User talk:Enkyo2: Difference between revisions

	Talk Daruma
	Kangen 寛元 1243; Hōji 宝治 1247; ; Ōei 応永 1394; Shōchō 正長 1428; Eikyō 永享 1429; Kakitsu 嘉吉 1441; ; Ōnin 応仁 1467; Bunmei 文明 1469; Chōkyō 長享 1487; Entoku 延徳 1489; Meiō 明応 1492; Bunki 文亀1501; DYK;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:47, 7 August 2008

Tenmei (天明) = "dawn"

Tenmei (天明) was a Japanese era name (年号, nengō, lit. year name) after An'ei and before Kansei. This period spanned the years from 1781 through 1789. The new era name of Tenmei (meaning "dawn") was created to mark the enthronement of Emperor Kōkaku-tennō (光格天皇). The previous era ended and the new one commenced in An'ei 11, on the 2nd day of the 4th month.^[1]

How best to make good use of this venue?

It seems odd to me that you should blank your talk page, as it prevents anyone from knowing what has been previously discussed, what your responses and views were, etc.... LordAmeth 11:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...I recommend keeping a talk archive rather than blanking your screen every once in a while. Bendono 10:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth. -- Mohandas K. Ghandi

=

Use of Japanese era name in identifying disastrous events

First of all, I'm curious to know why you thought of contacting me about this, since I have been inactive in this wiki for quite some time and I'm not in either Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan or Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management. Next, please note that I haven't gone through the discussions and I am only sharing my general views (as I am & will be almost inactive in the near future).

Coming to article renaming, my take is summarised in the last comment in the thread: Talk:Kolkata#Does anyone else think this article should be called Calcutta?. I have settled to being content with having a redirect at the place where I want the article to be. As long as readers are able to access the article from the place, I think it is pointless to have a heated debate on moving the page, with there being a lot more important work to do, e.g. important topics that don't even have an article, unencyclopaedic stuff that get articles, etc. [My prediction about Bengalooru isn't currently true (it could have come true in the past, with the article moving back & forth — I haven't checked) but my views haven't changed.] -- Paddu (talk) 07:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paddu -- Yes. Thanks for the feedback.

1. Your initial curiosity is easily addressed. As you know, I'm interested in creating some kind of consensus about an exception to WP:DM naming "guidelines" for disasters occurring in Japan (645-1867). At the same time, I plausibly guessed that questions about Wiki-nomenclature for events in pre-20th century Japan, also known as pre-Meiji period Japan, would likely disinterest the participants in what I construed to be a more future-focused WikiProject.

For this reason, I took the extra step of posting a specific invitation on the User talk-pages of contributors to any discussion on the 2007 WP:DM talk-page. I encountered Paddu in the following context from May 2007:

Bridge disasters categorisation

There is some discussion going on about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bridges#Bridge failures category. -- Paddu 04:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the points raised in that discussion is whether all engineering failures are disasters. Specifically, it has been suggested that Millennium Bridge (London) was an engineering failure that wasn't a disaster. In the light of this, should we rethink about having Category:Engineering failures as a descendant of Category:Disasters? -- Paddu 20:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is elegant; and, it happens that the sway harmonics of the Millennium Bridge (London) is a subject which interests me quite apart from anyy fascination with Hayashi Gahō's 1652 Nihon Ōdai Ichiran, which was the relatively obscure context from which I first approached WP:DM ....

In terms of your Millennium Bridge posting, I wonder if you'd be interested in at least the first of the following external links:

Strogatz, Steven. (2003). Sync: The Emerging Science of Spontaneous Order. New York: Hyperion books. 10-ISBN 0-7868-6844-9; 13-ISBN 978-0-7868-6844-5 (cloth) [2nd ed., Hyperion, 2004. 10-ISBN 0-7868-8721-4; 13-ISBN 978-0-7868-8721-7 (paper)].

2. The Dutch Japanologist Isaac Titsingh died in 1812 before completing his translation of the seven-volumes of the Nihon Ōdai Ichiran which he brought to Europe in 1796. Titsingh's French translation was published and disseminated posthumously in 1834. Digitized copies of that 19th century text have been uploaded on-line as part of the Google Books Library Project; and I've taken on the multi-year task of furthering metastasis of the Hayashi/Titsingh data-set throughout en:Wikipedia and fr:Wikipedia. This essentially dull Imperial chronology identifies serial earthquakes, tsunami, floods, fires, and volcanic eruptions; and I'm understandably persuaded that it will be easier all around if I try to make any reference to these recurring disasters seem as non-controversial as possible -- which is why I came to engage the issues involved in en:WP:DM and en:MOS:JA naming guidelines.

This is patently trivial, of course; but my willing investment of time and care may appear less foolish in the context of meta:Translation of the Week. Each week, a stub or the first paragraph of an important article is chosen to be translated into as many languages as possible. Ideal candidates are (1) short, (2) easy to translate, and (3) lead to potential translations of other topics; and I believe that one of 2007's selections becomes worth noting:

Week 42: en:Isaac Titsingh/nl:Isaac Titsingh (16 langs total)

Aha! Yes? Do you begin to appreciate the impetus for devoting such close attention to such small details?

3. As for your informed cynicism at Talk:Kolkata#Does anyone else think this article should be called Calcutta?, I do acknowledge that you and others are indisputably correct. Yes, certainly. Nevertheless, my optimistic outlook encourages me to wonder if we shouldn't try to be a little less ready to discount the possibility of constructive outcomes in these kinds of exercises?

Again, thanks for the feedback. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1695 Coin on Japanese Yen

dunno yet

Hi Ooperhoofd, I'm the original user who took out that particular line (later reinstated by Nik42) since I am not familiar with any copper coins with the gen (元) character on the obverse that were issued by the shogunate in 1695, and none of my catalogs lists one. It was interesting to see how the thread progressed at Nik42's talk page. :)

As mentioned by Nik42, there is indeed a bronze Kanei-Tsuuhou　(寛永通宝) coin that features a "gen" as a mintmark on the reverse. This indicates an Osaka mint issue of 1741. However, this is a minor variety among many and not actually a coin type like the Kanei-Tsuuhou or Bunkyuu-Eihou. The following coins from the 17th century contain the character "gen" in the name: Genpou-Tsuuhou (元豊通宝)　was issued by Nagasaki merchants at the behest of the Dutch as trade money in 1659. However, this was not a shogunate release that circulated in Japan, and it was merely a copy of the Chinese Yuanfeng-Tongbao. Genna-Tsuuhou (元和通宝) was issued in 1617. There is debate as to whether it was an official release, but it was issued before standardization of coinage in 1668.

I was also confused when I checked the referenced work, Annales des Empereurs du Japon, at Google Book Search. But as you indicated, I was looking at the Stanford version with missing pages. I have since looked at the other edition and have found the passage in question. As the Kanei-Tsuuhou coin with the gen mintmark was released in 1741, it is probably not what this book is referring to. The dates for the two other coins listed above do not match either. Since the 1695 date is during the Genroku (元禄) period, I agree with Oda Mari that the "gen" mark is probably a reference to the gold koban (小判) and silver chougin (丁銀) coins that were minted at this time. I'm inclined to think that the Annales was actually referring to these coins and that "copper" is an error. However, getting back to the issue about Japanese Yen, overall, my stance is that these coins with a "gen" character don't have a bearing on the etymological origins of the term "yen." Buu (talk) 07:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Fuji

Hi! It's me again. According to the Ja WP, the hoei eruption began on Dec.16, 1707 (Nov. 23, the 4th year of Hoei) and ended on Jan.1, 1708. So the previous edit seems to be correct, unless the Ja WP is incorrect. I advise you to see different references and books. Oda Mari (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent beginning to 2008! Thank you for your continuing attention to minor, but ultimately important details. So this is how Wikipedia evolves, eh? I'll revert my edit immediately, if you haven't already done so. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found another page, actually a Shizuoka Univ. page, says the same thing with Ja WP. [1] Sorry it is Japanese. But you can understand the dates. Wish you a happy new editing year! Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 17:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saiō

No need to invite me to accept your edits, they are much appreciated! I was introduced to the story of the Saiō when invited to participate in the 2005 Saiō Matsuri, and was fortunate enough to receive a private tour of the museum from the curator, Emura-sensei. Meiwa Town has no real industry other than rice, but it is fiercely proud of the fact that it used to be an imperial residence, and the town Historical department has a small number of bi-lingual pamphlets on the subject (I'm currently working on translating another one for them). When I started digging into the story more, which is tied up in the whole Ise Shrine story, I noticed that, apart from the locally produced pamphlets and the information posted in the museum itself, there seems to be nothing anywhere on the Saiō. If not for this little town's work, it could have been a story that virtually disappeared to time. That's why I've been working to expand this whole area in Wikipedia. I created articles on the Saiō, on Yamatohime-no-mikoto, expanded the Ise Shrine article 5-fold, as well as numerous other areas that have branched out from this, including leads that have lead to Emperor Temmu and the establishment of the divine imperial line myth/belief. Talk about opening a can of worms!

But on saying all that, my focus is definitely only from one direction, the ancient view. I have little to no academic knowledge of the Heian Period or later times, so having you come in and add to those is a great help for the article. I've had another user add the list of Saiō, which has also helped (though there are many errors, Saiōs were daughters, nieces or even sisters of the emperor, where the list only lists daughters - I'll fix it soon ). I also have a group of 5 Heian images that depict the Saiō in junihitoe. Any advice that you may have to improve the article, please let me know. I think this is a fascinating aspect of Japanese history that is fairly unknown. As I said, thanks for your help! Ka-ru (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Heinrich Hertz

I'm sorry but I cannot help about it. The matter is the definition of the category ethnicity and the category religion, isn't it? It's a too big and too complicated issue for me to think what is most appropriate. In my humble opinion, unlike Kuki Shozo, religion influenced little on his work. I didn't know about how his religion and ethnicity influenced the relation with colleagues and other physicists though. That's what I thought. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joyfully Hertzian?

As it happens, I ony stumbled on this curious dispute by accident. Hertz was amongst the recipients of the Japanese Order of the Sacred Treasure-(singular) which had been mis-titled as Order of the Sacred Treasures-(plural). In the context of correcting that trivial error, I was simply double-checking the links for each of the honorees with Wikipedia articles. As I quickly scanned the articles' text and talk pages, I hoped to learn more about the decision-making process of the Japanese Decorations Bureau. This is perhaps more than you wanted to know; but there it is.

I approached this article with a mind-set focused on abstracting what I could about an opaque reasoning process, so my perspective was a bit skewed. I was attracted to the array of reasoning processes which were combined in this thread, and I rather expected to encounter more difficulty in breaking through with a structure-based resolution to a dispute which seemed more concerned with whether or not Hertz' ancestry were Jewish. In contacting you and others, I hoped to attract fair-minded allies; or alternately, I was on the look-out for a point-of-view I hadn't yet considered.

In that regard, I did succeed in a way. Your response was not anticipated; but I do hope you now understand that my thinking was at least thoughtful, if mis-guided. I apologize for any inconvenience ... but I guess you could say that I was just barking up the wrong tree. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Heinrich Hertz#jewish ancestry

I'm not sufficiently familiar with the issue to be of much help. Peter Horn 02:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese era

The best way probably is to convert the list into a table.
Second suggestion: move the English translations to the list of Japanese emperors. --Reklamedame (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese nengō (Chronology template)

There are other points of debate on the Regnal year and Era name pages that should probably be addressed before "my" little template is taken to task. I'm not proprietary about the template; this is Wikipedia. :) However, a solution presents itself; I've added Era name to the template. I leave it to you to fight for its exclusion from Regnal year! -- Yamara 02:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reposted from my talk)

I was wondering where that cycle was hiding. I've reconfigured the calendar section of the Chronology template, but emphasized the cycle's Chinese origin, as it will be more familiar to English speakers (i.e. "Chinese New Year" is better known than "Japanese New Year"); currently, the article does the same in its first sentence.

And I did not suspect you of taking me to task. I can sometimes be too tongue-in-cheek. Thank you for your kind praise.

