User talk:Lvhis

Hello, Lvhis! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Page titles

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Guangzhou Peasant Movement Institute a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Peasant Movement Training Institute at Guangzhou. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Diaoyu Islands

Hi,

Since you appear interested in the naming issue, I will give you a few things to think about:

• The article was originally named under something else (Pinnacle Islands?). It was moved to Senkaku Islands some 4-6 years ago by someone through the reasoning of "Japanese controlling the islands". Even though, this reasoning later didn't turn out too correct, subsequent attempts at changing the name were met with failure mostly due to POV-pushing. I think this one here has some particularly evident POV-pushing. If you read carefully, it is as if some would just vote OPPOSE for any convenient reason (and in this case, the support reason was refuted a few threads later but subsequent calls for re-vote were again dismissed). Personally, I believe the original move should be undone simply because its reasoning did not hold. However, it was opposed because some decided that since the name stayed that long, it should stay.
• The degree of Japanese control is disputable, since Chinese vessels had made regular visits to the surrounding water without permission and the Chinese government openly disregarded warnings from Japan.
• A "Senkaku/Diaoyu" dual name was proposed but was met with considerable resistance. One of the primary objections was that people would fight over "Diaoyu/Senkaku" vs. "Senkaku/Diaoyu". Personally, I think it's a silly reason because even though there may still be a conflict, the overall degree of WP:NPOV violation would be lessened, but oh well. The other primary objection was that "Senkaku/Diaoyu" dual names were rarely used in practice. Again, I consider this to be silly (perhaps to the point of wiki-lawyering), because most literature would simply use mention both names (i.e. Senkaku Islands or Diaoyu Islands) instead of creating some eccentric linguistic construct like that.
• There is a lot of debate regarding the relative frequency between Diaoyu and Senkaku Island term usage. Editors from both sides of the opinion had come up with statistics favourable to their argument and my caution to you is that these data can easily be sampled and manipulated in anyway to portray any outcome if the term frequencies of both Diaoyu and Senkaku are close enough in practice. Another cautionary is date. Older documents tend to use "Diaoyu" less because of less publicity. Articles of the past 2 years tend to use both names approximately equally. There are arguments about some maps (i.e. National Geographic and CIA Factbook) using Senkaku Islands exclusively, however, most of the main stream media also use both names. Lastly, the Anglosphere is large and is not exclusive to the U.S. As a result, any data obtained from any sampling is only a crude approximation of the real frequencies (something a lot of people seem to not understand).

Other advice:

• Do not expect every editor's first objective is to WP:NPOV. My experience (and that of others before me) suggest this is an uphill battle regardless of how strong you think your position is.
• Be careful with what you say. Criticisms and lack of good faith assumption can potentially be twisted into some very gross WP violations through nifty use of rhetorics and wiki-lawyering. At least one editor in this page is a master of rhetorics. Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

POV tag

Hello. Before you add the tag again, can you please use the article talk page. I don't understand what it is you are hoping to achieve by having the tag there. As I am trying to explain, the tag is not a form of lodging an official protest. It is if you want to draw attention to a problem. You have drawn attention to it and we are discussing it, so there is no need for the tag.

Please read the article on NPOV disputes. You will see that it clearly states Tags should be added as a last resort. How is this the last resort? As I've mentioned, we're talking about the matter. There is nothing that will be achieved by having the tag.

If you want other views, you need to approach people on the various noticeboards on Wikipedia. Tagging the article won't get anyone who doesn't watch the page to come along. Regards, John Smith's (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. I've left what I hope is a helpful message on the article talk page. John Smith's (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for asking again, but I'm not following your reasoning for having the tag. If you could let me know what you're trying to achieve by having the tag, I might understand why the article needs it. John Smith's (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It was a long standing issue and the tag was there when I first joined the page (if my memory serves). The fact that someone sneaked in an edit to remove it at some point doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to be there.

Please don't start an edit-war over this. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Locking of Diaoyu page

You shouldn't be troubled by the locking of Senkaku Islands, since it has nothing to do with your objective in resolving the naming dispute. Even if the page is not locked, I highly doubt any of your edits would've gotten through. In the end, the far majority of action will take place in talk pages, RfC's, and other discussion media.

