asian map that uses Senkaku Islands instead.

I am not going to revert your changes since I don't want to bother with page-long discussion, but this is something for you to think about. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Japanese era names

These changes were made, incidentally, in the course of other minor fixes. The change simplified the markup [[Japanese era|Japanese era name]] to [[Japanese era]] name. If this is incorrect, I'm sorry, but it was the original markup that was wrongly piping to a redirect, which I wasn't aware of. I didn't cause the problem, merely brought it to your attention. I will adjust my regexes so that any future conversions will change this link to simply [[Japanese era name]]. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going through simplifying the [[Japanese era|Japanese era name]] link, and unlinking [[year]], along with the odd minor fix here and there; if there are any other small tweaks that could usefully be made at the same time, let me know. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Ackerman1822.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Ackerman1822.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly what it purports to be -- the title page of a book published in 1822.

1822 -- Illustrations of Japan; consisting of Private Memoirs and Anecdotes of the reigning dynasty of The Djogouns, or Sovereigns of Japan; a description of the Feasts and Ceremonies observed throughout the year at their Court; and of the Ceremonies customary at Marriages and Funerals: to which are subjoined, observations on the legal suicide of the Japanese, remarks on their poetry, an explanation of their mode of reckoning time, particulars respecting the Dosia powder, the preface of a work by Confoutzee on filial piety, &c. &c. by M. Titsingh formerly Chief Agent to the Dutch East India Company at Nangasaki. Translated from the French, by Frederic Shoberl with coloured plates, faithfully copied from Japanese original designs. London: R. Ackermann. OCLC 5911523.

Ackerman is a well-known British publisher in this period.

I don't understand this question. I don't understand what is perceived as unclear. --Tenmei (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Tenmei, it's obvious it's a scan of the page - what the book is about is irrelevant. What Sfan wants to know is where you personally got the image from, so that you could upload it. You say it was from NYPL - where on NYPL did you find the image.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This title page image does not come from an internet source. --Tenmei (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This could be the cause of the confusion. If you made a scan of the book, then under 'source' you should put "I made this scan myself from a copy of the original 1822 publication" or similar wording. I don't believe anyone can hold a copyright in the original London publication after all this time - it would only still be in copyright if it had not previously been published in the US and what you scanned was a facsimile copy which was published in the US more recently than 1923. You need to take down the NYPL tag if what you scanned was a copy of the original publication, as NYPL would not acquire copyright just by possessing a copy. If what you scanned was a facsimile copy made by NYPL, then you need to say that and give the date of the facsimile copy. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Behold I have fixed it. Book published 1822, author died before 1910, PD-old is the template you require. Nobody holds the copyright in it, the photocopy and the scan are both just exact copies of work in the public domain, and are therefore public domain themselvesElen of the Roads (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. This is good to know. --Tenmei (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Enkyo2. You have new messages at Elen of the Roads's talk page.
Message added 13:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

File copyright problem with File:Ackerman1822.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Ackerman1822.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

SS Princess Alice (1911)

An issue has been raised at WT:SHIPS#Article title confusion SS Princess Alice about this article, which you created. Maybe you can clear up the confusion? Mjroots (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Template SS - how to dab

Hi, re this edit - all you needed to do was insert the year 1844 as second parameter, as in {{SS|Princess Mary|1844|2}}, which displays as Princess Mary. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks

Many thanks for your always impressive work. All the best in the new year. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

... for sorting out and sourcing Tadashi Suetsugi.--Plad2 (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Tenmei!

I just wanted to say thank you for the very productive discussion regarding WorldCat Identities/Tanaka Ichimatsu. The revised sentence, acknowledging the nature of the data, and rounded in the manner you have done, IMO, is highly appropriate. As you know, I am very new to editing on WP, and this initial attempt has been a very helpful learning experience. I know you must be busy, but if you have time to look over the current state of the Tanaka Ichimatsu article and let me know your thoughts on my edits, I would really appreciate it. If the opportunity arises, I look forward to working with you in the future. Tanakasthename (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

For the support and the kind words.Frank (Urashima Tarō) (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Pt. 2

Thanks for the all the work you have done. After seeing Kintetsubuffalo's note, I believe we perhaps should both cool it down and talk it over. I am amazed by the complete lack of ANY reaction on the project's page. I was expecting a lot of discussion. - Frank (Urashima Tarō) (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for weighing in on my talkpage, trying to help. Right now I'm too angry and too close to look at this objectively. It feels like an attack on the entire belief system, and it is not the prevailing view by any means. My late Wife was a Miko-san, so it's something I know more than a little about, despite urashima's claim. I believe there's a false dichotomy at play here. It may only recently have been called Shinto, but the basics are the same as the pre-Buddhist fusion, as far as anyone really knows. Anyway I'm in no mood to discuss it with someone like that, not now.

Nice daruma by the way!

I should just take a bath and go to bed. I won't-too much to do yet.

Thanks again, sorry for rambling.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Put the spade down and stop digging

Later, in the Japanese argument section, it says, "A world atlas published in November 1958, by the Map Publishing Company of Beijing, treats the Senkaku Islands as a Japanese territory." This statement does not need a "Japan claims that," because this is a statement of fact. It is fundamentally different from the claim about the Remin Ribao article, which is an interpretive act. It appears you love to ENDORSE for the sake of endorsing. I should view your endorses in a different light in the future. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Japan&diff=prev&oldid=387502817

It seems you are accusing others of being "provocative" after you unjustifiably accused them of edit-warring. I am not exactly sure how these things work. I guess, in your book, a simple apology and acknowledgment of error is a bit too much to ask for. Bobthefish2 (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2011

Toulmin
USArmy
During the rebuttal, keep in mind that only issues raised in the initial arguments may be pinpointed.
Siebold
Concepcion, David W. "Reading Philosophy with Background Knowledge and Metacognition," Teaching Philosophy (US). 27:4, December 2004, 351-368, 359, 364, 365.

Sesquicentennial
"logical or philosophical constructs"
Kirschner, Paul A. et al. (2003) Visualizing Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-Making, p. 90., p. 90, at Google Books
Whately, Richard. (1867). Elements of Logic, p. 253 n. 3, p. 253, at Google Books

WP:AGF is drained of meaning by WP:POKING --Tenmei (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk pages messages

Hi Tenmei. Thanks for your messages, but I'm not sure I have time to wade through all that. I'll keep tabs on the articles and contribute when I can, but I think it's best if you just make simple and short points on the article talk pages. You tend to write too much. Thanks. John Smith's (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Response

Hello, Enkyo2. You have new messages at HXL49's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--HXL 's Roundtable, and Record 23:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Japanese rulers

Who are you and why do you constantly put fake citations and cut-and-paste paragraphs for the Japanese rules? I want to know why you think it is appropriate. Thank you. Angry bee (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, responded. --Tenmei (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Need Help on 2011 Cannes G-20 summit page

Tenmei,

I have started to add some new information to the entry, from the official website of the 2011 G-20 summit in France. Also, added a couple of the attendees confirmed to attend summit. However, I have left some information out and need your help to edit some of it in and help me edit out some information that may not be true in the entry. Thanks Rockies77 (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Opportunity to comment on Batavia

There is a discussion starting up at Talk:Batavia (disambiguation), that may be of interest to you. The subject is technically a page move discussion, but the purpose of the discussion is to decide where Batavia should redirect. Until earlier today, Batavia redirected to History of Jakarta, but during this discussion, it is redirecting to Batavia (disambiguation). Your comments and suggestions are welcome.