Good luck with the historiography of these ancient methods. It's important to know not only how people counted the days, but when they began to count them in what fashion. Cheers, Yamara 14:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Emperor Kaika

Hello and thank you for your message. It is indeed quite a trivial issue, but I shall make clear regardless. Wikipedia:CITE#Footnotes puts it quite well; "It can be helpful when footnotes are used that a separate "References" section be maintained". I find that it often presents a more structured layout. Being such an inconsequential issue, you are, of course, free to revert my edits if you so wish. I hope this helps. Regards, Chris.B 20:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Thanks -- the result of this exchange will be that I modify my future edits to conform to Wikipedia:CITE#Footnotes. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help. :) Regards, Chris.B 20:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Emperors of Japan

Thank you. It is an exceptional list. I believe that it would be a good candidate for Featured List status, with only a little work on the lead. Geraldk (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Nihon Shoki...

My suggestion was simply to cite a source that states that "most scholars" dismiss the first several Emperors. Most of the sources I have seen (The Japan Encyclopedia, The Story of Japan, to a lesser extent Japan - A Short Cultural History), while somewhat cynical about the dates and even existence of many of the early Emperors, still adhere to the full canonical list starting with Emperor Jinmu, and so seem to disagree with this statement. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elvenscout742 -- Yours is a nuanced point of view, but it encompasses a subtle post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Given the current status of Wikipedia and of Nihon shoki, I admit that the informed points I might otherwise want to make are relatively unimportant. However, in a different context -- in a 1940 context, for example -- with much more at stake, the "conservative" point-of-view you would seem to espouse becomes significant, meaningful, worrisome. If you have an interest in the issues have become inextricably linked with any discussion about the legendary founding of the Japanese Imperial dynasty in 660 BC, I's suggest you consider the following:

National Foundation Day
Imperial Order of Meiji ... see diploma text: "2,589th year from the accession to the throne of Emperor Jimmu (1929)"

Brownlee, John S. (1997) Japanese historians and the national myths, 1600-1945: The Age of the Gods and Emperor Jimmu. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. ISBN 0-7748-0644-3 Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. ISBN 4-13-027031-1 ... Click here for limited preview of book's text -- engage book-specific search for "1940"
- See Brownlee's Chapter 11: "Eminent Historians in the 1930s:The Betrayal of Scientific History," pp. 131-179.
- See also Brownlee's Chapter 12: "The Commission of Inquiry into Historical Sites Related to Emperor Jimmu, 1940," pp. 180-185.
Brownlee, John S. (1991). Political Thought in Japanese Historical Writing: From Kojiki (712) to Tokushi Yoron (1712). Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfred Laurier University Press. ISBN 0-889-20997-9 ... Click here for limited preview of book's text

Historiographical Institute of the University of Tokyo

By all means, if you would prefer to substitute a different in-line citation for the one I have added, or if you would like to augment this section with other in-line citations, I'm happy to encourage you. In due course, perhaps we'll figure out a way to work together to move beyond a plausibly trivial dispute which can only remain unresolved for the time being.

I'm going to move this thread to Talk:Nihon Shoki--Ooperhoofd (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correia da Serra

Hello Ooperhoofd! First of all let me tell what a delight it is to see someone with such care and attention to original sources as you! Regarding your questions about Correia da Serra, there is no doubt whatsoever that, in the modern European Portuguese spelling (I believe since 1911), his name should be writen Correia. Notice, as in the document you linked to, that he did not write his name as Correa, but as Corrêa, with an ^ over the "e" (he also didn't wrote José, but Joseph, also an archaic Portuguese spelling). This is a huge difference in Portuguese. It implies, and always implied, that his surname was not the Spanish one, and that one should read it as Correia. The archaic spelling is still common in Brazil. Thus, and also given the fact that in French and in English Correia is generally rendered and read as Correa, his name started to be writen internationally as such, but never in Portuguese, where it is almost everytime writen Correia and only as Corrêa if someone intencionally wants to render the archaic spelling. Also, his name was not José Correia de Serra, but José Correia da Serra, I'm moving the article once again... Life is an unending struggle! Cheers. The Ogre (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WAN

Links to initials are not wrong in general however certain ones such as WAN link to pages which list multiple possible meanings rather than discussing a particular one. This type of page is discussed in detail at WP:Disambiguation. As general rule they should be linked to directly as they are used to help with searches. When I find these I try to change them to point to the specific article that applies assuming to context allows this to be determined. Your not only to do this most people don't think about this aspect of initials. I'll happy to check for any further such links on International Freedom of Expression Exchange#Members of IFEX. Phatom87 ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go-Momozono vs. Momozono, the second vs. Momozono II

konnichiwa Ooperhoofd,

I changed "Momozono, the second" because I remember a book that I used where the Go-emperors were listed with Roman numerals, thus "Momozono II". If there are books that refer to him as "Momozono, the second", then we can obviously leave both versions, I don't mind. The wording could be something like "Older books refer to him either as "Momozono, the second" or "Momozono II"." or something along those lines. sincerely Gryffindor 23:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Yes, of course. Yours is the obvious solution. Wny didn't I see it? Thanks. I'll make changes later today and tomorrow. Good working with you. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Domou, same here :-) I also just worked on Asuka, Yamato about imperial residences, if you have further information then please feel free to edit, it's always encouraged. Gryffindor 00:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for kashindan?

Ooperhoofd- I'm mulling over instituting a new sort of category set, and I was wondering what you'd think of it. As you've probably noticed, there are many articles for retainers of major Japanese clans here. Just by way of example, this list is interesting...so I was wondering, why not create categories for groups of retainers? For instance, tagging all the men on that list as "Category:Tokugawa retainers." Now mind you, there's an important distinction to be made, because after the establishment of the bakufu in 1603, "Tokugawa retainer" means hatamoto/gokenin at the lower levels, and fudai daimyo at the higher levels, so it'd be tricky...or perhaps if they're fudai daimyo, to start a "Category:Fudai daimyo" or something to that effect. With regards to the majority of Edo period retainers, perhaps tagging them as "Category:thus-and-such-han retainers" would be wise...tagging articles for men like Yamakawa Hiroshi, Saigō Tanomo and the like as "Category:Aizu retainers," tagging Saigo Takamori, Okubo Toshimichi et.al. as "Category:Kagoshima retainers," and so on. I suppose, to make a long story short, that it would go a long way to show more of the background such men came from...say, as far as the Satsuma men go, "Category:People from Kagoshima Prefecture" puts them with everyone post-1868, and while it's certainly not false (as they were born within the boundaries of what became Kagoshima Prefecture), these men were born into a different sociopolitical landscape, and it'd be nice to have some kind of category to indicate both their origin and the context of the original sociopolitical framework they fit into. At any rate, thanks for listening. Who knows where this will lead? -Tadakuni (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tadakuni -- By all means, yes. What you propose is inevitably going to be a multi-year project; and you will inevitably find that the problems which you're parsing now will fall by the wayside to a certain extent. After the first six months, the array of defining issues will include some -- but not all -- of the factors you now identify as relevant; and, of course, new factors will have become self-evident at that time.

If you view this as a task which you alone will struggle to accomplish, then the job seems too intimidating to me. So, my first suggestion is that you set aside any concerns whatsoever about finishing this in your lifetime. Try to ignore that entirely. Instead, focus initially on the ways in which the organization of Wikipedia can help you in the start-up process of refining the category sets ... and take it on yourself to be particularly alert to any unanticipated variations which occur because someone else doesn't see the process (or the problems) in the same way you do. This converts the exercise into a win-win venture. You have the benefit of an unrestricted team of go-go supporters, reflective colleagues, and plausibly constructive critics.

And, if I were you, I'd dare go a step further in the effort to create this win-win environment. I would specifically set out to identify how to go about dismantling any categorizing structure which does develop. As an intellectual exercise, why not assume the negative? As an exercise, why not construe this effort as doomed to failure a priori. In that context, you would probably want to clean up the "mess" your work will have created.

Obviously, I do not think this project is futile nor doomed -- no ... not at all. Rather, I'm thinking that the perspective you gain by attending to the practical steps which would be necessary to remove your work will somehow help the structure to appear more vividly in your mind's eye. I'm speculating that this would likely help you to develop a more fully-modulated, multi-perspective viewpoint.

I must tell you that, it seems to me, your approach here is scholarly. At a very modest level, you're hoping to introduce a very small parsing change in a complex system, and you want to pay attention to the ramifications of that small categorizing change. You're asking real questions, with real consequences, and you're prepared to put some real work into the effort. I'm persuaded that tenured university professors spend too much time despairing because of those graduate students who never seem to grasp the attraction of the not-quite obvious as you have done. I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone other than me were to tell you that this is exactly in tune with the contemporary thrust of Japanese historiography.

Good work -- yes. Whether you persist with this nor not, the fact of the matter is that original thinking isn't an everyday commodity. Thanks for brightening my afternoon with this interesting new idea. I'm turning it all over in my mind even as I'm tearing myself away from the computer so that I can head out for a dinner engagement ....

Category: Tokugawa retainer?
- Sub-category:Fudai daimyo?
- Sub-category:Hatamoto?

More later ... of course .... These are the initial, rambling, top-of-my head thoughts about your proposal. Perhaps I'll have more to say after I've had a change to mull it over a bit.--Ooperhoofd (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooperhoofd-- now Tenmei-- first of all, congratulations on the name change. Secondly, thank you for the feedback. I will need some time to mull this over myself, but I thought that if there was anyone I ought to share these thoughts with, it should be you. I can't help but wonder where this idea will go...but then again, that's the whole beauty of Wikipedia as an entity.

I like what you did with the following:

Category: Tokugawa retainer?
- Sub-category:Fudai daimyo?
- Sub-category:Hatamoto?

That's good for those categories; I suppose the other top-level category to institute might be Category: Tozama daimyo (as the category is indeed called on the Japanese Wikipedia). As for the shinpan, perhaps Category:Tokugawa clan is good enough, but as that category includes non-daimyo like the heads of the Gosankyō as well as women, perhaps a Category:Shinpan daimyo would be good? As far as domains go, perhaps an overarching Category:Feudal Japanese retainers (or something to that effect), and underneath, sub-categories listed by names of the han in question. I'm specifically thinking of domains like Satsuma, Chōshū, Tosa, Hizen, Aizu, and the like, which have many retainers (especially late Edo-era ones) listed, and as I said above, it would be nice to have the men in a category that groups them with other men of similar origin.

Well, at any rate, all things to carefully think about. I'm in no rush. Again, thanks, and I'll be in touch with you again sometime soon. -Tadakuni (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noinclude

RE: Template:Daijō-kan
Woohookitty -- I don't quite understand your recent edit to this template:

|}<_noinclude>[_[Category:"Politics of" templates|Japan|Daijō-kan]_]<_/noinclude>

I was the editor whose error you've corrected; and I would want to avoid making a similar mistake in future. When you have time, can you take a moment to explain briefly? [FYI: In case you wondered, I added the superflous "_" so the text of your edit would be readily seen here.] --Tenmei (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What adding noinclude does is that it stops the template's category from being added to every article in the category. Otherwise, by default, if you have a category such as Category:Navigational templates in a template, then every article the template appears on will be put into the Navigational templates category. Well obviously we don't want that since the template categories are for templates only. So before the categories in a template, you want to add <noinclude>on the left end and then </noinclude> at the left end. You can put it at the end of a whole group of categories if you have multiple categories in a template. Only caution is to make sure that you put everything on one line if need be. Otherwise, it might mess the template's appearance up.

Btw. Going through templates you will also see includeonly in brackets just like above. It's the exact opposite of noinclude. With includeonly, the category listed in the template is added to the articles that the template is on but NOT to the template itself. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 15:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. Thanks. I plan to share this exchange with User:Tadakuni, who may eventually decide to create one or more templates.