My experience also tells me that the locking of the page is also probably not in the interest of certain parties. I am sure you know what I am referring to. It's too bad I can't really be frank with my words. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, you should take a look at this thread. If others decide to play wiki-lawyer with this, then I think I might have to open an RfC just for that. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

RFC/U on Tenmei

As an editor who has interacted with User:Tenmei on the Senkaku Islands pages, I would like to inform you that I have filed a Request for comment on user conduct of Tenmei. You may read that RFC/U at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei, and are welcome to comment on it as explained at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance2 once it has been certified. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I have not had a chance interacting with this user yet, and not been familiar with the relevant edit history this user involved on that page or those pages. While I perhaps would like to take a look at this when I have time. It is really a pain or headache when users have spent a lot time to deal such kid of things than to peacefully make editions or contributions on Wikipedia. BTW, I am preparing to have a update on my "Edit Request" in Talk:Senkaku Islands and may include your recent thought on that {NPOV-title} template.--Lvhis (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; I wasn't sure if any of your recent contact with that page was with Tenmei, and I was just trying to be fair about inviting everyone who I thought might have interacted with xem. As for the Senkaku Islands, what I would really like to do, and have wanted to do for a while, is to enter mediation for that article plus Senkaku Islands dispute. I believe that because that the real world issues that surround the islands, along with the long history of dispute there, could really benefit from mediation. I think that it would be very helpful if we had an outside, independent mediator to help us work through our multiple difficulties, and hopefully be able to achieve some lasting success. I actually believe that, if we did so, we could put, at a minimum, the naming issue behind us eventually but firmly, along with dealing with other perpetually difficult problems on the other article (we're so bogged down in small details that the big picture is a big mess). Unfortunately, one editor refused mediation, so we couldn't go forward with that. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

New messages

Hello. You have a new message at Talk:Senkaku Islands's talk page. Message added 02:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC).

Senkaku dispute

I agree, the title is not NPOV, since the Liancourt Rocks article isn't called Dokdo, despite Koreans controlling the island. It is using a less common, but neutral Franco-English name (Le Liancourt) for the name, for neutral purposes since it's a highly contested island between Korea and Japan.Phead128 (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Since you are the main driver for the naming issue, I'd remind you that the "anti" faction has a tendency of making up rules and heuristics on the fly (i.e. Google searches are unreliable, dual names are not allowed, we should follow the standards of this encyclopedia that only uses the Japanese name, etc, etc, etc). After glancing through a few of the recent posts about the topic, this is what I notice. Since this type of issue does not commonly arise in Wikipedia, be sure not to assume the other parties are experts and authorities on the matter. And by the way, the "guideline" pages they cited can be edited by anyone and has been subjected to notable changes in the past without consultation - don't treat them as law. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

All guidelines, policies, and other "rules" on Wikipedia are editable by the community. If you disagree with one, you're welcome to go to that page and either change it directly or (as usually safer) start a discussion on the talk page about changing it. For example, if you go to WT:BLP, you'll see several ongoing discussions about changing the rules about biographies of living people. Sometimes, when changes are large and have big impacts, we have big, advertised community discussions (we just had one proposing a change that wouldn't let people create new articles until they are autoconfirmed). That's how wikipedia works. Bobthefish2 is right that you should always read any referenced guidelines (etc) carefully, as they are often complex, and even experienced editors make mistakes or fail to notice changes. But if a guideline says something, unless you know that point is currently under debate, it generally trumps any opinions about what should or should not be done. Ultimately, there is no law on Wikipedia; the closest things are the WP:Five Pillars, and precedent (although both of those are themselves liable to change over time). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, since you are part of the zh:Wikipedia, can you re-post the thread I copied and pasted to Project China to the relevant project page in the Chinese Wikipedia as well? Thanks. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Your points on the naming issue are very valid so keep up the good work. STSC (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I thought they are good and it appears 織田小姐 is not going to address replies to her posts after all. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank both of you! We have worked together very well in a nicer and nicer tacit way. I am just very busy that sometimes I cannot respond swiftly. I have done there as Bob asked while I think we can handle this case well enough even without extra outsiders. BTW, an idiom as the 1st words came out from my mind when I saw that 小姐 was referring the article in zh-wiki: 班門弄斧 (teach fish to swim). --Lvhis (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