Thanks for your help. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You are receiving this because you are one of the principal editors of one of the articles that is linked to Batavia (disambiguation). This notice is being posted to all of the top three editors of each of these articles (in terms of total edits), with the following exceptions:

editors who are blocked
anonymous IP editors
editors who, despite ranking in the top three of edits to an article, have only a single edit to said article

This is an attempt to be a neutrally-phrased posting in keeping with the principles of WP:CANVASS. If you find anything in the wording or the manner posted to be a violation of that guideline, please notify me at my talk page.

RFC on Bobthefish2's misbehaviour

Hello User:Tenmei, 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) 19:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands locked

Hi User:Tenmei,

How are things going? It appears that both Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute are now locked due to edit-warring. Since we have so far not found a way to conduct collaborative editing, do you have any advice as to how to fix address this problem? I notice that User:Phoenix7777 was an active participant in both edit-wars and had been the primary cause of Senkaku Islands dispute being locked on a previous occasion in October 2010. Do you think you can gently converse with him on how his aggressive behaviour can be detrimental to the editorial process of Wikipedia? After all, the two of you share the same native language and appear to exchange e-mails.

Thanks. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Foreign relations of Japan

I consider your re-adding of a blatant POV pushing section, coupled with your prior comment on the talk page that strongly implies you edited this information on Foreign relations of Japan because the SI articles are locked, to be very strong evidence that you may be incapable of following WP:NPOV, and are seeking to use Wikipedia as a battleground to support your own person POV. I reverted your edits for a very clear, very obvious reason; it was your responsibility to then go to the article talk page and discuss that problem (WP:BRD), not simply revert without explanation. I strongly encourage you to undo your re-addition of that information and discuss on the talk page.

Furthermore, your continued refusal to provide talk page comments that can easily and simply be understood by other editors, despite having been told numerous times that such behavior is hurting collaboration, is a form of disruptive editing. This is particularly problematic when other editors like myself have asked you for simple requests, and you have refused. This, coupled with your refusal to enter mediation, make me question whether it is possible for you to edit collaboratively.

I'm about 2 cm away from filing an RFC/U on your behavior. Out of due deference to the fact that I believe you have the ability to contribute positively, I am asking one final time for your behavior to change. I'm asking that you edit, on both article and talk pages, in a way that is both NPOV and collaboratively. Please demonstrate to me that you are able and willing to do so, so that I do not need to take such a drastic step. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian -- NO, your words are acknowledged. Threats are unwelcome.

Characteristically, your opinion is bolstered by neither research nor citations.

In contrast, this table has both -- including the explicit links to the MOFA webpage which identifies an approach to foreign relations which you feign not to understand -- see "Image" column. You reject wholesale as a strategy. Since you demonstrate that you are either unable or unwilling to ask questions about this, your judgement becomes dubious. You are welcome to express an opinion about what you believe is appropriate or relevant in this article or any article, but it is only that -- your opinion.

In the context your judgment and words have created across a span of months, this is an unreasonable step in the wrong direction. --Tenmei (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian -- The POV I support is WP:V WP:RS as a threshold. Each specific edit supports WP:Five Pillars -- not anything else. No single edit can be characterized as non-neutral. The only POV my individual and cumulative edits express is in support of academic credibility for our collaborative editing project. For you to imply otherwise is unseemly. It is undeserved. --Tenmei (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a clear enough answer for me. Have you actually read WP:V, by the way? It's a common mistake that people make that every thing that can be verified must go into articles; what WP:V actually says, though, is that unverified information can't be in articles. It does not at all imply that verification is sufficient for inclusion. Furthermore, WP:V is only one of many different policies, of which WP:NPOV is the other.

I will, of course, inform you once the RFCU is filed. It may take awhile, though, because I've never had to file one before. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian -- YOU are going to complain about this table as proof of NPOV? Really? Think again. This is not a good step in a constructive direction. The fact of the matter is that you have allowed yourself to become a shill; and for what? You have lost the objectivity with which you started, and that is a problem which remained unaddressed. It is unaffected by anything I do or write. --Tenmei (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's calm down. By the way, User:Tenmei, it appears the RfC on Remin Ribao has some pretty mixed opinions. Since I am no longer that interested in the issue, I'd say we should try to wrap that up quickly instead of dragging this on. One thing I'd like you to do, however, is to reply to the latest responses to the thread... specifically, this and that.

Even though both Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute are locked due to edit-warring, there's little reason to drag matters. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Can I assume a lack of response as conceding? Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

WP Japan in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Japan for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Collaborative Editing

It appears you have withdrawn from the discussion on the Remin Ribao article topic. At this stage, it has become more apparent than ever that the original content associated with the article is malformed. Editors from the NPOV board supported this notion. Since you refused to reply or concede, my impression is that you are attempting to filibuster the discussion. This is not a good editorial practice and certainly not good for our continual collaborative editing.

Your writing style is also presenting a serious communication issue. By now a fair number of editors have expressed a similar view and consider posts you wrote to be difficult to follow. If you are unable or unwilling to write English normally, then you may want to consider to stick with the Japanese Wikipedia instead. Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

RFC/U

I have filed request for comment on user conduct on you. You can see the RFC/U at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei‎. At this point, you don't really need to do anything until the RFC/U is certified by at least one other user. If the RFC/U is not properly certified within at least 48 hours, it will be deleted. If it is certified, your next best step is to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance2, which has guidance about how to respond to such an RFC/U.

I sincerely hope that you will understand after you look at the page that it is not an attempt to invoke disciplinary procedures against you. In fact, per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance, RFC/U cannot "Impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures". Rather, this is a chance (if certified) for the wider community to look at your editing behavior, and give feedback on ways that said behavior may not be meeting community guidelines. I am not disrespecting your contributions, nor trying to attack you; rather, I want you to see how, possibly in general but at least with respect to Senkaku Islands issues, your editing behavior on articles and talk page behavior is detrimental to our ability to edit collaboratively. Obviously, you are likely to disagree with my assessment, and are welcome to explain why in the Response section provided for you. Furthermore, it may turn out that the community also disagrees with my assessment; we shall have to wait and see.