I wonder if templates might be helpful in the context of articles about Fudai hatamoto of the Tokugawa shogunate or about the flexible bureaucracy (the bugyō system) of the Heian through Edo periods of pre-modern Japan? This seems worth pondering. Maybe templates could be developed into a useful tool for parsing the sometimes obscure nature of pre-Meiji Japan. Perhaps the Template:Daijō-kan was only a tentative first step in plausibly constructive direction? --Tenmei (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. Templates are usually quite useful. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Osaka Castle External Links

if you'd like to discuss TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is speaking from personal preference and not so much WP:EL, although I think that may apply to some degree as well. I think the need to give something context in relation to other things, such as a harbor, is more suited to Wikitravel than to an encyclopedia. I think most readers would want to know about Subject X rather than Subject X's position in relation to Subject Y. I think it would be different if the relationship mattered, but I don't think the church or opera house's proximity to the harbor is relevant to the understanding of either item. Where I think it would matter, for example, is when the two are intricately tied, for example something in OsakaJo Koen in relation to the castle, or New York's Central Park's location within Manhattan. Does that make sense? Like I said, this is more personal preference but also looking at the guidelines which say: Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. I don't normally deal in images as a rule, like you I'm up to my eyeballs in other projects as well as grad work, but I dabble. Again I appreciate your input and discussion. You've explained well why you think they should be there and while I don't necessarily agree, I wouldn't remove them because you've made a good case. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll be pondering this for a while. Good working with you. You've provided food for thought. Ta everso. --Tenmei (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope I didn't break your brain :) I'll be thinking on it as well, maybe we'll end up revisiting this TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your courteous and detailed discussion of Emperor Jimmu. Any way you'd like the citations are OK with me. Thanks for the discussion. JaGa (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On FR: Wikipédia:Sondage/la représentation des noms en japonais

You are Ooperhoofd, right? On FR the fr:Wikipédia:Sondage/la représentation des noms en japonais has appeared. You may be interested in it. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm

I guess I'm not sure what you are getting at. Both of the things you described are navboxes. There really aren't any other terms for them. The reason why I changed the categories for the template in question is because all of the templates in the "Politics of" category are general templates that describe the politics of a nation. The Template:Daijō-kan template covers the politics of a specific history of a nation. I put the template in History navigational boxes since it's a historical template...and the Japanese navigational boxes cat because it's regarding Japan. I probably should've added the Politics and government navigational boxes category as well. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:...

Umm... thanks? I'm not entirely sure if you were making fun of me or what, but I'll assume good faith, especially considering you didn't revert me. elvenscout742 (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Osaka-jō

Deleting the picture is fine with me, though I balieve this one I just discovered is even better.

As an artwork, yes, of course it is a better composition. I especially like the reflection of the top of the central structure in the water. However, my preference remains with the one you've already posted because it presents the formidable walls and the expansive moat. I have the impression that the main reason that Osaka Castle fell to Tokugawa forces was because the moat was filled in; and in that context, the image already posted does illustrate that aspect of Osaka's history.

On the other hand, maybe my thinking is a bit too literal here. Maybe the evocative qualities of this new image will be more effective as the general reader learns from the article. Why don't you post this new one, while temporarily removing the other two which show the moat ... and let's see what feedback this edit engenders?

I've seen articles which have a gallery of photos at the bottom of the page, as for example: Tōdai-ji, Dutch East Indies Company. What do you think? Perhaps this is one of those cases where additional images would add to the overall value of this article. In any event, you should know that your contribution was successful in that it did inspire me to follow up an initial impression about that swell photo you posted. --Tenmei (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After taking into account what you have said, I think I agree with you that the other photo depicts the walls much better than this one. I also concur that a gallery at the bottom of the page would be a useful visual for someone reading the article and I suppose that we could try that, though I only recently became an editor on Wikipedia so I may require some assistance in executing this project. --Mmuroya (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The gallery was easy to create using copy-and-paste technique. This non-standard gallery format is innovative in that the images are grouped by subject; and it may not meet with general approval from other editors. We'll see ....

Now that I think about it: I'd like to give some thought to modifying the way in which other galleries seem to be presented. I think this appendix-like aspect of the article would be enhanced with a few sentences after each sub-heading; and if so, then a similar gallery at the bottom of the other articles on the other Japanese castles might be perceived as helpful?. For instance, what do you think of the tentative gallery appended to article about Himeji Castle? ... appended to article about Mount Fuji?

Explaining that photo in the "Moat and outer walls" section: The reasons for moving what we both see as the superior image to the gallery may seem a little backwards; but to my eye, the high quality of the other photographs made this choice seem better in that grouping context. The crispness of the photography is a little less stark in the one which remains above. In this placement, the image serves well enough to illustrate the width of the moat. In my view, the obvious redundancy seems more of a "plus" than a "minus" ...? What do you think?

These decisions are surely open to further editing by anyone and everyone. We'll see .... Maybe it makes sense to move our private exchange of views to Talk:Osaka Castle? --Tenmei (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew C Perry

Thanks for the heads up on that. Good eye! DBaba (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lifetime vs. defaultsort

I'd be happy to explain. Basically, {{lifetime}} does everything that {{defaultsort}} does plus more. In most articles about people there are categories for the year they were born and the year they died or [[category:Living people]] if they are still living. With {{lifetime}} there is no need to use separate categories for those things. You can do the same thing with parameters in the {{lifetime}} template. For example,

{{DEFAULTSORT:Lincoln, Abraham}}
[[Category:1809 births]]
[[Category:1865 deaths]]

can be replaced with

{{Lifetime|1809|1865|Lincoln, Abraham}}

And this

{{DEFAULTSORT:Clinton, Bill}}
[[Category:1946 births]]
[[Category:Living people]]

can be replaced with

{{Lifetime|1946||Clinton, Bill}}

because if the death year is left blank it assumes they are still alive. You can click here to find out more about the different options available. {{Lifetime}} should really be used for all articles on people even if the birth or death dates are unknown. {{defaultsort}} can still be used for other articles such as films

{{DEFAULTSORT:Godfather, The}}
[[Category:1972 films]]

I hope this helps. For An Angel (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

extra eyes

I am currently living in Shikoku, and have some French and Japanese. I noticed you've done some editing on Shikoku-related articles. I'm trying to learn more, myself. I have some French and Japanese, some Spanish, less German; I have done some editing of Wikis before, and added a few pages here (mostly on pre-midaeval Europe and Middle-Eastern poets)... If there's anything you would like an extra pair of eyes for, I would be happy to assist. Sjcarpediem (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guggenheim Museum

Hi Tenmai. Perhaps you can go ahead and fix it if you felt that what I did was not really the best choice? You may already know that trivia sections are against Wikipedia policy, see [2]. This trivia section in particular struck me as being pretty irrelevant to the article anyway; the listed items were not tied in in any way to anything significant about the museum. If you can take them all and integrate them in a productive way, or do something else creative or relevant with them, please feel free. Best to you, Invertzoo (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Trivia is disfavored, and while I understand and agree with this Wikipedia policy in other settings, I'm not quite prepared to jettison the list you've edited out. My reservations about my own rationale remain unaddressed as yet. When I attempt to articulate why not -- why not remove a mere trivia list -- I don't assess my own arguments as compelling. In such circumstances, I just have to wait for my thinking to mature -- or not. The main point I'm trying to clarify is that you were not wrong. Rather, I guess I'm thinking that a non-standard criteria-array needs to be applied in this unique setting.

Tentatively, words like "art" and "icon" seem relevant in terms of trying to explain why this article represents a unique exception to a general rule. I'm also persuaded that Frank Lloyd Wright would have considered each item on this bullet-listing as an accolade .... Enough for now. We'll see what happens next. Obviously, I'm not the only one with this museum/building on a watchlist; and I'm hoping that someone else will render the issues moot while my indecision plays itself out. There is nothing urgent here. The full list is retained in archived history; and it can be reintroduced. Sometimes it's best to let others take the lead, and this may be one of those instances. --Tenmei (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kamakura's Seven Mouths

Saw your note: thanks. It's a good idea, I will do something about it soon. Urashimataro (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Niel Stuart

Thankyou for your interest on this article, your input is appreciated. Please be careful however not to disrupt the text layout too much. This is a Featured Article and as a result it complies with WP:MOS. This means that the article should not contain any very short paragraphs such as you created in the Early Life and Post-War sections. I have changed these back to their previous configurations. The addition of the blue ensign is nice, but positioning it on the left of the page disrupts the text beneath it and so I have moved it back to the right. Finally, you have added "The Pacific fleet of the Canadian Pacific Railroad tended to hire its officers from the Royal Naval Reserves, and much was made of their long and faithful service to the company.[26]" to the article, but this does not add anything to the article because a) Stuart never served in the Pacific Fleet of the Canadian Pacific Railroad, he served in their Atlantic Fleet and b) he was not recruited by the Canadian Pacific Railroad, but instead joined a different company, Allan Line, which was taken over by the Canadian Pacific Line sometime later. Thus he was never recruited by Canadian Pacific and their recruitment policies have no bearing on his career. I have therefore also removed this text from the article. Again, thank you for your interest and if you have any comments or suggestions please add them to the article or let me know. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your feedback -- nice, very nice. This perhaps gives me an opportunity to pursue a few things a bit further ....

In terms of format, I always feel a bit unsure. My reason for moving the Blue Ensign to the left was motivated in part by an attempt to create a format link amongst the evolving series of articles about prominent Canadian Pacific captains, including Samuel Robinson, John Wallace Thomas, and Stuart. Your comments cause me to re-think that strategy. Would you qive a quick look at these other CP articles? Would you advise me to move the Ensign to the right?
And your comments cause me to ask you help me re-consider a couple of niggling points. In a context established by RMS Empress of Australia#Atlantic crossing and royal patronage in June 1927, your comments above make clear to me that I'd assumed without verification that Stuart joined the Empress in the Pacific prior to it's repositioning and re-fitting in 1926-1927 -- in short, I had perhaps misunderstood that Stuart was promoted to the rank of staff captain in the Pacific. There is no question that the majority of his career was spent in the Atlantic; but I did think that the sentence you've deleted was technically accurate. Only now do I recognize that I'd made an under-supported presumption. Plausibly, the promotion to staff captain may well have occurred post-refitting -- after the Empress had been modified for the colder climate affecting North Atlantic voyages. This causes me to wonder anew: Why do you say that Stuart never served in the Pacific? Is this one of those trivial points for which you do have a reference source? If so, I'd like to suggest that you add just one more in-line citation to this text.
In the same vein, it happens that CP's acquisition of the Allen Line in 1910 was kept deliberately fuzzy by Thomas George Shaughnessy and William Cornelius Van Horne so that the contracted Royal Mail subsidies for both steamship lines could continue to be collected; but there is no question that Allan Line was a wholly-owned CPR subsidiary after 1910. In short, Neil himself would not have disputed that he worked for CPR's steamship arm before and after the Great War. I make this point because of the subtle difference between the meanings of "recruit" as a noun and as a verb. As I understand it, the verb recruit would have applied equally well to anyone added to the list of CP ships' captains -- whether promoted from within or attracted from outside the company. The point I was trying to make is relevant -- that the special qualities which distinguished Stuart were unique, of course; but like special cachet associated with "Commander James Bond, RNR," there was a cachet in the company of peers Stuart joined when he was promoted to the CP captains list. Unfortunately, my well-meaning intention becomes irrelevant without a further source which explains that the conventions of the CP Pacific Fleet were replicated amongst the core officers of the Atlantic fleet.

In other words, your edit wasn't off-point, but your explanation for why I was wrong didn't go far enough. I only realized my broader error when I read your note.

So, my bottom-line inquiry becomes this: Can you identify another source -- something other than Tate's Transpacific Steam: The Story of Steam Navigation from the Pacific Coast of North America to the Far East and the Antipodes, 1867-1941 -- which describes a CP policy of filling the captains list with RNR men? If you have no answer today, fine. What I'm hoping is that you'll keep this in the back of your mind so that you'll be ready to follow through whenever you do stumble across something in 2009? 2010? 2011? etc. Do you see my point? --Tenmei (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your point and I appreciate the level of detail into which you have gone on this. Just to clarify, I was not disputing that CP deliberately recruited RNR officers to their fleet, this sounds eminently plausible and I am sure it is accurate. Neither was I questioning the reliability of your source which I am sure is acceptable. My problem was initially with the information's placement, which I felt disrupted the narrative flow of the article. On a closer reading however I realised that the information as written did not seem to relate to Stuart. To break down my objection, Whilst I think it unlikely that CP differentiated in their recruitment policy between Atlantic and Pacific fleets, Stuart's service was predominantly on Atlantic vessels and thus it does not seem likely that he was recruited specifically into their Pacific Fleet. I admit, I interpreted the term "recruit" differently to you and this too formed part of my objection. I will experiment with reinserting the information in a way that I feel flows better with the text, take a look and see what you think. Regarding the flag, my problem was by no means with its presence in the article or even its appeareance on the left. It was simply where it was situated in the article that I found disrupted the text (mainly due to the USS Cassin image just above it). I will move it to the left slightly lower down and see if this has a positive effect. Give me a little while to make these changes (I have to go offline for a minute) and then let me know what you think. Many thanks for your input.