織田小姐 sometimes does manage to give reasonable argument. Minus her vindictiveness, she isn't all that bad (at least compared to some other people). However, I do agree that they are 班門弄斧ing when they try to teach Chinese editors about Chinese usage. While there are indeed very good Chinese literature scholars among the Japanese people, I highly doubt any of these experts are are here. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Careful with Twinkle

Be careful when you use Twinkle for rollback--make sure you choose the correct one of the three rollback choices. In this edit, you mistakenly marked Phoenix7777's removal of the tag as vandalism, which it clearly is not (see WP:VANDAL). Instead, you should have used the generic Rollback or even Rollback (AGF), as I believe Phoenix7777 was editing in good faith when xe removed the tag. You may want to make a dummy edit to leave a summary indicating that your use of the term vandalism was in error. Calling edits vandalism when they are not is sometimes taken as a personal attack; I'm guessing you did mean this as an attack, but making mistakes like that can get you in trouble and lead to a loss of Twinkle privileges. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• I compromised and changed it as "violation of WP:NPOV". Hope he will not remove it or roll back by violating WP:NPOV again. --Lvhis (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The POV-title tag

Yes, the tag is put there for good reasons, and the administrators know it. STSC (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Whatever happened, the battle is not over yet. I have asked AGK to put back the tag, I hope he would do that. STSC (talk) 05:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Good! Thanks! --Lvhis (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, AGK would not do it. Please go head with the edit-protect template to add back the tag. STSC (talk) 04:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I believe we were asked not to do anything with any of the related articles while MedCom is conferring privately--this presumably would include making edit-protected requests. At this point, I have intentionally not even responded to certain email queries, pending clear information from the committee or Feezo that we can do so. Of course, this is not an enforceable request, but it seems reasonable until MedCom decides if we're continuing with mediation, bumping this up to ArbCom, or whatever. Nothing is going to change either way if the tag is or isn't there for a few weeks. The problem is that if you put up the edit request, then the rest of us have to sound in whether or not there is consensus for the tag (since edit-protected requests can only be fulfilled when there is a clear consensus for the requested edit), and that would certainly break the Committee's request. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Replied at this user's talk page. --Lvhis (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to the admin. he's rightly done so. STSC (talk) 00:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The admin has put back the tag on the main article; this should be good enough, and I would not bother with the tag on the other sub-articles as it attracts vandalism from the mob. STSC (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Monkey in silk suit is still a monkey

The silly argument of "Senkaku is English" cannot stand and you have presented your case very well. STSC (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Lvhis will have to elaborate on that argument. I don't really understand it (sorry!). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Bob, I am too busy to input my whole thought on the argument in one time. Maybe the incontinuity causes some problem. I am still working on it. Thanks. --Lvhis (talk) 04:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Google

Hi, thanks for your message. This is my reply to your question: if you think Pinnacle Islands should be the title then you may endorse the "Not support using Google as a metric (to determine a widely acceptable name)". Please note this option dose not mean it dismisses Google for other uses. STSC (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

What's up?

It appears an ANI is started somewhere by John Smith. What's going on? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I need a fact-checker to see whether or not what I said made sense [1]. In the event that I was actually spewing non-sense, I'd like to be informed.

Edit warring, Senkaku Islands

Hi Lvhis. I regret to say I've blocked you for 24 hours per Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute#BRD cycle, crystal clear, because of this addition, which was reverted, but essentially restated immediately by yourself. I know it's harsh, but you even agreed it was a good idea to be harsh, because, as you and I both know, the article needs some tough adminning! If you want to appeal the block, feel free of course. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Accept. I read the WP:BRD page more carefully now and realized that to the BDR I have admitted I am still a newbie. I truly accept both your admin Beeblebrox's decline and Magog the Ogre's block. No more appeal or complaint; instead, a sincere appology to whom those including you Beeblebrox, and of course to Magog the Ogre. As for the 1st point "don't get to decide who reviews ...", my honest inclination is I did not want to make an effect that I has been blocked by Magog the Ogre while I wanted to get unblock bypass him. But if I made an unexpected effect disrespecting you Beeblebrox and other admins by so, I make another sincere appology for this to you everyone, too. --Lvhis (talk) 03:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I took so long to respond. I'd seen that you'd posted a request on your talk page to me, but I saw it on my cell phone and it's really a pain to respond on that. In fact, I would have declined your unblock for the same reasons Beeblebrox did, mainly that in fact you did violate the BRD cycle, and that you had not acknowledged this. Fortunately, your block will expire within about 5 hours. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I will support your decision and measures on those pages as before. --Lvhis (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Your OPPORTUNITY to either oppose or support Qwyrxian in his bid to become an administrator...