I am going to notify other editors who have interacted with us on Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute (along with a few who have become indirectly involved). I believe that this is appropriate per the rules set out in WP:CANVAS. If there is someone that I miss, feel free to inform them as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI as of a few hours ago the RFC is closed. There does not seem to be any basis for any type of voluntary agreement and interest has clearly faded. Hopefully this has been a learning experience for all involved and similar issues can be avoided in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

diff . . Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei‎‎; 21:30 . . ( 41) . . Beeblebrox (talk| contribs) (closed)
diff . . Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei‎; 21:28 . . ( 658) . . Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) (this is dead and remaining listed and advertised on the drama boards has failed to spur participation, closing)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Quotation

"The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing" is actually a quotation from Stephen R. Covey. Keepscases (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Graphic -- dispersion in conceptual points
$A ray trace through a prism with apex angle α and indices of refraction$

A ray trace through a prism with apex angle α and indices of refraction
Graphic -- dispersion in conceptual waves

Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass ----> Chinese whispers?

Gaman goes German

Hi from a Nikkei/Sansei-expat in Germany. I am translating the Gaman article into German. It is my first Wiki article. It is changing faster than I can translate! ;-) I will try to run after your changes faster... --LosAngelino (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

archive?

This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC) No -- this troubled me in August, but I didn't know how to respond constructively. I still don't know what to do in situations like these, but silence is not a good option.

In fact, Phoenix7777 did provide specific citations here. No counterargument nor other reference source citations were was presented. Phoenix7777 only encounterd contradiction and derogatory comments about his contributions to this article.

For there to be a dispute, it appears that it is only necessary to disagree or to be disagreeable.

In the attempt to be fair-minded, it is perverse that Boneyard90 validates and endorses the kinds of provocative editing Wikipedia doesn't need. In contrast, Boneyard90 casually devalues the time and care which were invested by Phoenix7777.

This is a trivial example of a recurring problem. It illustrates the kind of small mistake with consequences that develop cumulatively.

Bottom line: I was driven away from this article. I couldn't believe that uchiwa was controversial, but there you have it.--Tenmei (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Huh?

I don't understand your comment, "In the context my diff creates..." on my talk page. Maybe the wrong person? -- ke4roh (talk) 19:39, 13 April 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. 04:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Please could you review the above request and the newly specified issues to be mediated, and then indicate whether you would agree or disagree to participate in mediation? Thank you. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Edits on G8 and G-20 major economies

Someone named Chafis is editing the G8 and G-20 major economies articles that made it look too plain. I don't know if you agree, but he has gotten rid of all the flag icons on both articles. I wanted to let you know about this because he is not explaining why he/she wants it the way it is now. In fact, I had a little edit warring with this person, but he/she won't give up. Perhaps you can clarify both articles' prose and outlook. Thanks. Rockies77 (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

BRICS e G7

Was removed the flags of the page, BRICS and G7. Why not take the flags of the G8 and G20??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chafis (talk • contribs) 02:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia Administrators notebook/Edit waring#User:Chafis reported by User:Tenmei (Result: ).

This is a short and specific explanation which may help you understand how to do better.

Esta é uma tradução automática - Inglês para Português. As bandeiras são justificadas nas tabelas do G8 e do G20, porque eles são úteis para navegação.

As bandeiras não podem ser justificadas na tabela BRICS, devido ao número reduzido de países. --Tenmei (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands and verbosity

This message is sent in my capacity as a third-party observer to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands, and not in my official capacity as a member of the Mediation Committee. I see that you are listed as a party to this request for mediation, and have already began to post lengthy messages that are hard to understand. In my experience, you unfailingly resort to that method of communication, and I am therefore very concerned that your participation in that mediation case, should the request be accepted, will be detrimental. This is an especially frustrating situation, because I am quite sure that you always participate in good faith; your comments are simply too long-winded to follow! I wonder if you have any thoughts on that concern? Kind regards, AGK [•] 11:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)`

AGK -- No, this was not a "comment." These were additional issues which are implicit, but unstated in the "primary" formulation. Without these explicitly stated issues, the premises of negotiation are skewed ways which undercut all reasonable hope for a constructive outcome.

My response to your inopportune edit here is the following:

A. "Verbose" -- no. AGK, be specific. Which individual words offend your perception of "concise"?

B. AGK, in deleting, your burden is to identify which specific words are perceived as the "verbose" ones? And you need to explain why?

C. These are each indispensable issues which resist being marginalized, not because of my words but because of the talk page threads which have evolved across a span of months.

D. AGK, in deleting, your burden is to identify which specific issues are perceived as the dispensible ones? And you need to explain why?

These are among lessons learned the hard way by closely attending to the unanticipated failures of Qwyrxian across the arc of strategic talk page interventions. The function of a mediator is primarily discovered in the process of refocusing attention on relevant issues -- emphasizing some and glossing over others. From a wiki-conventional perspective, Qwyrxian rarely put a foot wrong, but his investment was ineffective nonetheless. Why?

"Why" is non-trivial within the array of issues mediation must encompass.

In this context, "verbose" is both a straw man and a red herring. Please re-consider from another perspective; but first try to take your sense of confusion out of the mix, and also remove me and my words. Summarizing the re-framed dispute in terms of a odd American idiomatic expression: This isn't their first rodeo.

Compare Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute#POV-title tag. QED. --Tenmei (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

TEXT mis-categorized as being "VERBOSE"

“ [This is] not the only maritime territorial dispute that either China or Japan has with their neighboring countries. The possible negative domino effect of the dispute is what China and Japan attempt to avoid. The real importance of the islands lies in the dispute’s implications for the wider context of the two countries’ approaches to maritime and island disputes, as well as in the way in which those issues can be used by domestic political groups to further their own objectives. ”

— Zhongqi Pan, "Sino-Japanese Dispute over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands: The Pending Controversy from the Chinese Perspective," Journal of Chinese Political Science, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2007

In our mediation process, the adverse consequences of some problems can be mitigated by identifying them up front. --Tenmei (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sub-issue #1, Domino effect. This article title is the subject of overlapping interests which infuse every aspect of this subject, as is highlighted in the excerpt at right.

Which "verbose" words can be edited out?

Sub-issue #2, Looking backward. This article title is a battleground. It is counter-productive to pretend that it is not.

Which "verbose" words can be edited out?

Sub-issue #3, Looking forward. A structural premise of mediation is that all necessary parties have agreed to participate; however, the scope of "primary issues" which frame this case must also encompass future contributors who have not yet caused us to run around the mulberry bush. This article title is likely to attract the participation of editors whose single-purpose perspective will skew our collaborative editing process in unhelpful ways.

Which "verbose" words can be edited out?

Sub-issue #4, Fact vs. factoid. Our conventional processes for discerning the threshold requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia -- our core concepts, policies and procedures -- are not irrelevant or dispensable in talk page threads nor in this negotiation venue.

Which "verbose" words can be edited out?

Sub-issue #5, False dilemma. The perception of "both sides pretty much entrenched and non-collaborative" is unhelpful because it is a self-fulfilling prophesy; and it is uninformative.

Which "verbose" words can be edited out?

Paraphrasing Zhongqi Pan, the arguable importance of negotiations about the title of this article lies in the dispute’s implications and consequences for a wider context of other East Asian articles and controversies.