Jackyd101 -- No, no. You've no cause to re-edit. Let me re-state: What interested me was the extent to which my serial mistakes here were a little bit more complicated than what you'd identified. I really only sought to engage your attention in a minor point which may come to have relevance in the future, not today. I was merely sharing my thoughts, not expressing an objection nor anything remotely intended as critical of anything except my own work. The article on Ronald Neil Stuart is just fine the way it is. It's excellent, in fact .... No question about it. --Tenmei (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well thankyou very much, I appreciate that. Actually, although there were some stylistic problems with your edits I thought the information you raised was interesting and that article has definately benefitted from you attention. If you have anything else to add let me know and I'll help integrate it into the article effectively. Nice to meet you.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese era name

Hi Tenmei, thanks for the comment. The reason I protected it was because it was receiving a high level of concentrated vandalism over the few days before protection. However the page is now unprotected (and has been since the 23rd I believe), but the "lock" symbol was still there. A bot should remove those, but yeah, it's now unprotected. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 07:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impoverishment

Hi, Tenmei. Thanks for the comment, and thanks even more for calling yourself a collaborator of mine. Best. urashimataro (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FRS

Hi, thanks for your message. In the Picture caption was a link to FRS, which is a disambiguation page (it lists lots of subjects which could all be abbreviated to FRS). I changed to link to Fellow of the Royal Society, so that readers who click on the link go straight to the right article. I hope this makes sense - and I certainly wasn't criticizing the article in any way, just trying to help readers. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tenmei, yes, that's it exactly! You can learn more about dablinks at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. Lots of acronyms and initialisms shew up as blue links, but link to disambiguation pages. Fixing them is one of my little hobbies on Wikipedia :) Best, DuncanHill (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One easy way of checking links is to use "navigation pop-ups". You can get these by clicking on "my preferences" at the top of the page, then on "gadgets", and then checking the box marked "navigation pop-ups". With pop-ups, when you point the mouse at a link, a little preview of the linked page shews up on your screen, without having to click - I find it saves a me lot of time when checking that I have linked something correctly. DuncanHill (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. I've made the change you've suggested. It may take me a while to get used to it, but I can see how this will help avoid dablink mistakes. I appreciate your follow-up. --Tenmei (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK - and if there's anything else I can help with then please do ask :) DuncanHill (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Coalinga, California earthquake

In view of this post, please feel free to chime in at Talk:Coalinga, California earthquake on the name of the artilce. Bebestbe (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USS General S. D. Sturgis

The responses, in order, are:

Per MOS:IMAGES, it is best to have no hard-coded images so as to allow users who do have a preference—due to screen size, device limitations, etc.—to change it globally. The exception that I observe is for a picture in a ship infobox. The box is designed for images up to 300px in width and the coding for the template is such that an image size must be specified.
In regard to the caption: Wikipedia is designed for the readers. Editorial notes such as the one I commented out (it is still in there to be seen if someone were to edit the page) are more appropriate on the article's talk page.
The purpose of an image in the infobox is to illustrate the subject in question. An image of a wave, however expertly or artistically photographed, would not illustrate the ship in question. Furthermore, it's generally frowned upon to have images that do not illustrate the subject and serve only as decoration. The consensus among WP:SHIPS editors is that the No Photo Available.svg image is acceptable for use in an infobox to help encourage readers and editors to look for photos of the ship in question. It worked in your case, right? After all you found the image in the article…
At the time I created the USS General S. D. Sturgis (AP-137) article, the ship infobox did not have a location for miscellaneous identification information as it does now. As I now see it (and I was not aware of the 'no decoration' preference), the box takes up a lot of space for not a whole lot of information. I cannot speak for others, but I feel that if it were brought up, a consensus of WP:SHIPS editors would prefer the call sign to be listed in the infobox, if listed at all.

— Bellhalla (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. Yes, I see. Thanks. I will bear this in mind in future. --Tenmei (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

31-star US flag

Jacobolus -- As you know, Wikipedia's wealth of images includes a graphic you created showing the American flag with 31 stars.

As it happens, I found your work posted on the article about Matthew C. Perry. Curiously, it turns out that in 1853-1854 when Perry led the Far East squadron into Tokyo Bay, his flag was configured in a unique design, markedly unlike any other American flag flying anywhere else in that period. For further details, please consider what is posted here. You'll note that the in-line citation is linked to a Honolulu Star-Bulletin article. If you click on that link, you'll discover a photo showing that a replica of Perry's unique flag has been mounted on the veranda deck of the USS Missouri, now docked at Pearl Harbor.

I wonder if you might be persuaded to modify your work to create a "new" flag which is configured in this non-standard manner? Off hand, I can think of a number of articles in which posting your "new" flag would be a plausible enhancement.

I've located a relevant photograph in the National Archives. The Perry flag is clearly visible in the background of a photograph showing the Supreme Allied Commander speaking at the ceremonial signing of the instrument of surrender. --Tenmei (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. See also here. I don’t have the time to make any more svg flags at the moment, but you should feel free to. —jacobolus (t) 18:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tsurugaoka Hachiman-gū

Hi, Tenmei. Some days ago we were talking about [Tsurugaoka Hachiman-gū before the Shinbutsu bunri. I found by accident a site that includes two excellent and high resolution prints of the jungu-ji in Edo times, plus some photos of the demolished temples within the compound taken by one of the Beato (it's unclear which). You might find them interesting too. Take care. --urashimataro (talk) 04:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flawed reasoning

Tenmei, in response to your comment, I too would like to keep a source like that but Buskahegian added the same citation to John Perry (engineer), Josiah Conder (architect), Henry Dyer, and Edward S. Morse, all without adding any other information to the pages. Since the publication is fairly recent and those other pages only mentioned Japan in passing (no earthquakes mentioned), this seemed like a promotion. I did explain this in the edit summary. Whether the contributor is directly associated with the author is beyond me. I hope that Buskahegian will return to the pages with additional information and then read the citation. He did however add a citation to John Milne when he added the reference. Granted, he provided no new information to the page, but he at least made some sort of in-article notation of why the source is included. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and let the chage stay. I won't revert your revert, but take into consideration my reasoning. Ando228 (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ando228 -- Your broader viewpoint explains very clearly what was happening here. I'm glad that I took the time to comment, because your feedback helps me understand what you were doing and why.

As a constructive gesture, I thought the least I could do would be to try to find something in the online version of this book -- something which could be added to 1923 Great Kanto earthquake; but it was a tedious exercise and I had limited time. I'm happy to admit that your points have merit .... I'll get back to this later.

Maybe we can agree on one thing: This is one of those times when I've learned something worthwhile because of mistaken assumptions. I tried to add what seemed to have been as simple as 2+2 ..., but I was tripped up because my focus was too narrow. Sometimes we all find ourselves learning things the hard way. It happens to me all the time. The more interesting example of "flawed reasoning" in this case was my own. --Tenmei (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

34th_G8_summit#Notable_statistics

天明さん、Talk:34th_G8_summit#Notable_statisticsに英語に話しましょう、下さい。 Boud (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ITN

On 8 July, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article(s) 34th G8 summit, which you created or substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

Cheers, Spencer^T♦^C 21:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G8 articles

hello there Tenmei,

I see you have been doing quite a bit of work on the G8 summit articles. Please note that Wikinews and Wikimedia Commons normally go under "External links", while "See also" is normally reserved for articles within Wikipedia. Also if the venue such as "Windsor Hotel Toya" is already mentioned in the opening, it is not necessary to list it again at the bottom. The "See also" part is used for articles that did not have room to be mentioned in the main body, or for further leading information. Also I have put back the infobox you have removed. If you have an issue with the box in general, I suggest you better put it up for deletion or discussion, instead of just removing it without explanation. sincerely Gryffindor 22:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC) ps: Please also in future try to use the "Show preview" function instead of saving every little edit [3], it makes work easier for other users. I know it's more convenient to use and I am not always the best myself, but if you are doing various edits on the same article within a relative short span, it's really better to use the preview function. Don't forget to describe under "Edit Summary" what exactly it is you have been doing.[reply]

Gryffindor-- I'm having a little bit of difficulty in pulling my thoughts together, but I didn't want to delay any longer in simply responding very briefly. Yes -- in general -- I do think the infoboxes are a very good idea for this specific 30+ set of articles; but until more of the logos are uploaded to commons, I'd tend to think that it made more sense to position a series of tired, dull "family photo" images in that prominent position -- not that these group pictures are better, but rather that the 30+ group photos from the serial summits are probably easier to deal with as a first step towards populating the array will relevant images ...? More tomorrow or the next day. --Tenmei (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JDS Hyūga

Click on show to view the contents of this section

I have requested an admin review your behaviour at the Administrators' noticeboard

Hello, Tenmei. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hyūga class helicopter destroyer

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Clearly, concisely and direclty define what your objection to the current wording is and propose alternate wordings on the talk page or in a sandbox. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Trout Ice Cream (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over-reaching

I would also add that seeking to overturn a freely-discussed and openly-reached consensus almost immediately after it has been established can be construed as deliberate disruption. This, along with edit-warring, is a blockable offence, because it detracts from building the encyclopedia. I'm sure the other editors on Hyūga class helicopter destroyer have better uses for their time than rehashing settled discussions. We've all had to deal with being on the losing side occasionally; the correct procedure is to accept it gracefully, and move on. EyeSerene^talk 12:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This nicely illustrates a 21st century application of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. My response is to leave this caveat in place until I've addressed Nick Dowling's spin at WP:AN/I; and then I'll want to copy EyeSerene's spin as the summation's grace note, as a constructive denouement which directs attention towards broader issues which are discussed superficially at WP:CIV#Should established users be treated different?.

Yes -- for the moment, I am indeed intimidated by EyeSerene's "potentially valid, but unavailing" threat; and yes, I have felt very intimidated by the tag-team ownership charade which played itself out at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. However, my misgivings are offset by

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

When Nick Dowling reads this, what else is to be done? I can but firmly urge, "Think again." This is no dainty Glasgow rugby test. This is no game at all, and there's no "losing side" in a dispute in which WP:V is conflated with WP:NPOV. --Tenmei (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A nudge, Tenmei, not a threat, based on outside observation of the effect your editing is having on both the article and its editors. Because you're an established editor and know how Wikipedia works, I regret that I thought it was necessary... but we're all human and can find it hard to let something drop when we're convinced we're right. I did you the courtesy of hoping that a gentle steer would be sufficient. All too often I've seen similar situations end in blocks or even bans (an observation, not a threat), and it would be a real shame to see it happen again to a valuable editor just because they didn't know when to let go. EyeSerene^talk 20:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too few points of view

Thanks for your message on this subject. My "too few points of view" comment was an indirect response to your request that I re-visit my opposition to the one-word edit proposal. Soliciting input from "more (and more diverse) editors" was intended to get us a better understanding of how our fellow wikipedians as a whole see this issue. There is no need to hurry here. We can afford to wait days -- even weeks -- until more wikipedians have a chance to express their views. In the interim, please consider working on the many other wikipedia pages where your contributions would enhance our encyclopedia! (If you like I would be happy to make some specific suggestions in that regard. Just let me know!) (sdsds - talk) 00:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Argument

On my talk page you asked: "Specifically, [...] Did this argument on this one point change your view?" No, in this specific case it did not. More generally: arguments are rarely effective in changing people's views. A bit more specifically: the argumentative tone of many of your interactions with others is highly unlikely to be effective in improving our encyclopedia. There are many ways you could improve our encyclopedia. Please inquire about them if you are so inclined. I personally will gladly make some suggestions, and there are other venues for this as well. In fact, the wikipedia effort includes many people who are eager to assist editors like yourself! (sdsds - talk) 19:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my suggestions

I appreciate your request for my comments that you made on my talk page. I don't know much about the topic being discussed, nor the particular context being discussed, but I took a glance at what was going on, and I feel that your edits were made in good faith, your writing is excellent, and you have an impressive command of the English language! You have an insight that is very valid, and you make an excellent point when you suggest that sometimes Wikipedia's consensus process occasionally turns an article into a consensus reality, ignoring what could be called inconvenient truths. Systemic bias is quite present in WP, and needs to be countered. Your writing style isn't a problem--it is excellent.

