User talk:John Smith's

Wikisource

Image of page in January 8, 1953 edition of the People's Daily.

John Smith's -- I was vexed by what I read about you and me here. In the context this short diff creates, a meaningful way to demonstrate "good faith and editorial integrity" is by enhancing and highlighting "all contents and references associated with that Remin Ribao article."

This also happens to be consistent with core wiki-policies.

Perhaps you did not know that the January 8, 1953 article has been uploaded to Chinese Wikisource and to Japanese Wikisource?

• 琉球群岛人民反对美国占领的斗争 "Ryukyu Islands, the struggle of peoples against U.S. occupation," 人民日報 (People's Daily), January 8, 1953.
  • Template:Ja琉球群島人民による反米闘争

I will try to figure out how to add an appropriate English translation to the English Wikisource. Perhaps it can be easily accomplished. We'll see. --Tenmei (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The first step in a constructive direction. --Tenmei (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Locked article

I'm very sorry that Senkaku Islands dispute was locked -- not because of a short-term problem with the current version of the article, but because of the unintended consequences.

Even if this action does succeed in mitigating some kind of short-term dispute, I anticipate longer-term problems as a result of Nihonjoe's decision. I tried to explain at User talk:Nihonjoe#Locking of Senkaku Islands dispute; but the effort was not well received:

• diff . . User talk:Nihonjoe‎; 04:07 . . (-33,990) . . Nihonjoe (talk | contribs) (Reverted to revision 411729997 by Nihonjoe; rv edit war spllover from Senkaku Islands, please keep your discussion on THAT talk page, not here.)

IMO, this is a problem which didn't need to be a problem. I do not know how to be a force for good in this context, but I will think about it over the next few days. --Tenmei (talk) 08:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Please have a look:User talk:Midnightblueowl#Chinese New Left POV pushing , and this kind of WP:Disruptive editing has to be stopped before more damage is caused by him. Arilang ^talk 22:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible consensus forming on Remin Ribao sentence at Senkaku Islands dispute

With the input of some previously uninvolved editors, we've developed a compromise wording on the Remin Ribao article sentence at Senkaku Islands dispute. As one of the prior discussants in this issue, I'd appreciate your input in the very last section on talk as to whether you could accept the compromise we've cobbled together. The short argument is that 4 of us (including 2 uninvolved editors) that the article will be better if we clearly attribute that interpretation of the Remin Ribao article, in the sentence, ""The Japanese government and U.S. researchers have claimed that a 1953 article in The People's Daily, a daily newspaper which is the organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), stated that the Senkaku Islands were a part of the Rykuyu Islands, and that this further implied that the Senkaku Islands were a part of Japanese territory" (keeping all of the current sources). I sincerely hope that you might be persuaded to accept this as a compromise that clearly includes the sentence, all of the sources, and doesn't state that the translation may be false, while also clearly indicating the that the translation is an act of interpretation. I'd love to hear your input. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Civility

I started a draft for WP:Wikiquette alerts#User:Bobthefish2. This overview was an attempt to mirror Qwyrxian's approach to the problem Bobthefish2 presents.

As you can see, I did try; but the result is awkward.

The contributions history of Bobthefish2 shows that this is a single-purpose account created last September.

Bobthefish2 only contributes to Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute. These articles are highly controversial.

In Bobthefish2's fourth talk page edit here, he mentions a perceived non-neutral POV "tone":

"I glanced through this page and I realize that there is a subtle pro-Japanese tone ...."

This initial comment becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy during subsequent months.

Without collaborative editing experience in less controversy-laden articles, Bobthefish2 lacks the perspective others will have developed across a range of ordinary, non-controversial articles.

In this context, it seems noteworthy that John Smith's only wants help in persuading Bobthefish2 to give up deliberately provocative edits. I endorse John Smith's modest goals: Yes, "Bob needs to be told that he needs to stop prodding away at editors he doesn't agree with."

I see that Magog the Ogre and Fainites have added short comments. IMO, anything else from me could diminish the potential effect of their words.

Looking forward: I noticed that Fainites used the word "baiting"? This wiki-term is precisely on point. --Tenmei (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. John Smith's (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I had not overlooked or forgotten the diffs here and here which Oda Mari highlighted in the Wikiquette thread here. However, I didn't understand them as merely "uncivil."