The "verbose" part is ALL of it. There's no need to write all that crap. How many people have commented now on your atrocious writing style? It's about time you come to realize that the problem with your writing is YOU, not your audience. 96.52.96.42 (talk) 09:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands#Additional issues --Tenmei (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I have re-read your first e-mail, and read your second e-mail and your response here. From them, I gather that your general argument is that User:Qwyrxian is in some way misrepresenting something—but I do not know what. I have a Master's degree and am educated to a level that probably exceeds a majority of my countrymen, so I have the ability to comprehend most arguments. But I genuinely cannot compute a worrying volume of what you write. At this point, I am recusing from acting as the representative of the Mediation Committee in relation to the request for mediation in question, because at best my inability to understand you would be obstructive, and at worst my simple annoyance at your style of writing would annoy me so much as to impact on my judgment. I don't know whether this difficulty with reading your language is something I share with other editors of this project, because I have never discussed you with another person, but I have interacted with you in the past and there is clearly an issue somewhere here.

As I said previously, I have no doubt that you continue to act in good faith, but this is as it is. Finally, I do not look to pass you off as an obstructive or problematic influence. I simply cannot get past this difficulty I have with communicating with you! damnant quod non intellegunt, perhaps? Regards, AGK [•] 22:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No comments on Tenmei's style of editing, but I want to clarify that I did not open the mediation, nor was I the one who chose the terms of discussion. I did express an opinion about that on the article talk page, but was not the one to finally formulate it. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

AGK's speculation about Qwyrxian was indiscreet. IMO, it was both unexpected and potentially provocative.

Let's be clear, it is no secret that Qwyrxian provided more than one teachable moment across the span of months which preceded Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands. Are there any who doubt that I paid close attention? Are there those who failed to recognize that Qwyrxian sought to function as an informal mediator? His role has been pivotal.

Yes, I did mention Qwyrxian specifically in this thread. There was no disrespect implied, but there was an acknowledgment of unanswered questions. The nearest antecedent for the pronoun which begins the Qwyrxian paragraph is "specific issues ... perceived as the dispensable ones". I wrote:

These [specific issues] are among lessons learned the hard way by closely attending to the unanticipated failures of Qwyrxian across the arc of strategic talk page interventions. The function of a mediator is primarily discovered in the process of refocusing attention on relevant issues -- emphasizing some and glossing over others. From a wiki-conventional perspective, Qwyrxian rarely put a foot wrong, but his investment was ineffective nonetheless. Why?

My tentative answer to this rhetorical question is encompassed within the ambits of five additional issues which have been made explicit.

Yes, I did mention Qwyrxian in an email sent to AGK. The reference to Qwyrxian's strategic interventions is not inconsistent with what I have argued in many other contexts. I wrote:

"... [I]t is demonstrable that Qwyrxian too often "flinched" and too often "capitulated" in talk page threads ... but I don't understand more than this. I could not have done as well as he did ...."

As above, my tentative plan-of-action is to confirm five additional issues in explicit words.

This is continued at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands#Think again --Tenmei (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You have referred to my earlier good-faith comment as potentially provocative, but the majority of my projectspace work on the English Wikipedia relates to dispute-resolution—and, most tellingly, as the co-ordinator of a Committee that provides formal mediation for content disputes. That is both woefully inaccurate and grossly insulting. Do consider my earlier impression of you as a verbose but a distinctly well-intentioned and constructive editor as very much withdrawn. This comment is the last that I will participate in this conversation. AGK [•] 21:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Process of reasoning together

AGK -- Please re-consider your feelings of indignation.

AGK -- Your reasons for indignation appear to arise because you dislike the word "provocative".

In fact, verb "provoke" has a specific meaning.
In fact, Qwyrxian did post a comment on my talk page in response to yours.
In fact, your diff did "provoke" Qwyrxian's perceived need to write.
In fact, your diff did "provoke" me to make guesses about what to do next; and your words forced me to develop a hypothesis about whether non-response was arguably worse than responding.
In fact, my measured words introduced a label -- "provocative" -- which re-directed attention towards explicit consequences.
In fact, my carefully-chosen words addressed a problem-which-didn't-need-to-be-a-problem.
In fact, you did "provoke" a problem-which-didn't-need-to-be-a-problem when you wrote:

"I have re-read your first e-mail, and read your second e-mail and your response here. From them, I gather that your general argument is that User:Qwyrxian is in some way misrepresenting something—but I do not know what."

AGK -- You and you alone focused attention on some kind of unspecified who-knows-what with Qwyrxian in a spotlight. Your words created a unique focal point; and your feelings of indignation are unjustified in relation to something you alone contrived.

Apology: AGK -- I can readily apologise for my inadvertent role in this misunderstanding, but your failure to address the substance of my words still remains outside the ambit of my responsibilities. Constructive issues seem to have fallen by the wayside.

Restatement: AGK -- It is modestly accurate to describe your words as "indiscreet" and "unexpected" and "provocative." If you can, I hope you will please set aside your feelings of resentment. They serve no one's best interests, nor do they further the purposes of our collaborative editing project.

Bottom line: AGK -- You asked a question, and I provided a thoughtful answer. That e-mail reply included evidence of research. This was proof of (a) a multi-step process and (b) an investment of time and thought which preceded the drafting of sentences. Your first e-mail reply rejected my words wholesale without addressing any specifics. You will recall that I then invited you to read my words again, to consider the content of my paragraphs and the elements of my reasoning. Instead, your focus was turned toward something other than the substance of my words and the process of reasoning together. --Tenmei (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

~~Reset~~. No response at all might have been justified, but it would not have been constructive. Silence would not be forward looking.

This comment is a re-start, a first step in a process of engagement. At a minimum, it is fair to describe my comments as neither "non-responsive" nor "off-topic." --Tenmei (talk) 14:51, 29 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.)

"What you know today can affect what you do tomorrow, but not what you did yesterday." -- Condi Rice

United States–Korea Treaty of 1882

Hi, Tenmei. You changed my edit[7] from "officially" to "also known as". However it is arguably "officially" because my reference is an official document from the US Department of State. That's said, it is a minor issue and I don't mind at all. After my brief research on the treaty, I am surprised that the treaty was negotiated between US and China. Please see the following sources.