Some advice in an unsolicited area, that appears to be relevant on the posting you made about the Hyūga class helicopter destroyer--I've been known to occasionally defend my edits vigorously, and often when an editor undoes my edit, or deletes it entirely, I get pissed, and sometimes undo the edit in question. But one thing that I've refrained from is getting into conflicts which both sides can't back away from or won't back away from...or taking edits of my edits personally, even on topics where I have a strong personal interest in. I usually back away at the point when I feel my edits might be viewed as disruptive or tendentious.

About that dispute that's going on, I would suggest perhaps that all the editors involved, including you, might try to take a little time off from the article in question, and work on something else for a while in Wikipedia. This is not to suggest that any side was right or wrong in the dispute, but as a way of de-escalating the conflict...that way, all sides can save face, and let tensions decrease. Less WP:STRESS, more WP:LOVE, for everyone involved.

Again, just my personal opinion. Good luck!

Katana0182 (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice from both the above ;) I think we've now gone beyond the scope of WP:ANI, so I've noted there that the discussion has been taken to my talk page, since you've followed up there too. However, I haven't marked the ANI thread as closed, because others may wish to comment further (though it seems unlikely). Normally I reply to posts on the poster's talk page, but that may make things hard to follow in this case, so I'll reply to you on my page. Regards, EyeSerene^talk 09:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick reply here to your unproductive thread question (I'll be offline for most of the rest of the day). I meant unproductive in an ANI sense - the noticeboard there is for matters that specifically require administrator attention and aren't really suitable for the other, more specialised admin notice boards (like WP:AIV or WP:AN3). Nick opened the thread with a concern about disruptive editing and incivility, but we seem to have moved beyond that and into a more general discussion concerning aspects of operating within the Wikipedia system itself... hence a different venue is probably called for. I hope this helps explain. EyeSerene^talk 09:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

===Please, stop being ~~disruptive~~ ... I-don't-know-what?=== This edit is precisely the problem which other editors are highlighting in your conduct. From my perspective here, it's looking like you are intentionally being disruptive to prove a point. There's no need for this, as amusing as you may find it to be. Again, I repeat the request which a number of editors have already made - including myself - that you engage with other users on the talk page, and discuss your points succinctly and without resorting to personal attacks or being pointy. Coldmachine^Talk 16:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coldmachine -- What on earth are you so vexed about this time?

The JMSDF uses the *Five Reflections* (*Gosei*) for self reflection in daily life, which were originally devised by Vice Admiral *Hajime Matsushita* (Chief of Imperial Japanese Navy, Naval Academy).
1. Hast thou not gone against sincerity?
2. Hast thou not felt ashamed of thy words and deeds?
3. Hast thou not lacked vigor?
4. Hast thou exerted all possible efforts?
5. Hast thou not become slothful?

Why don't you re-visit this caption with a preconceived notion that it is conciliatory and constructive and well-supported by mindful attention, as demonstrated by the links it contains?

These links would have seemed to be singularly unsuited to "spin" as being somehow disruptive. I intended no humour. I am certainly not amused by anything which has gone so terribly wrong since I had the temerity to post a single sentence on this page. If you compare the first sentence of this page with the first sentence of every other ship in the JMSDF fleet, it might be easier for you to understand that my first post was modest, focused, precise.

YOU said I'd used too many words, so I emphasized the otherwise ignored edit history of this article by posting an image near a select sampling of only a few illustrative examples. This non-controversial attempt to communicate succinctly and clearly was ignored when I posted it the first time. Why is that? Can you answer that question? I don't see how this modest edit is not now to be understood as a reasoned and better attempt to point precisely to issues which pre-date my initial edit, and thus to underscore that the problem which attracted my attention arises then -- not now, and certainly not just because of any disruption you seem too prone to perceive.

The caption is not a priori offensive, and if you choose to construe it that way, the problem you see is not of my making:

Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer is like car collision in which both vehicles are traveling at low speeds. As revealed in the edit history, the full range of nuanced, subtle, non-NPOV fundamentals in this talk page "accident" are set in 2007, not in 2008. In this context, re-framing questions in which the scope of "consensus" is limited by factors implicit in the premise is an impoverished logical strategy.

Frankly, your reaction would otherwise seem absurd; but your immediate response surely serves to illustrate something worth pondering further. After sober consideration, perhaps you'll decide to restore what was too rashly deleted? Or at least, you should be able to discern that what I have done does not deserve opprobrium. --Tenmei (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:: You are using the image and its (everything but succinct) caption to disparage the views of other editors, and of the process of achieving consensus, rather than engaging with them in constructive dialogue therefore I fail to see how the caption can be construed as "conciliatory and constructive and well-supported by mindful attention". The links you provide indicate as much and the manner in which you are engaging on the talk page is evidence of this. Tenmei, you are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut here, and it's coming across as disruptive and pointy. I'd suggest recusing yourself from the article for a while since it seems you are incapable at present of using the talk page effectively. Coldmachine^Talk 19:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Striking per this edit. Coldmachine^Talk 19:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FootNotes

The short explanation is WP:Foot, section 1.2 Setting a Ref so it can be used more than once. If a ref tag is named more than once <ref name = "SourceName"> Source</ref> followed by <ref name = "SourceName"> Source </ref> or <ref name = "SourceName"> See Above </ref> only the first instance will be used by the reflist. All others are ignored. As is your structure is not a problem, however if a user reorders the paragrahs such that <ref name = "SourceName"> See Above </ref> is the first instance then only the text 'See Above' will apear in the reflist and thats not very discriptive of the source. The best soultion is to use <ref name = "SourceName"/> (note the /) for all subsequent refrences. The long version <ref name = "SourceName"> Source</ref> need only appear once in the article (usually the first instance, but it doesn't really matter). This solution also makes the wiki-text shorter and more readable if the ref contains a long cite tag. As far as re-editing is concerned, don;t worry I'm on the case. --AdultSwim (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd seen this formatting style in others' work; but I simply didn't put 2+2 together by asking a quick question. --Tenmei (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. Real issues are a welcome distraction from the Gotcha bounty hunters. --AdultSwim (talk) 04:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, [4] [5] Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 13:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common cause

Click on show to view the contents of this section

I'm contacting you because of one small excerpt from a larger thread:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Proposal to dismiss Nick Dowling as Assistant Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject

Strong oppose - This is a joke right? You want someone dismissed as a coordinator because they disagreed with your position on an article's name????????????????????????? Heeheeheehee! Thanks for the laugh - I need it! And thought maybe he had done something really bad, like support me in a dispute on whether a Japanese DDH was an aircraft carrier or not. Whewwww! - BillCJ (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

BillCJ, no, I am not asking to dismiss Nick because he disagrees with the historical name of the article, but the way he is going about achieving this, by using a straw poll to change it to a fictitious name unsupported by references which is completely contrary to Wikipedia policy and community consensus on straw polls--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what you made of BillCJ's odd observation? I would have thought you found it obscure or otherwise inexplicable? No matter -- I can explain. I'm the one he was angry with in this sentence, not you ... or at least, I'm the one who had the temerity to add a one-sentence edit to Hyūga class helicopter destroyer and he didn't like it. In scanning the page where I found this trivial exchange, it was the "DDH" which caught my attention.

I stumbled into your further response only as a secondary matter.

If you're interested, I'll try to explain at least a tiny part of what you can't learn any other way, I suppose ....

What intrigues me even more than whatever is going on with BillCJ is your observations about Nick Dowling, whose words and actions demonstrate that he seems to espouse a non-standard disdain for WP:Verifiability.

Nick Dowling's unique notions about citations and references have caused me a great deal of what I would like to think of as otherwise avoidable difficulties; and it may be helpful to introduce myself.

Perhaps you may be able to help me learn more about this narrow aspect of your experiences with this difficult Wikipedia administrator. At best, something unforeseen may lead to something constructive?

In scanning your messages, I have to say that you sound like a bit of a loose cannon; but I fear others may describe me in the same way. I would have thought we were very, very different -- similar only in that we've both managed to blunder within range of Nick Dowling's highly-developed personal radar? Does that make us "peers" ...? --Tenmei (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peers?

Hmm, I'd have to thank you for calling me a "loose cannon" given my current project article is Artillery. :) I find reading you quite interesting. At a guess you are a very well educated citizen of the UK, right?

Actually I do not harbour particular ill feelings towards most editors I have come into conflict with, but I am particular about statements of fact. Your own predicament may have been resolved earlier if Nick and others had been pointed to the Moskva class helicopter carrier which is actually an attempt to marry a light cruiser hull with a function of an anti-submarine carrier, though the class did not exist in the 60s because helicopters had only been introduced in that role late in the 50s (I think), and mostly operated from conventional carriers. Militaries of course have agendas that reference works are not supposed to :)

I don't know how peer-oriented I am given that the first person I offered to cooperate with turned into someone who constantly uses any pretext to oppose me, and stalks my edits with a vengeance. What I found objectionable about Nick's behaviour is the way he pursued his agenda, or rather that of User:Buckshot06 who was the one to raise the straw poll.

The world of Wikipedia is far more complex than one supposes. Not sure how long you have been editing, but you see, what happened originally is that Buckshot wanted me to help him in his articles on the Russian/Soviet topics, and I was not prepared to commit due to my own plans. Further, I had the temerity to point out that what he considered to be a Featured Article had many failings, all largely due to his lack of knowledge of Russian, and access to sources. After that he went after me trying to rename ubiquitous "Battle of..." articles into their proper named operational entities, largely basing it on works by a former US Army Colonel whom even BS06 acknowledges to be the expert in the field. The argument: it seems that by doing so, I am trying to Russify the English Wikipedia, that the names are "too long", and that "people don't know what a strategic offensive operation" is. All these are of course his point of view unsupported by any Wikipedia policy, convention or guideline, the last of two which he holds to be "as policy" despite explicit references in them to citing sources taking precedence over use of "common English names".

In any case, while all this was going on, I got involved in a defence of another "loose cannon" who was trying to edit the Battle of Stalingrad article by adding sourced statements who had been apparently battling bureaucracy for years, and having returned from a year's block was blocked again within a couple of days. One person who was explicitly against giving this editor another chance was, Raul654. Of course BS06 followed my participation, and Raul is also a member of the MilHist Project.

The editor who came up with "references" is User:Biruitorul who is a Rumanian editor whom I encountered in the dispute over the naming of Yassy-Kishinev Strategic Offensive Operation renamed to Jassy-Kishinev Operation, my primary arguments being that German names (Jassy) of Rumanian cities have no place in an English Wikipedia, and that one should be less ambiguous in the article title by using official names. You will note that although there was a flurry of activity on the article from Rumanian editors around the time of the protracted debate over the name of the article, it has since ceased despite the article being far from complete. The article was initialy brought to my attention because it had been renamed by User:Eurocoptertigre, also Rumanian, who renamed it into Rumanian because the two cities were (without a proper RM!) :) Note that Eurocopter is the editor who in the end renamed the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation into the "Soviet invasion of" on this occasion also. Eurocopter is also a Military History Project coordinator, but authors predominantly Rumanian articles with the exception of some Soviet articles where he had replaced me in assisting Buckshot06 because I suppose he also knows some Russian. Oh, Nick and Buckshot are very close through their co-participation on a range of articles related to Australian and New Zealand defence forces, Nick being Australian, and BS06 being from New Zealand.