Hi, I would like to hear what you have to say about Qwyrxian, and here's your chance to do that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Qwyrxian. CHEERS! Diligent007 (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I made my “oppose” vote there couple days before already. Even though he has 100% chance to pass this vote, but in my mind he is not qualified to be an administrator for now. --Lvhis (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Japanophile

Since there was a lot of issues with Conflict of Interests and things like that, I had to come out early to make sure there wasn't an issue about that. Sure, I do a lot of the graphic work of Japanese symbols and made Japanese articles into Featured and Good articles and I am ja-3 (among other things, which I won't get into), but the main issue is that I was heavily involved in the Laincourt issue. I am a part of OTRS, the email team that deals with folks outside of Wikipedia and had to deal with the Laincourt issue there. Cannot say who, how or why, but I want to be very hands off with my admin tools and anything else when it comes to the issue about Senkaku. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your talk here. As for the Senkaku pages, actually some Japanese admin has been hands in with admin tools already for a while. I appreciate your self-restrict attitude, plus your proposal on Pinnacle. --Lvhis (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

	Thank you for your participation on my RfA
	Thank you for participating at my RfA. I know that you and I have great differences, but I sincerely hope we can continue to work together in ways that ultimately benefit the project. If you ever have concerns with my behavior as an admin, please let me know at any time. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I really appreciate your such kindly thanks very, very much given that I made my firm Oppose vote for your RfA. I hope that you, as a new admin, will realize that you start to bear more responsibilities and obligations to keep the wp better, specifically, in the pages both of us have been involved in so deep and so long (but I am much, much newer than you to these pages and the dispute on them). No one can be perfect but if you can realized what is the wiser way for you as an admin to help solve the dispute in a fair as well as the NPOV manner the wp emphasizes, you will get more closer to the point of "perfect". I raised a good example of admin in my Oppose comment there, here I'd like give you another good one, just please looked at a little bit up, the admin Zscout370 who is a Japanophile and with ja-3 (I guess you may have ja-1 as you ever mentioned something like this?) , and has made a lot of contributions in wp to Japanese related articles, and also ever involved in solving the dispute over naming the page Dokdo/Takeshima Islands. --Lvhis (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

BRD

You should confirm with Magog first about whether or not you are breaking the rules with your new edit. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I did. See here. Thanks. --Lvhis (talk) 03:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that. Anyhow, a very philosophical person has just reverted all your efforts, claiming the deletion to be "pro-Wikipedia" [2]. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Notice how he used the word "fraud" to describe his opponents. I've used the same word before to describe the nature of an information source, but its application on the efforts of an editor is not very nice. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Usually I concentrate more on the substantial part of other's comment. Thanks for your reminder. This violates AGF and almost can be called "Personal Attack. I wonder what and how Qwyrxian will treat this. Let us refute him (Tm) first to finish this new cycle of BRD. --Lvhis (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The volcanic outburst of Mt. Vesuvius that wiped out the Roman cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum, by Joseph Wright (ca. 1774-6)

I think we should leave Qwyrxian out of this. Last time he and I talked, a nervous breakdown had occurred [3] that resulted in a volcanic outburst [4] of tremendous anger towards Republicans, racism, and the concept of political correctness. As a result, I believe his ability to deal with this article is temporarily compromised [5]. Even if a full recovery is achieved after the volcanic outburst, he has been known to be very selective about who he condemns for incivility and personal attacks - a fact he has admitted himself during the volcanic outburst I cited.

It appears our admin friend has returned to the matter voluntarily... along with some potentially very personal vendetta (based on the relatively hostile and unfriendly tone being witnessed). I hope that wouldn't have any repercussions on your BRD cycle. After all, even Imperial Guards are human [6].