Kang, Woong Joe (2005). The Korean struggle for International identity in the foreground of the Shufeldt Negotiation, 1866-1882. University Press of America. p. 136. ISBN 0761831207.
Kang, Jae-un (2006). The land of scholars: two thousand years of Korean Confucianism. Homa & Sekey Books. p. 459. ISBN 1931907307.
Pletcher, David M. (2001). The diplomacy of involvement: American economic expansion across the Pacific, 1784-1900. University of Missouri Press. ISBN 0826213154.
Arrighi, Giovanni; Hamashita, Takeshi; Selden, Mark (2003). The resurgence of East Asia: 500, 150 and 50 year perspectives. Routledge. ISBN 0415316375.
"The 1882 US and Korea Treaty: Draft and Final Versions" (PDF).
"The Korean Special Mission to the United States of America in 1883" (PDF). {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

As an initial response, please notice that I have edited the article by adding (a) a Korean drafted-text excerpt which verifies the first sentence; (b) one blandly-worded sentence in the "background" section; and (c) all the source citations you provide above. A more extended comment will have to wait til later. I have another commitment which cannot be delayed. Please bear with me. --Tenmei (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Continued use of the WP:DR triangle

(crossposted) I'm almost out of good faith assumptions regarding your "WP:DR triangle" edits (as I shall call them). If you cannot find a different way to rephrase your comments without always bringing up the WP:DR triangle whenever you are trying to make a WP:POINT, I will ask for the community to step in and ban you from using the triangle in your disputes. Your continuous reminders to other editors to follow the triangle are bordering on disruptive and exhibit tendentious editing. Please don't do it again. – AJL^talk 01:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Empress Iwa-no hime merged into Princess Iwa

I have merged the text from Empress Iwa-no hime into Princess Iwa. Both short pages appear to describe the same person. The pages Empress Iwanohime and Empress Iwa no Hime now redirect to Princess Iwa. Cnilep (talk) 04:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop commenting on me

Please stop commenting on my motives (as you did when you claimed I was being impatient) and please stop commenting on my overall effectiveness (by claiming I have squandered my credibility). You may not have noticed, but I have stopped commenting on your style of talk page editing, despite my belief that it is actively harmful to discussions on Wikipedia. I would ask that you have the courtesy not to engage in what are not quite attacks but are clearly intended to cast disrepute on me as a person. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

FACT: Your personal integrity is sufficiently well established that it is entirely beyond my ability -- nor anyone else's ability -- to affect your earned reputation. In other words, I cannot cast disrepute. --Tenmei (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:G8 2011 family photo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:G8 2011 family photo.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:G8 2011 family photo.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:G8 2011 family photo.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{non-free fair use in|article name that the file is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

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," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). 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. Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 05:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Collapsed content

Hello, I just wanted to thank you for labelling the collapsed portions of the mediation case; it does make it clearer what's going on! Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The current discussion is now taking place at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands; the page you edited, Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands, is now a closed archive. See the current page for details. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 16:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands

Can you clarify what you mean by "this proposed poll topic is unhelpful"? Do you mean STSC's section summary? (In which case please see the rules of the poll about not responding to sections unless you support them.) Note that Wikipedia:Search engine test is not a policy or guideline. Given the contentious nature of this dispute, it's important that you back up statements like "settled wiki-consensus rejects any scheme which provides a blanket exclusion of Google-derived data" with solid evidence.

Also, as an unrelated matter, it would behoove you to stop wiki-linking common terms like argument and consensus in your posts. It's insulting, frankly...as if you expect that your audience needs to have these terms defined. I understand this may just be your personal style, but as several people have complained about it, you would do well to find another way to express yourself. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 21:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, among the lessons learned the hard way is that I need to expect that my colleagues in this mediation exercise will not define these terms in ways which are congruent with the linked pages.

You perceive insult where none is intended; but there we have it.

IMO, it would be constructive for you to join me in encouraging the establishment of "shared vocabulary", especially with the words you mention: consensus and argument plus one word which is a corollary -- counterargument. Indeed, I had the impression that this is one of your mediation strategies, is it not?--Tenmei (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: this edit: you struck out the off topic comments, which is great, but then you questioned my decision of what constitutes off topic material, which is explicitly forbidden under the revised rules of the mediation. If you have a complaint about the way the mediation is being handled, it must be sent by email or in a user talk page post. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 00:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no complaint about handling -- my focus of attention is on the "primary issue" as was explicitly defined before I agreed to participate.

Constant disruption of talk page by running around in circles discussing whether or not the title represents a neutral point of view.

Bait and switch destroyed the foundation of collaboration; and i cannot comply with what I do not understand, e.g.,

"... you questioned my decision of what constitutes off topic material, which is explicitly forbidden under the revised rules of the mediation."

Without adequate explanation, this is impossible. -Tenmei (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Primary issues of mediation

I have been following your recent comments on the mediation with interest. You cite the mediation guide (which, by the by, I wrote), and seem to imply that you do not think the Mediation Committee has correctly framed the issues at dispute. We should resolve your grievance now, rather than later. Please state briefly what in your view the mediation is about; what content of the article has been disputed? I was not aware until now that there was a problem with the issues as they are currently framed.

On another note, your recent remarks have been better written; kudos is due for that. I'm not sure if you saw my response to you on Feezo's talk page, but I think there is some useful advice for you there. YMMV. AGK [•] 00:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

AGK -- What part of bait and switch is hard to grasp?

What part of my writing makes it hard to conceptualize moving the goalposts? This phrase is a straightforward derivation from sports that use goalposts, such as football.

~~As you know, the figurative use of "moving the goalposts" alludes to the perceived unfairness in changing the goal one is trying to achieve after the process one is engaged in has already started.~~ --Tenmei (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Concern about moving the goalposts

No -- There is no so-called "grievance."

The term wikt:grievance underscores your conceptual marginalization. There is no substantive response which is not devalued a priori in your diff. That said, it is a step in the right direction when you acknowledge "now, rather than later".

It is more precise to recognize that the fulcrum is here rather than later. Feezo's balk (wikt:balk or wikt:baulk) was timely identified here and here.

Like Cato the elder, I will continue to re-iterate that these must be the mediator's priorities:

Management by objectives (MBO) is a process of participative goal setting and decision making.

MBO framework = what we need

More awareness of a growing issue that is poisoning the very essence of collaborative editing that makes Wikipedia possible: real-world factions that vie for control over articles, turning them into polemical battlegrounds where surface civility is used to cover bias, tendentiousness and even harassment. The mediator needs to take a strong stance against that sort of "polite disruption" and those who use our rules of civility as weapons, recognize that long-term warriors are toxic, not vested, and investigate beyond surface behavior issues.

Less timidity in addressing issues related to contents (POV warring, tag teams, academic dishonesty). The mediator should be more active at curtailing content disputes. Academic integrity should become a priority; unlike "simple" incivility, the damage caused by editors misquoting, plagiarizing and editorializing destroys the credibility of our encyclopedia.

Increased transparency in the mediation process is needed. The mediator must explain decision-making in better detail, including reasons and justification. It is important that the participants in mediation and the wider community understand why the mediator decides to intervene -- or not to intervene, because this suggests a way to approach similar problems in other contexts.

Parsing specific sentences in AGK diff

In addition, please note:

Incorrect. You write "seem to imply that you do not think the Mediation Committee has correctly framed the issues at dispute." I was unaware that the Mediation Committee does anything other than passively accept what the participants have explicitly agreed, which is parsed below to emphasise the subject and its modifying prepositional phrases
Constant disruption
of talk page
by running around in circles
[by] discussing whether or not the title represents a neutral point of view. [22 words]
These 20 words represent the framing as agreed to by the participants; and these words state explicitly what the participants assert the mediation is about. From the outset, both before I expressly agreed to mediation here and at the same time as I added my signature here here, I made explicit some of the implicit factors which affect our unique collaborative editing exercise.