Others present were User:Wwoods whom you probably met during the Hyūga class helicopter destroyer "discussion". User:Davewild is an admin who does a lot of article deletion, and doesn't seem to participate in military history, so I wonder what brought him to the article talk; Raul? And that's about it. So you see, all things are connected :)

Had I been more attention seeking and networked more, I may have put together my own "coalition of the willing" to counter the straw poll, but in any case, between them the other participants can call on about three dozen people, and one admin usually stays out of the poll to block anyone as an "uninvolved" admin as soon as there is any mention of "incivility", "trolling", being "disruptive" or "wikilawyering" in Wikispeak. The only one missing was Piotrus who represents the rather vocal Polish contingent in English Wikipedia. I have also had a run-in with a member of the former Yugoslavia brethren who calls himself a DIREKTOR (yes, in capitals) that almost immediately on me asking for sources in an article called it a "dispute", at which point BS06 appeared to offer him support as he always does. All the Eastern Europeans usually come in lots of 1/2 dozen, so I can only guess that Manchuria, seeing me isolated, was not a priority.

As for the endemic issues of Wikipedia, please email me on the subject and we can chat further. I do agree with most of what you have said in the AN/I, but prefer to stay out of there in case some enterprising admin decides to take an interest in my editing and I have to get into yet another "discussion" with someone who prefers "common" to exceptional quality standards.

Read your post again. I have to say that I really like the elegance of your expression. Wish I had it in me to emulate that, but alas. In any case, Verifiability is a huge problem in Wikipedia. I see that you mostly edit Japanese articles, so it may not apply, but in may subjects citations are drawn from what is available in GoogleBooks, which is not necessarily a bad thing, however I find that research by keywords means editors who do so do not bother to read the entire paragraph, chapter, and certainly not the book, or several books on the subject to gain subject perspective and context. The outcome is edit warring when someone discovers a Wikipedia article that offers far less than a reference article should.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ASIDE addressed to unknown, unidentified readers

Aside: This small bit is oddly addressed to anyone and everyone other than the one user whose talk page it is supposed to be. This was composed for those readers other than Mrg3105 who are studying these words: I encountered an unexpected response to the carefully drafted thread I sought to begin above -- a brash observation, not from Mrg3105, but from an unexpected, unsympathetic commentator:

Trying to rally others towards the same sort of disruptive approach to dispute resolution not only affirms the view I hold but is also unhelpful to the extreme.

Aside: On one hand, I don't know how to respond to this distinctly unfriendly writer, but I've no doubt that simply re-posting these poorly-chosen words becomes a response of sorts. If I can somehow juggle the flow-chart reasoning needed here -- what happened is that I posted a message for Mrg3105 on this talk page; and my words were then copied and linked within the body of another message posted somewhere else by someone else. So, does that mean that in responding here, I'm acknowledging in a forthright way that I got the message? I did read it. I did think about it. I don't understand -- not yet.

Aside: I can't be alone in recognizing that this talk page represents a unique venue. The often strident prose in most, if not all of the threads which stretch out ad nauseam above is impossible to parse without knowing much more ..., but I'm guessing anyone can take the measure of the headings, including:

2 Insulting people
5 Discussion at AN/I
6 Editing restriction reminder
30 Formal warning
33 AN/I discussion
56 Civility and inappropriate accusations
66 Blocked
77 WP:Civil
92 Blocked (2)
93 Editing restriction
97 Ban
98 Common cause?
- 98.1 Peers?
- 98.2 ASIDE addressed to unknown, unidentified readers
- 98.3 Focusing attention towards a constructive objective
99 Ping

Aside:In this demonstrably non-standard talk page, I would have thought it well-established that "rallying" Mrg3105 to adopt a more measured, thoughtful approach to anything and everything within Wikipedia's ambit deserves approbation, encouragement, applause. I don't think that's what the writer meant -- no, probably not.

Aside: I will continue to try to fathom the depths of whatever it was I was supposed to have known a priori; but I just don't "get" it. In the meantime, I don't want to delay reiterating a sterling phrase:

" ...Trying to rally others towards the same sort of disruptive approach to dispute resolution ...."

Aside: If the problem isn't so much what I wrote, but rather that I had the temerity simply to contact Mrg3105, that would seem like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut -- an apt simile. Perhaps it will ameliorate misunderstandings by explaining that the genesis of the idea to contact Mrg3105 was suggested by imitating BillCJ and Nick Dowling. Imitation is a form of flattery, I know; and I wouldn't want this to be taken that way. Nevertheless, I recognize that these two are "established users" in ways I wouldn't have imagined before chance intervened. I admit frankly that I wouldn't have thought of this on my own. --Tenmei (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Focusing attention towards a constructive objective

Mrg3105 -- The odd, awkward, voyeur's context above was not created by you or me, but what is to be done except to acknowledge it. In light of that intrusive audience, do I need to say frankly that I disagree with a great many things you've written? Do I need to announce that I'd not be willing to endorse much of what I've read on this page? What matters most is this: even if you were wrong, wrong, wrong in all sorts of ways I can't even begin to enumerate, that would not affect my belief -- my near certainty -- that some of what you've alleged is credible, not proven or demonstrated, but plainly credible.

Separating wheat from chaff becomes a labour-intensive chore ... but I'm persuaded to invest in that winnowing in order to protect the other opportunities which attend participating in the Wikipedia project.

I can only guess about the issues implicit in the Aside, but it seems undeniably dark and only obliquely related to WP:V and WP:NPOV. On the other hand -- looking on the brighter side -- I guess we should have reason to feel gratified that our writing is likely to garner a much larger readership than I would have otherwise speculated. If the consequences prove ultimately beneficial, then the term "voyeurs" would seem less relevant perhaps? For an unsolicited audience, the following becomes a timely, wholesome rejoinder? I'm at a loss for words ....

The range of your Wikipedia experiences is wider than mine; and the subjects which seem to attract your attention comprise a broader array as well.

Please forgive my narrow-mindedness, but I think I need to admit a priori that I've not much interest in Russian or Soviet subjects. I can't easily recall having made any contribution to Russia-related subjects, except in minor edits to Sergei Witte and articles about other Russian negotiators who hammered out details of the Treaty of Portsmouth. In fact, what little attention I've even given to Russo-Japanese War -- other than the treaty which ended the conflict -- has focused only on the Western military attachés serving with Japanese armies: Herbert Cyril Thacker, John Charles Hoad, Ian Standish Monteith Hamilton, etc.

When you think about it, the fact that our interests are so divergent could be a good thing. It might help limit and focus what we might be able to work through together. In varying ways, we both seem to have stumbled over issues and consequences flowing from WP:V. That alone won't be enough of a fulcrum to leverage anything worthwhile, but it's a start. I've only scanned your talk page threads, not studied them; but sometimes, maybe -- not always -- I think you're trying to get a handle on issues or topics that I'm trying to grapple with as well. I don't have any suggestions about what to make of whatever we might have in common, no plans yet; but if we could figure out how to manage something both small and constructive, the effort could be worthwhile.

There's no particular reason to rush, of course; but I'm eager to try something new. I'm guessing that you generally move along faster than I do sometimes. You might be more impulsive than I am. So what?

Time is an unknowable element in whatever we need to do. It is inherently impetuous to propose inventing something different from tactics and strategies which haven't worked nearly well enough thus far.

Changing tone a little bit: I wonder if a couple of coincidences are worth mentioning:

1. When I read what you had written above, the first and only Russian who came to mind was Sergei Witte, which caused me to think of his Japanese negotiating counterpart at Portsmouth, Komura Jutarō. As it happens, Baron Komura's family comes from the region of eastern Kyūshū which was once known as Hyūga province ... and, as you know, I only happened to notice something you wrote because BillCJ mentioned 16DDH (Hyūga class helicopter destroyer) just before a contribution you made to a tendentious and ineffective thread.

2. When I re-visited Talk:Sergei Witte, I was reminded of a trivial incident I'd forgotten about entirely. An anonymous reader had posted a plausible question about Witte's official government title in Russia; and another editor had simply endorsed the question as a seemingly valid one. The short thread focused on one of the very, very few aspects of the article in which I actually had something to offer. At Talk:Sergei Witte#Relevant?, the question has to do with whether Wikipedia should or should not identify Witte with what seemed like an Americanized title -- assuming his position was just like that of the American Secretary of State? Obviously, a thoughtful question with easy-to-parse ramifications ....

What pleases me has nothing to do with Witte or the answer -- rather, it's the reasoning which underlies this trivial contribution in April 2008. As you can see for yourself, I posted:

If the term "Secretary of State" is an error in this context, it's at least an error which we can attribute to the New York Times in 1905. Does this help, perhaps, to better focus this discussion or perhaps to move it forward constructively? --Tenmei (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I could have typed out in April 2008 (as I did in July 2008) --

Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true ... which, as you may know, is really nothing more than the first sentence of the official policy page explanatory text.

I could have drafted wiki-jargon in April 2008 (as Bellhalla did in July 2008) --

Also, I want to add that the policy is verifiability, not necessarily truth. NYT meets ~~All three sources meet ~~the WP:RS standard. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)~~~~[reply]

Again and again and again over the past month, I've witnessed this kind of salutatory reasoning rejected, twisted, ignored, blocked, etc. I don't have an adequate vocabulary to describe what I felt about the combination of stonewalling and disingenuous spin and who-knows-what-else. In July, I found myself on the fringes of an odd "event" which still feels overly-orchestrated in retrospect. Although I tried my best to pay attention, my participation -- even as a passive witness -- was ineffective.

In contrast, finding this thread from last Spring feels like a refreshing drink of water on a hot day.

What an odd chain of lucky links: Your introductory exposition/narrative mentioned a number of Russia-related subjects ...; and THEN that inspired me to think of Sergei Witte ...; and THEN that caused me to check-out the talk page ...; and THEN I chanced across this helpful illustration of something small which worked out nicely .... It's good to be reminded of something good. I don't know where to go with this, but maybe we can manage to work together towards a modestly encouraging start. What do you think? --Tenmei (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Framing the issues

Mrg3105 -- It is clear that you and I are very, very different. You seem not especially reluctant to confront disagreement head-on; and I tend to be risk-averse, avoiding conflict and disputes as a general rule. As you know, sometimes that becomes impossible. I'm dealing with just such an unavoidable impasse now. Having exhausted other dispute resolution options, I sought help in a formal mediation process. As you know, the first attempt faltered -- see Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Hyūga class helicopter destroyer; and I promptly re-filed with modifications based on what appeared to have been mis-steps -- see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hyūga class helicopter destroyer2.
Curiously, this thread -- yes, your talk page -- was mentioned in that remote context; and I'm not sure what to make of it, nor whether I should or should not let you know -- see Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Hyūga class helicopter destroyer2#Framing the issues#Disagreement with issues raised in request for mediation. By posting this excerpt now on your talk page, I show that I did indeed make up my mind about what to do. Nick Dowling posted the following:

... I don't really think that mediation is necessary but am willing to enter it to end the dispute. As per WP:M, I reserve the right to withdraw from this mediation if it goes ahead if I judge that Tenmei is continuing to not engage in a good faith and civil discussion of the article. Given that he has been canvassing support against me from other disruptive editors ([6]) I don't have high hopes but will assume good faith. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mrg3105 -- My full attention was aroused by a difficult-to-overlook phrase: " ... has been canvassing support against me from other disruptive editors ...." I have invited Nick Dowling to explain or withdraw sentences which would seem to have been unhelpful in any context, but he has declined to respond. Despite this, I proceeded to with what I considered to have been a plausible, constructive approach.

As you can see, my writing style is not like yours; and my "negotiation" tactics are not like yours, but perhaps I can profit from your unique perspective as my newest failure seems to be playing out in the lines below -- see Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Hyūga class helicopter destroyer2#Framework based on points of agreement:

Framework based on points of agreement

A bridge lies open before us, waiting for one small first step.

It is possible that we can make some small steps together before a mediation process begins. For example, in the context of Issue 1 below, it seems reasonable to hope that we could find a way to agree on the specific date when "unanimous consensus" was reached? There may be other points of agreement as well. Maybe there will be points on which one or more agree and one does not. That information may help the mediator to assess how best to proceed. --Tenmei (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let the mediator assess how to best proceed, and am not going to invest any time in this until the mediation goes ahead, especially as you seem to want to discuss how to interpret weeks-old discussions, including some which you chose to sit out of at the time. By the way, there's no need to post vast amounts of text all the time. I'm not going to read blocks of text which are so large that they have to be hidden to avoid them filling up this talk page and the various messages are available on the article's talk page, complete with edit history and the posts you're leaving out. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Dowling -- That's a clear statement, very clear.

Just for a moment, why not try again to look at what I've tried to create here. Why not try again to parse what is posted -- not parsing in the way you do now, but in a different way? What if the time and work which went into creating the following template was an authentic attempt to communicate meaningfully about enhancing the quality of this article?
what if ...? = MAJOR PREMISE A = WP:AGF
In as clear a way as I can, I've tried to address the propostion that you or anyone else can't understand what I'm thinking, what I'm doing -- or why? I've proposed a plausible plan to help answer at least part of that complicated set of nested questions. My oft-repeated, preferred strategy would have been to start with something on which we can agree, and then to use that common understanding as foundation from which to build, just as Bellhalla did do - see here -- in that process which resulted in what you describe as "unanimous consensus" in your re-statement of what you identify as ISSUE #1.
strategy ≈ plan = MINOR PREMISE B = WP:CONSENSUS
Now you seem to be asking me to accept that you cannot or you will not or you are unable to identify a single point of agreement, not even when I try using your own words?
POINT I: Date of unanimous consensus ... pointless waste of time? no agreement?

POINT II: Substance of unanimous consensus ... pointless waste of time? no agreement?

POINT III: Changes affecting corollary articles and template ... pointless waste of time? no agreement?

I see the blank wall that Nick Dowling presents now -- today, is sadly characteristic; and that's a problem for me personally and for Wikipedia more broadly. The dull record of talking past each other is expressly verifiable; and I'm wondering anew about what part of WP:V is just too subtle to be understood?
Wikipedia:Verifiability -- The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

Wikipedia:Citation.

Wikipedia:Citing sources.

Kyoto -- Marker at location of the outbreak of the Ōnin War (1467-1477).
persuasive verifiability = MINOR PREMISE C = demonstrated credibility
A + B + C = what? QED?
neutral assistance is needed? = CONCLUSION = WP:Request for mediation
Am I supposed to take this new twist to mean that the serial attacks on one sentence in only one paragraph of Hyūga class helicopter destroyer are now going to end? Was this no more than an Ōnin War (応仁の乱, Ōnin no ran)? To clarify, here is that paragraph -- just two sentences:

The first Hyūga class vessel resembles a light aircraft carrier or amphibious assault ship such as the Italian Navy's 13,850-ton Giuseppe Garibaldi, the Spanish Navy's 17,000-ton Principe de Asturias or the Royal Navy's 21,000-ton Invincible-class carriers.^[2] The JDS Hyūga is the first aircraft carrier to be specifically constructed for Japanese marine forces since the end of the Pacific War.^[3]

QED -- consensus reality? Is that all there is? --Tenmei (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What can you make of this?
Mrg3105 -- What would anyone make of all this? It is frustrating, vexing and tiresome. On the other hand, the above demonstrates that you are not the only one who has trouble from time to time in awkward wiki-communication disputes about small matters.
The fact that my approach attempts to be more conciliatory than yours is at least interesting.
Should I take away from this experience a lesson that I need to make a concerted effort to be more brusque, more assertive, etc. Maybe? Perhaps I should pay less attention to those who complain that I use too many words?
Should I just decide to give entirely?
I do know this: No one is driving me away from the opportunities which I perceive as inherent in the Wikipedia project; and I urge you to show a little back-bone as well. Don't let anyone push you away from what you also seem to recognize as a worthwile pursuit.
I know this as well: Your blunt, abrasive style and manner don't bode well in an environment devoted to a massive collaborative writing project. You do need to re-think, re-format, re-package ... and the only way to do that is to keep trying. An alternate approach would be to spend a little less time on subjects which truly interest you; and instead, you might generously devote a little bit of attention to mentoring me.
In other words, let's assume that 50% or more of your investment in the Wikipedia project has been counter-productive -- not satisfying for you, not encouraging for others, and not particularly helpful for readers you'll never meet. If so, then aren't you looking at a glass half empty, rather than recognizing the same glass is also half full? Do you see my point?
What about this? Let's hypothesize that you're even worse than a "problem" (whatever that might be)t -- let's proceed on the basis of syllogistic reasoning:

MAJOR PREMISE: Let us assert as a fact that you are a disruptive editor; and while we're both skulking in the shadows, let us also assert as a fact that I am a disruptive contributor.
If this premise were true, the best thing anyone can hope is that I continue to work on this thread, because while I'm writing here, I'm not causing trouble elsewhere. And, fortuitously, while you're reading this treacle prose, you're not causing trouble elsewhere.

MINOR PREMISE: Let us assert as fact that I have been "been canvassing support from other disruptive editors" like you.
If that were the case, I've no problem in admitting that what I've written here is an improbable trouble-making strategy. Still, let us carry this forward fully and assume that you and I were obsessed with no other object than to be against Nick Dowling, how could we go about that? Well, to begin with, we would have to agree a priori that the world -- our focused weltanschauung -- revolves about a center-point which is located somewhere in the antipodes ...? Already you see where I'm going with this -- Reductio ad absurdum.

CONCLUSION: ______________________ what to do?
If my off-kilter world did revolve around Nick Dowling, then what could be worse than defying his derogatory definition of me. What alchemy would then needed to convert me from disruptive dross? Yes -- now I'm getting into the spirit of things. What could I do to become anything other than a disruptive figure. Yes, yes ... and I'm going try to drag you into my miserable little plans. Yeah, I know -- Reductio ad absurdum gets tired quickly.

On a more serious note: Although I'm trying to diminish the power of that label by making fun of it, I have no doubt that Nick Dowling was crafting no well honed joke. Frankly, I'm not really laughing, nor should you be.
As I see it, circumstances have united us in two distinct, but related aspects of the Wikipedia project: WP:V and WP:Consensus.
I can't really speak for you, but I'm very pleased to have discovered the first line of the first paragraph of WP:V; and my worst experiences in a Wikipedia venue have all had something to do with someone else's unwillingness or inability to recognize that this has to be a sentence on which there needs to be universal agreement. In brief, Wikipedia:Verifiability has to be an agreed-upon starting point or all else becomes a house of cards, or in other words --

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

That's why the phrase "core content policies" has been disseminated so widely throughout the Wikipedia project. Is this wrong-headed? No, not really ....
As for WP:Consensus, I learned most of what I need to know about WP:Consensus when I encountered the children's story about The Emperor's New Clothes and another well-known fable about the Blind Men and an Elephant. Both stories are summarized by the wiki-phrase: consensus reality; and I'm at a loss when I confront another editor who either will not or cannot join me in acknowledging the Wikipedia core content policies as a mutually understood basis for moving forward. Am I being thick-headed? No, not really ....
I've been a bit distracted lately, but even if you do decide to leave Wikipedia for a short time or forever, I'd urge you to postpone that wiki-break just for a short while. Your unique "voice" may be more valuable than you think ...? --Tenmei (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppet

--Meatpuppet is a Wikipedia term of art meaning one who edits on behalf of or as proxy for another editor according to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. --Tenmei (talk) 05:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if I might have been mis-recognized as your evil sock puppet? The angry tone escalated so fast, too fast.
One sentence with supporting in-line citation on a page with no "Notes" or "References" sections is usually a good step in a constructive direction. My edits aren't the kind of contribution which ordinarily inspires a response series like the ones I encountered. BillCJ wrote: "you are a liar" and "I will not engage in a bad-faith confrontational discussion"?
So I'm asking a strange question: Can you tell me what you were editing on July 11th and July 12th? Have you any recollection of a noteworthy dispute in early- to mid-July involving WP:V or WP:Cite or something similar?
When I innocently mentioned WP:V in a context where I thought such a mild reference would be non-controversial, did I ruffle feathers which you had only recently ruffled as well?
I know this becomes an odd leap; but, there you have it. --Tenmei (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Temerity in posting anything here?

The mere fact that I posted anything at all on this page was proffered as reason enough for Nick Dowling to withdraw from mediation. I do not see anything I regret in the paragraphs which are posted here -- in fact, the only thing I can be sure that Nick Dowling does read is here on your talk page. He says that he can't be bothered to read what I post elsewhere; ergo, this becomes an odd, but effective back channel mode of communciation.
I've asked the Arbitration Committee to address the gravamen of Nick Dowling's concerns about my "bad faith" and "disruptive behaviours" at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Tenmei and Nick Dowling. If successful, it is my hope that this will remove any remaining barriers to re-initiating the mediation process focused on content issues. --Tenmei (talk) 03:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Framing of Hyūga mediation 2~~
~~Hi again!~~
A. This is just a quick note to wish you well with your effort to start Hyūga mediation 2 using a description of the problem phrased in someone else's words. I'm guessing that's your best bet for convincing a mediator to accept the case.
~~B. I do have a comment for you about the other issues you raise, identified as 2a through 2g.~~
C. Many systems of rules, regulations or laws work by establishing precedent using test cases. It appears this idea might be motivating you to some extent. Perhaps you are thinking the resolution of the Hyūga issues will be usefully applied to other Wikipedia articles. I wonder if there is any evidence that Wikipedia really does work that way? (If you have thoughts on that, and would be so kind as to express them here, on your talk page, I assure you I'll gladly read them!) (sdsds - talk) 19:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sdsds -- I've been thinking; and here are incomplete thoughts ... more to come when I've pondered a bit more.
A. Whether or not this gambit has any effect on mediators, I can't possibly say? I can't quite fathom the personality mind-set which would make it a worthwhile volunteer activity. In the few cases where I've dawdled at the periphery of a wiki-dispute, it seemed altogether too disheartening; and I always assumed that I was only paying following more constructive issues (or the less intractable problems). That said, this turned out to be a bit of a win-win option for me because the very act of trying to work with Nick Dowling's words brought me a bit closer to being able to see things from his perspective. I fear that sounds overly optimistic, but I don't know how to carve out a more apt niche for what I don't quite understand well enough. I've not miraculously become empathetic -- no, no, not so generous. But I did inch closer that I had thought possible.

B. I wonder if the framing of the complaint using wiki-linked articles actually may have served us better than I could have guessed. Two mediators have taken very minimal actions -- one asked a question on the talk page, and another sent a note to Buckshot06 give assent or dissent ... but not to leave off responding at all. Who knows? This is very likely part of the normal process, unremarkable, insignificant, etc. However, in the absence of reliable data, I'm inevitably going to wonder if there might be a salutatory cause/effect relationship ...?

C. I have nothing to say just yet, but the following is noteworthy, I guess. --Tenmei (talk)
~~Using arbitration for constructive purpose~~
Are there any illustrations of a win-win game in any wiki-arbitration context? If there were, how would one go about looking for the record of that rare wonder? --Tenmei (talk) 05:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration is a last-resort forum for resolving disputes. By its very nature, I doubt there will be an example of a case where the decision made has been to the total satisfaction of all. Here's hoping such a utopia is forthcoming, of course! :) Anthøny 15:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There have been, when the case was due to good faith actions by well intentioned users who got the wrong end of the problem. For example:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN contemplated a wheel war that was actually, miscommunication and best resolved by dropping it all round.

Other cases include WP:SRNC which was a dispute centering on the genuine problems of reaching consensus on a difficult area, and where the main remedy was "consider how to do proper consensus seeking without argument" (so to speak)

... a few "train wrecks" where sorting out who did what wrong is so messy that it's simpler to say "okay, these were bad things to do, don't repeat", and try for a clean start for all, going forward.

... cases like this also.