Incorrect. You write "I was not aware until now that there was a problem with the issues as they are currently framed." This sentence is a "polite fiction." This is wikt:dubious in the context established by your participation in this thread: Talk:Feezo#Archiving Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands. Can this misjudgment be clarified by using words which are explained at Minimisation (psychology)?

Devalued/Invalidated: Phoenix7777 exhibited admirable "honesty" ... [and] "a willingness to engage" when he wrote the following: This is the third time I expressed my concern about your decision, 1) Addition of POV-title tag to Senkaku Islands, 2) Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands#Google search is only a divergence of the discussion. I hope your action is deliberately made to aim a convergence of discussions.
Devalued/Invalidated. I demonstrated "honesty" ... and "a willingness to engage" in the following carefully drafted sections:

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands
/Archive# Elephant in the room

In conclusion, I adopt the words of Phoenix7777 as if they were my own: "... you can declare WP:IGNORE, but it isn't the mediation's intent." --Tenmei (talk) 16:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

AGK -- what part of this is unclear?

SENTENCE A

The primary issue is the title of the article Senkaku Islands.

≠

not the same as

SENTENCE B

Constant disruption of talk page by running around in circles discussing whether or not the title represents a neutral point of view

~~What do you want me to try to explain this in different words?~~

Qwyrxian explains it succinctly here, "I actually liked the way Feezo was working before--collapse and ignore (and, even, moving stuff to archive/sub-pages)." [italics and bold added for emphasis]

~~Qwyrxian is seemingly comfortable with the sound of one hand clapping, but it~~ This marginalizes the shared understanding which was ~~expressly endorsed~~ underscored when each of us agreed to mediation and endorsed "issues to be mediated" here. --Tenmei (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Strike what I said about your method of interacting having improved; I can't make heads or tails of what you've said here. I kind of gather that you don't think the issue is "what should the title of the article be?", but I don't know what you think it should be. If your next reply is difficult to understand, I shall not be wasting me time trying to understand it; you must work on how you write, because I am far from the only person who struggles to understand you. AGK [•] 11:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Categorical imperative

Please note that the "Categorical imperative" sub-heading comes from clicking on the term "imperative" in the original of the paragraph excerpted below.

Please reconsider these words from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Discuss with other party:

"Talking to other parties is not a formality; it's an imperative to the smooth running of any community. Not discussing will make people less sympathetic to your position and may prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. In contrast, sustained discussion and serious negotiation between the parties, even if not immediately (or even remotely) successful, shows that you are trying to find a solution."

In this context, perhaps my efforts become less easy to denigrate. --Tenmei (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

AGK -- Until you strike out the following, don't post anything at all on my talk page:

"If your next reply is difficult to understand, I shall not be wasting me time trying to understand it ..."

These paired dependent clauses are counter-productive precisely because they are likely to persuade others to adopt the same or similar tactics.

As a leader in WP:Mediation, these words are wikt:fatal to continuing discussions.
As a prominent figure in our project, your words are destructive to collaborative editing.

Regardless of your good intent, this harm is expansive and dangerous because your words arguably validate such marginalizing tactics in a broad array of articles (including ones in which I have no role). --Tenmei (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

AGK -- After the harmful words are struck out, please acknowledge one question: What part of the box below is unclear?

SENTENCE A

Words not accepted

The primary issue is the title of the article Senkaku Islands.

≠

not the same as

SENTENCE B

wording agreed to.

Constant disruption of talk page by running around in circles discussing whether or not the title represents a neutral point of view

AGK -- The disjunction in the box above marginalizes the shared understanding which was wikt:emphatic when each of us agreed to mediation and endorsed "issues to be mediated" here. Our problems metastacizsed because of bait and switch and moving the goalposts which began here and here. --Tenmei (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand why you have put a question to me when you have also asked me to not make any more substantial comments unless I strike part of my own comment. If you hope to compel me to redact my comment to a form that you find more agreeable, you are misguided, because I will simply permit you to continue participating unhelpfully in a mediation that as I understand it you have no interest in—the inevitable result of which can only be the escalation of the entire dispute to binding dispute resolution. When you are ready to have a meaningful discussion, please let me know (directly, because I am no longer watching this page). I genuinely do want to follow this subject through with you, especially because I have begun (finally, and after much teasing out of your meaning from the above writing) to understand your basic point. Respectfully, AGK [•] 20:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Only 19 words need to be struck out.

"If your next reply is difficult to understand, I shall not be wasting me time trying to understand it ..."

This is an opinion anyone else may freely express -- but not AGK -- and the reasons why AGK has made himself a special case are explicit above. There is no form of words that is more agreeable. The marriage of the writer and the substance of these words is irreducible. --Tenmei (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I adopt the words of Phoenix7777 as if they were my own words: "... you can declare WP:IGNORE, but it isn't the mediation's intent." --Tenmei (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hatoyama mainichi cropped.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hatoyama mainichi cropped.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This mistake is explained at User talk:Tim1357/Archive 7#Bot error. --Tenmei (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Chikanobu

I'd appreciate if you would please review, answer, and discuss the comments I've made about the 'Arts of Asia' magazine reference and the lack of evidence relating to "prints" by Chikanobu of the Russo-Japanese War. I will be making changes shortly to the latter and don't wish to begin a discussion after the fact.GaryD144 (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Please restate using other words. I don't yet understand what you are asking me to do. At User talk:GaryD144#Images of the Russo-Japanese War (Nichi-Ro Sensō) by Chikanobu, I don't really know ~~where or~~ how to begin to respond constructively?

Regardless, the high quality and current state of development in this article makes it ripe for commentary by a wider spectrum of reviewers. My perspective is only one among many.

Perhaps this is a good time for Toyohara Chikanobu to be recognized as a good article? Perhaps it should be promoted as featured article? --Tenmei (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Motor ships and steam ships

In the article Motor ship you added a paragraph that I think is quite confusing. Do you really mean that ships with diesel engines are called "steamers"? I'll mark the paragraph, but you might want to clarify. --LPfi (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Genbō

You beat me in writing the Genbō article, thanks! In working on the Fujiwara no Hirotsugu Rebellion I noticed that neither Dazaifu (ja:大宰府) nor Tachibana no Moroe (ja:橘諸兄) have an article, even though they are pretty important for Nara period Japan. If you are interested and have the time, I'd be very happy if you changed that. (If not, that's fine as well.) bamse (talk) 10:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Small steps in a constructive direction:

~~Dazaifu (local government)~~ ≈ ja:大宰府≈ Dazaifu (region)
Dazaifu, Fukuoka = ja:太宰府市?
Tachibana no Moroe = ja:橘諸兄

I will probably tweak these a bit more in the coming week. --Tenmei (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks a lot! As for "Dazaifu", I meant the local government in the Asuka to Kamakura period responsible for Kyushu. There is a little bit about it in Dazaifu,_Fukuoka#History, but since the Dazaifu government is not really related to the modern Dazaifu city, it should get its own article. Feel free to chose a name which you think is best (does not have to be "Dazaifu (local government)"). I did not read it in detail, but I believe that what I mean is in ja:大宰府. bamse (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Fujiwara no Hirotsugu

Thanks for the addition to my sandbox. My French is not that good, let alone old French, but still better than kanbun. I might soon have a modern Japanese translation of Shoku Nihongi and will then start writing the actual rebellion part of the article. All other sources I have are very good about the events leading to the rebellion, but when it comes to the rebellion itself, they don't say much more than that Hirotsugu was defeated. That's why I am so much after the Shoku Nihongi. bamse (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The Titsingh/Rémusat/Klaproth translation of Nihon Ōdai Ichiran is the earliest history of its type to be published in the West. In specific, this means that this book represented the first opportunity for Western readers to learn about historical events in 740 in Japan; and at the same time, the narrative provides a glimpse of early Edo period historiography.