Look for complete cases that got dropped or dismissed, or had very minimal remedies, "advice", or simply no enforcements, or cases that were resolved at the RFAR page stage, without a case needing to be opened. They happen regularly, although they are a minority. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~All parties do not agree to mediation~~
Well isn't that interesting? It appears mediation isn't going to be possible! Another venue you might try is writing a WP:ESSAY. (Personally I've become particularly fond of this relatively recent addition to the collection! Usually, though, essays have multiple contributors and plenty of talk-page discussion.) Eventually essays can become guidelines, too! (sdsds - talk) 15:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Request for Arbitration~~
I've asked the Arbitration Committee to address the gravamen of Nick Dowling's concerns about my "bad faith" and "disruptive behaviours" at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Tenmei and Nick Dowling. If successful, it is my hope that this will remove any remaining barriers to re-initiating the mediation process focused on content issues. --Tenmei (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Post-nominals~~
~~CFAO 18-4 -- Recommendations for Canadian Orders, Decorations and Military Honours~~
a, b, c, d. Bravery Decorations -- decorations, details of which are contained in 18-15, Canadian Bravery Decorations, to recognize courageous acts in all situations not in the presence of an armed enemy. -- OD&M of Canada -- OD&M of Canada

e. Meritorious Service Decorations -- decorations, details of which are contained in 18-12, Meritorious Service Decorations, to recognize the performance of a military deed or military activity in an outstandingly professional manner of such a rare, high standard that it brings considerable benefit to or reflects great credit on the Canadian Forces (CF).

f. Mentions in Dispatches -- awards, details of which are contained in 18-27, Mention in Dispatches, to recognize a mention in dispatches from a senior commander for brave or meritorious service, normally in the field.

g. Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) Commendation -- a CF commendation, details of which are contained in 18-17, Chief of the Defence Staff Commendation, to recognize a deed or activity above and beyond the demands of normal duty.

h. The CF Medallion for Distinguished Service -- an award from the CF, details of which are contained in 18-25, Canadian Forces Medallion for Distinguished Service, that recognizes service rendered to or in conjunction with the CF by an individual who is not an active member of the CF and that exceeds the expectations of the person's responsibilities.
Thanks for clearing up those unanswered questions. This subject was something I wondered about, but I didn't have an opportunity to ask someone who might know more -- or, more correctly, I didn't look very hard. So, in appreciation, I'm posting the Canadian FIN CS link to the appropriate pages, beginning with Orders, decorations, and medals of Canada. In future, I'll know where to look in Wikipedia. FYI -- The striken text above is just to help me keep track of what I'm doing.--Tenmei (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of current members of the Order of the Garter?

Orders, decorations, and medals of the United Kingdom?
~~Soviet Manchurian operation~~
I was wondering if you would be able to help? I am trying to find the name for what the Japanese called the events of August 1945 in Manchuria. Thank you in advance--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With regret, the short answer to your question, has to be "no." I can't be of much help -- not today, not on this specific subject.

Your question is a good one, but I'm not very familiar with events of this period in Manchukuo. More broadly, my intuition suggests that your query is not a casual one; and this causes me to become cautious and somewhat reluctant to respond without thinking about it first. As a general rule, when I'm unable to parse the plausible consequences of my words and actions, I tend to move along more slowly. Your simple question does tweak my interest; but my thoughts on this un-funny subject aren't for sharing in a Wikipedia environment.

More generally, I have an impression that what you're really looking for is a kind of especially nimble wiki-weapon ... and this, too, gives me pause.

However, we may be able to work well together in ways which relate to the following:
Wikipedia:NPOV

Wikipedia:Citation.

Wikipedia:Citing sources.

Wikipedia:No original research.

Wikipedia:Verifiability -- The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

Today, I'm a bit overwhelmed with what it takes to work through a plausibly useful process -- Wikipedia:Request for Mediation. Perhaps tomorrow or the next day, I'll try to catch you up. --Tenmei (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, just interested what the Japanese called the campaign inflicted on them by the Soviet Union there. Probably for my own curiosity because I am very close to making a decision to end participation in Wikipedia. There is however no hurry as I will keep my account moderately active even if I leave editing--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~You may wish to know~~
Since you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Earthquakes, you may wish to know about this. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 18:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Glasperlenspiel: Huh? --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 20:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had not previously encountered [[User:Editorofthewiki|Editorofthewiki], and when I scanned your user page, my first-blush response was Glsperlenspiel -- aha. I hadn't construed the Wikipedia projects in that manner, and the focus of your attention came as a delightful surprise.
Just now I interpret "Huh?" to mean a question -- as in why did you leave a message on my talk page?

Please, think no more about it. It was only a whim. The allusion was complimentary, but too obscure. This does happen from time to time -- too often, but there you have it. -- Tenmei (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~related aspects of the Wikipedia project: WP:V and WP:Consensus.~~
It seems to me that many editors, while not having a problem with writing, have a problem with reading. The problem is not restricted to me or you putting together logical constructs that seek to reason-out the issues at hand within various articles and how they relate to the general Wikipedia framework. While I have been told I am verbose and that "too long, didn't read" takes over, which explains some appalling discontinuity in some article sections I have encountered, it also applies to shorter text such as this

Policies and guidelines (list)
Principles

Five pillars

Ignore all rules

Content policies

Article titles

Biographies of living persons

Image use

Neutral point of view

No original research

Verifiability

What Wikipedia is not (Not a dictionary)

Conduct policies

Civility

Clean start

Consensus

Dispute resolution

Edit warring

Editing policy

Harassment

No legal threats

No personal attacks

Ownership of content

Username policy

Vandalism

Other policy categories

Deletion

Enforcement

Legal

Procedural

Directories

List of policies

List of guidelines

Manual of Style contents

Searching

v
t
e
You will note that these are in two sections
Article standards
Neutral point of view

*Verifiability*

No original research

Biographies of living persons
~~Working with others~~
Civility

No personal attacks

No legal threats

*Consensus*

Dispute resolution
Here is the funny thing, Article standards are NO WHERE mentioned on the /Wikipedia:Consensus. Simply put, people have no idea what they are talking about when they insist that anything is decided by consensus in Wikipedia. Consensus is part of the process how editors work together, not how Article standards are truncated for the sake of group opinion on any given subject regardless of facts. And this is the reason I get into trouble with Civility. When I see people over-riding article standards with a behaviour modification process using administrative "tools" to get their opinion into the articles, I become quite distracted.
I will see what I was doing in mid July and get back to you--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yes. You've caused a number of disparate threads to come together with this observation. In terms of payback, this perceptive observation could be your intellectual reward for the time and thought invested in the Wikipedia project. This comment solves no problems, addresses no issues; but it reveals that you've been able to ascribe a sophisticated construct from the available data. I had noticed this in a vague, inchoate manner; but I had not myself been able to move beyond that inital data-gathering phase towards more scholarly synthesis and analysis.

Now I begin to appreciate how and why your targeted interventions were so consistent across the range. I see ... precisely selected edits for maximum effect? --Tenmei (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'm not sure how it was construed to be lying, but I think this may have been the post referred to by User:BillCJ--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Involved parties - included~~
~~It seem because I am brought into that AN/I, I am not an involved party, so maybe I will find out why I am called "disruptive" also--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Mediation, Arbitration, oh my!~~
Tenmei, I appreciate your efforts in letting me know about the arbitration request. However, I would like to ask that you keep me out of this and any other future proceedings regarding the Hyūga discussions. My time on Wikipedia will begin to be extremely limited in the next few weeks, and I'd like to minimize the drama I'm involved in and maximize the time I do have to concentrate on writing and improving ship articles. With that said, how you choose to spend your wiki-time is entirely up to you. If filing various requests for this or that is your idea of fun, have at it, but I must say that this situation is beginning to look like the Wikipedia version of the real-life Pearson v. Chung. I don't know if you've heard of that lawsuit or not, but the gist of it is this: A dry cleaning store, owned by the Chung family, lost the pants of a men's suit owned by Pearson, a Washington D.C. municipal judge. Pearson was angry, as most would understandably be, but instead of working to solve the problem with the cleaners, he filed a $67 million lawsuit, which was later dismissed. In the end, Pearson got nothing from the Chungs, got fired from his job, and was ridiculed in the media.
Unfortunately, that's what your situation is beginning to look like. You will have to be the judge (no pun intended) of whether your situation is worth:
your time already spent filing two mediation requests and numerous, considered replies on the Hyūga talk page

your time that will be spent in future proceedings

the time of everyone else involved

any potential hit to your Wikipedia reputation (Try typing "crazy pants man" into a Google search, and see whose name comes up. I'll wait… )
Do all of those things outweigh whatever slights—perceived or real—you may have felt from Nick Dowling, or anyone else? They do for me, which is why I've asked not to be included in this. You will have to decide for yourself. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ Titsingh, Isaac. (1834). Annales des empereurs du japon, pp. 420-421.

^ Hutchison, Harold C. (2007-08-25). "Japan's Secret Aircraft Carriers". Strategypage.com]. Retrieved 2008-07-13. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Template:Ja JMSDF's new carrier, launch video.

^ PBS/WNET, NYC: "Japan's About-Face: The military's shifting role in post-war society." July 8, 2008; Teslik, Lee Hudson. "Backgrounder; Japan and Its Military," Council on Foreign Relations. April 13, 2006; Hsiao, Russell. "China navy floats three-carrier plan," Asia Times (Hong Kong). January 8, 2008; "Meet Japan's New Destroyer - Updated," Information Dissemination (blog). August 23, 2007.

[1] Titsingh, Isaac. (1834). Annales des empereurs du japon, pp. 420-421.

[Hutchison2007-2] Hutchison, Harold C. (2007-08-25). "Japan's Secret Aircraft Carriers". Strategypage.com]. Retrieved 2008-07-13. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Template:Ja JMSDF's new carrier, launch video.

[3] PBS/WNET, NYC: "Japan's About-Face: The military's shifting role in post-war society." July 8, 2008; Teslik, Lee Hudson. "Backgrounder; Japan and Its Military," Council on Foreign Relations. April 13, 2006; Hsiao, Russell. "China navy floats three-carrier plan," Asia Times (Hong Kong). January 8, 2008; "Meet Japan's New Destroyer - Updated," Information Dissemination (blog). August 23, 2007.

[1]

[2]

[3]

@@ Line 840: / Line 840: @@
 === Involved parties - included ===
 It seem because I am brought into that AN/I, I am not an involved party, so maybe I will find out why I am called "disruptive" also--[[User:mrg3105|mrg3105]] ([[User talk:mrg3105|comms]]) ♠<font color="#BB0000">♥</font><font color="#BB0000">♦</font>♣ 03:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
+== Mediation, Arbitration, oh my! ==
+Tenmei, I appreciate your efforts in letting me know about the arbitration request. However, I would like to ask that you keep me out of this and any other future proceedings regarding the [[Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer|''Hyūga'']] discussions. My time on Wikipedia will begin to be extremely limited in the next few weeks, and I'd like to minimize the drama I'm involved in and maximize the time I ''do'' have to concentrate on writing and improving ship articles. With that said, how you choose to spend your wiki-time is entirely up to you. If filing various requests for this or that is your idea of fun, have at it, but I must say that this situation is beginning to look like the Wikipedia version of the real-life ''[[Pearson v. Chung]]''. I don't know if you've heard of that lawsuit or not, but the gist of it is this: A dry cleaning store, owned by the Chung family, lost the pants of a men's suit owned by Pearson, a Washington D.C. municipal judge. Pearson was angry, as most would understandably be, but instead of working to solve the problem with the cleaners, he filed a $67 million lawsuit, which was later dismissed. In the end, Pearson got nothing from the Chungs, got fired from his job, and was ridiculed in the media.
+Unfortunately, that's what your situation is beginning to look like. You will have to be the judge (no pun intended) of whether your situation is worth:
+# your time ''already spent'' filing two mediation requests and numerous, considered replies on the ''Hyūga'' talk page
+# your time that will be spent in future proceedings
+# the time of everyone else involved
+# any potential hit to your Wikipedia reputation (Try typing "crazy pants man" into a Google search, and see whose name comes up. I'll wait… )
+Do all of those things outweigh whatever slights—perceived or real—you may have felt from Nick Dowling, or anyone else? They do for me, which is why I've asked not to be included in this. ''You'' will have to decide for yourself. — [[User:Bellhalla|Bellhalla]] ([[User talk:Bellhalla|talk]]) 11:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)