Aside: Did you know that the "annals of the emperors of Japan" was edited and revised by Japanese historians for dissemination within a multi-generational readership of Tokugawa bureaucrats? In other words, there is a very practical purpose which underlies the prose and the editing -- which is much like our Wikipedia project, don't you think?

In principle, I like the idea of incorporating this "first impression" within our internet wiki-project. At first, the seeming incongruity struck me as odd, and maybe a little bit funny; but across the span of the past few years, I discovered that the 17th century text marries quite well with our 21st century purposes -- especially in contexts like the bullets of a tentative timeline in your sandbox. --Tenmei (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting. I like the first impression idea. Honestly I hadn't heard about the Nihon Ōdai Ichiran until your edits. Thanks for directing me to it. bamse (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you happen to know how exact/reliable the dates (i.e. months days) given by the Shoku Nihongi are? There is some discussion on it on pages 109-110 in this book, but I was wondering whether they are trustworthy enough to mention in the bulk of the article. Currently I put the dates in a separate section linked to the main part of the text. As a followup question, for an entry in the Shoku Nihongi with a given date, does it mean that the event happened at that date or does it mean that the information about that event had reached the court in Nara on that day? bamse (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Some questions are unanswerable. My best response is to defer to your good judgment. --Tenmei (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, hopefully an answerable question... (:-))

Let's agree that not all questions are answerable in July 2011? Your words inspire a great many thoughts; but for now, the most important point I want to get across is that my interest in specific dates is limited. As a general rule, I defer to your judgment on such matters; but if I have anything constructive to offer, I will try to do what I can. --Tenmei (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

...since I noticed that you did many edits to Daijō-kan. I am translating relevant parts of Titsingh and noticed that several Fujiwara (e.g. Fusasaki, Maro, Umakai) had the title "Sanghi" (="Sangi"?) apparently around the same time. Daijō-kan tells me that the translation is "Director of palace affairs" which I assume is a position held by a single individual at any time. How could all three have that position at the same time? Could Sangi also have a more general meaning of counselor (i.e member of the Daijo-kan? bamse (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

*Sazare-Ishi* (conglomerate rock) alludes to pebbles which are said to grow into boulders as described in the lyrics of *Kimi ga Yo* -- stone at Kamo Shrine

Thank you for your comments and questions. Is this an example of growing pebbles into boulders?

My guess is that the office of Sangi was held sequentially, e.g.,

Fujiwara no Fusasaki held the office of Sangi until he died in 737 (Tenpyō 9, 4th month)^{[hirotsugu 1]}
Fujiwara no Maro held the office of Sangi until he died in 737 (Tenpyō 9, 7th month)^{[hirotsugu 1]}
Fujiwara no Umakai held the office of Sangi until he died in 737 (Tenpyō 9, 8th month)^{[hirotsugu 1]}

In other words, my interpretation of this text leads me to believe that Maro filled the role of Sangi for three months only. Umaki was Sangi for one month only. In the absence of other data, this much is consistent with WP:V. In principle, even though it is adduced as verifiable, we still leave open the possibility that this may not be the "truth".

Your guess may be correct. There may have been an overlap or there may have been more than one Sangi when Fusasaki died. This is arguably plausible.

Stepping back a bit: what we do know is that the hierarchy anticipated that three of the Major counselor (大納言, Dainagon) would serve at one time. Titsingh writes that there were commonly three Dainagon,^{[hirotsugu 2]} and Papinot writes that there were sometimes more. Because of what we know about signficant Daijō-kan offices like the Daingaon, it is a good guess that there might have been more than one Sangi at one time -- perhaps including the difficult year of Tenpyō 9.

Also, we also know that rank and function were not always consistent.^{[hirotsugu 3]} For example, Titsingh writes that when Udaijin Fujiwara no Muchimaro is near death in 737 ( Tenpyō 9, 8th month), the Emperor elevates him to first rank first class equal to that of the Sadaijin.^{[hirotsugu 1]}

When further data is adduced, we may be able to confirm or modify our verified, but still tentative conclusions, yes? Does this make sense to you? Does my reasoning mirror yours? --Tenmei (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

_______________

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Titsingh, Isaac. (1834). Annales des empereurs du japon, p. 69., p. 69, at Google Books
^ Titsingh, p. 426., p. 426, at Google Books
^ Unterstein (in German), Ranks in Ancient and Meiji Japan, p. 4. (in English and French)

See new article Sangi (Japan).

Also, please take note here -- my edit at Daijō-kan. --Tenmei (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for this comprehensive and well thought out reply. I think you might be right that all they held that position for only a short time or that there was some overlap. bamse (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Tōhoku region

I suggest you talk a little more and delete a little less: Talk:Tōhoku region#Michinoku Jpatokal (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

We have no conflict. My contributions to the subject of the Michinoku region only supplements the framework you established, e.g., compare Michinoku region and note that Michinoku has been added here to the Template:Regions and administrative divisions of Japan.

Nothing has been deleted. In fact, on closer inspection, it becomes clear that this is a good example of collaborative editing.

YOUR inline cites here

http://202.231.40.34/jpub/pdf/jr/IJ0102.pdf

MY tweaked format

1. Hanihara, Kazuro. "Emishi, Ezo and Ainu: An Anthropological Perspective," Japan Review, 1990, 1:37 (PDF p. 3).

http://ir.library.tohoku.ac.jp/re/handle/10097/45116

2. Itakura, Katsutaka. "On the Structure of Economy and Society in Tohoku," Science Reports of Tohoku University, Vol. 32, Issue: 2 (December 1982), pp. 71-87.

http://www.pacificislandtravel.com/asia/japan/about_destin/tohoku.html

3. Pacific Island Travel, Tohoku Kim, Yung-Hee. (1994). Songs to Make the Dust Dance: the 'Ryōjin hishō' of Twelfth-century Japan, p. 129, p. 129, at Google Books

If you believe that what is written about Michinoku in the Tohoku article needs to be fuller than my edit here, fine. I defer to your good judgment. --Tenmei (talk) 10:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

	Thank you for your support
	Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I know that you and I have had...challenges in the past. I sincerely hope that I never meant you any disrespect, even when I disagree with you. I sincerely hope that we can continue to work together productively. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

SI dispute

I mean this in the nicest possible way...but you're only talking to yourself on Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute. Everyone has basically already indicated, directly or indirectly, that they are not going to try to figure out what you're writing when you include so many quotes, links, and abstract philosophical ideas. Lvhis and Bobthefish2 are never going to respond to your questions, most likely because they don't even understand them. I barely understand them myself. I mean, you can keep adding more and more stuff, but you should know that it's not going to get you/us anywhere. And you should know that their failure to respond isn't going to be held against them--it's going to be held against you, because you're not writing in a way that other editor's can grasp. Again, only a friendly reminder/notice...but I think that your enthusiasm could be better channeled if you actually want to effect change with your words. Let me draw an analogy: when I write for Wikipedia, I write so that a broad, general audience can at least grasp the fundamentals of what I'm saying, because I know that my audience doesn't necessarily have any specific, technical knowledge. When I write papers I for my professional work, though, I use all sorts of "jargon" and references, I refer to "important people" (and expect my readers know who they are), and I use a much more complex grammatical style. That's because my professional audience does have the background necessary to cope with that style of writing--they demand it, in fact. So when you're writing on the talk page, think about who your audience is. You can be saying the most correct, true, and profound things in the world, but if you're not conveying that message in a way that your audience understands, then ultimately, the communicative act was unsuccessful. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no

Yes -- I take your point. I do understand why and how you are correct; but I also understand how and why your reasoning is invalidated by what predictably happens next.

No -- your comments and argument are harmful to the long-term prospects for our wiki-project. Your analysis is anti-Wikipedia because it undermines collaborative editing

You have encouraged this rhetorical gambit -- a knee-jerk rejection regardless of what I write or how I write it. You are simply wrong -- regardless of the theoretical reasoning which underpins the belief that your analysis "should" be valid. In practice, your diffs and those of John Smith's, Phoenix7777, Oda Mari and others are rejected with the same broad-stroke generalities.

In the specific context of the edit history you and I have followed closely and carefully, the biggest problem is not me or my writing. The more significant trouble-maker is you; and this has been an unintended consequence. Frankly, your argument succeeds in perverting the WP:DR process. This diff achieves a counter-intuitive result; and a similar process has unfolded as a consequence of the others diffs which precede this one. Perversely, your words wrongly encourage and elevate:

Contradiction as a low-cost, easy, Qywrxian-endorsed strategy
Responding to Tone as a low-cost, easy, Qywrxian-endorsed strategy
Ad Hominem as a low-cost, easy, Qywrxian-endorsed strategy

This is bad, pernicious, insidious; and simultaneously, you wrongly discourage and devalue:

Worse still, you encourage and seem to endorse strategies of "strategic" fraud. This is unwanted, but there we have it. In addition, the edit histories of other articles show the metastasis of harm.

We have already learned the hard way that this is unworkable:

Looking backwards. Your comments about my writing served only to validate and encourage others to emulate your model. In other words, you encouraged non-responsive tactics which derogate and trivialise the diffs of others. This does not help to minimize difficulties, hurdles or stumbling blocks which affect hopes for success of mediation.
Looking forward. Your comments about my writing do not lead us towards engagement which focuses on the content of Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute. This does not help jump-start negotiations or other dialogue which is an irreducible part of mediation. This does not provide an alternate model for others to emulate.

In other words, your gesture is misconstrued as an endorsement of tactics which marginalize.

In this instance, your analysis may derive from parsing the relevant factors in ways which are like your critical mis-appraisal of Talk:Senkaku Islands#U.S. Control prior to 1972?

This is not a personal attack; but the fact of the matter is that your good intentions have not matched up with the consequences of your words. This is unwanted and unplanned; but again, there we have it.

I don't know how to explain in a way that you will understand, accept and incorporate in your future editing ... but in due course, we will succeed in reaching common ground because we share that hortatory goal. --Tenmei (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

In view of the reasoning expressed in your edit here, will you join me in asking Feezo to mediate the persisting disagreement we have about the harm you caused with your contributions at Talk:Senkaku Islands#U.S. Control prior to 1972? --Tenmei (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Then maybe an example is needed. Everything you just wrote? I have scanned it, but I am not going to read it in detail. I'm not going to spend the next 30 minutes going through those links and trying to figure out what you're saying. My quick scan tells me you think I'm acting in bad faith and wrongly attacking your writing, looking only at the surface level. The problem is, going beyond the surface level is simply too difficult, too much work. I simply do not have time to slog my way through that. This is the same thing others have told you at the article talk pages; it's the same thing Magog the Ogre told you on xyr talk page; it's the same thing Arbcom told you back in 2008. You place too heavy a burden on others in your writing, and, as a result, I think your very sincere concerns and probably very useful points are being lost. You don't have to follow any of this, but don't be surprised when people simply stop listening. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I learned a new phrase today -- "obstinate lack of interest." Your sentences illustrate it:

"Then maybe an example is needed. Everything you just wrote? I have scanned it, but I am not going to read it in detail. I'm not going to spend the next 30 minutes going through those links and trying to figure out what you're saying."

If I understand correctly, you explicitly reject and discourage the use of each of the following links in my writing:

In other words, you argue that it is unreasonable to identify these words and concepts as a shared foundation: "collaborative editing", "unintended consequence", "contradiction", "responding to tone", "ad hominem", "refutation", "counterargument" ....

Aha -- I understand the words, but I do not understand your thinking. --Tenmei (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Post on my page

Replied. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Law Professor

Nice start. See WP:CTT for templates on citing journals, etc. Professor Lee may not meet notability guidelines, but I'm not going to judge him on that. --S. Rich (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

New messages

Hello. You have a new message at Ajl772's talk page. Message added 09:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC).

Afd

Is it possible that an arguable cognitive bias mis-frames the issues in this AfD? Is it possible that this AfD presumes too much, e.g.,
(a) that this article about a cohort of "incidents" is only a sub-set of our article about the post-armistice maritime boundary line which was unilaterally contrived by the UNC in 1953; and
(b) that this article is essentially nothing more than a list; and
(c) that this article is rendered redundant by the several individual articles about major clashes since 1999.
IMO, this AfD rejects acknowledging the relevance of our article about that the DPRK-contrived maritime Military Demarcation Line which was unilaterally declared in 1999.
IMO, these kinds of assumptions need to be reconsidered. The story is still unfolding. --Tenmei (talk) 06:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hearings Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, 1971.

[titsingh69-1] Titsingh, Isaac. (1834). Annales des empereurs du japon, p. 69., p. 69, at Google Books

[titsingh426-2] Titsingh, p. 426., p. 426, at Google Books

[3] Unterstein (in German), Ranks in Ancient and Meiji Japan, p. 4. (in English and French)

[hirotsugu 1]

[hirotsugu 2]

[hirotsugu 3]