IMO, they were effective baiting tactics; and I am still struggling to figure out how you or I could have responded to mitigate the harm. We swallowed the bait. We fell into the trap without realizing it was a trap.

IMO, your response was moderate, thoughtful, pragmatic. You highlighted projected plans to contrive an appearance of edit warring so that Senkaku Islands dispute would be locked. Also, you encouraged Bobthefish2 to stop in a sentence which included the word "hope." I endorsed your approach, especially the word "hope" .... However, our conventional, unremarkable response produced a counter-intuitive result:

• Instead, our diffs were re-framed as accusatory. I wondered: How did this happen? What could you or I have done to avert this perverse response?
• Instead, we were portrayed as conspiring against Bobthefish2
• Instead, Qwyrxian defended Bobthefish2 as if he had been victimized or attacked.
• Instead, you and I were somehow cast in roles as instigators or trouble-makers; and Qwyrxian reasoned that we were wrongly confrontational because Bobthefish2 had not edited the article in the past day.

The explicit short diffs you and I posted were ignored; and only Bobthefish2's aggrieved "spin" was believed.

It would have been pointless to try to clarify. I still don't understand how this played out as it did.

Shortly thereafter, the article was locked. In sum, the baiting tactic was successful; and Bobthefish2 did orchestrate the result he wanted.

For all of us, these edits have a real life context. On television, we all watched horses and camels galloping into crowds in Egypt. This initial provocation and violent street clashes were intended to exacerbate the situation so that pro-Mubarik forces would have an excuse to clear the streets of Cairo and Alexandria. Several news commentators explained that this mirrored a strategy which had been successful in Egypt for 30 years. The contours of a pattern which unfolded on television and a pattern emerging in our small article were not dissimilar.

I hope these shared thoughts will help create a better perspective when something like this happens again in the future -- not with Bobthefish2 nor perhaps in this article. Do you see what I mean?

In the Wikiquette thread, Qwyrxian is characteristically generous. The "uncivil" edits of Bobthefish2 are construed as being a unwanted mistake which followed from misunderstanding that Wikipedia is not a battleground. We can only hope that Qwyrxian got it just about right; but we will never know.

In any case, the fact remains that Bobthefish2 did employ a low-cost, high-yield tactic which has been seen before in our wiki-venues. We have every reason to anticipate encountering it again.

I am writing this because, in retrospect, I regret that I simply didn't know how to be more supportive, more constructive, more effective in a timely fashion. I will strive to do better in the future. --Tenmei (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Baiting

I apologize for failing to do enough to oppose harassment in the form of baiting.

I responded to Bobthefish2's new gambit here at Senkaku Islands dispute by posting this:

WP:AGF is drained of meaning by WP:POKING WP:BAITING -- see context here + here which justifies zero tolerance.

This makes me sad. I didn't understand.--Tenmei (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Bobthefish2's diffs here and here at WP:Neutral point of view#Long running dispute on Senkaku Islands dispute is seem like a variant of WP:Baiting.

IMO, the best course is to stop responding to it.

Characteristically, Bobthefish2's opinions are bolstered by neither research nor citations. Regardless of what you write -- or what you don't write, a talk page thread is unlikely to develop constructively. --Tenmei 02:02, 27 February 2011 --Tenmei (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Wikipedia"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: tag

Pleas see my note newly left in the talk page of that article. Thanks. --Lvhis (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Table

Table deleted from Foreign Relations of Japan#Disputed territories

Please review the table I have re-created here at Counterargument#Counterexample.

• Do you have suggestions about improving specific cells in this matrix?
• Are you willing to make suggestions about how the information in the table can be more effectively explained for those who are unfamiliar with this subject?

In the coming weeks, perhaps we can locate and upload additional images which verify this counter-argument to irredentism in a way that words alone can not convey. Tenmei 23:36, 24 February 2011

I have uploaded File:Atlas 1960 Senkaku.jpg and it is added to this table. --Tenmei 02:18, 25 February 2011 --Tenmei (talk) 23:54, 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) 06:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Bridge used by everyone

"I would rather be a bridge used by everyone than be a statue." -- Nobushige Hozumi

John Smith's -- Have you encountered this Nikkei (日系人, Nikkeijin) poet?

With new hope.

We build new lives.

Why complain when it rains?

This is what it means to be free.

-- Lawson Inada

When you try to be a bridge to the future, it's not easy or simple; but it is a good investment. --Tenmei (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Email

Hello, John Smith's. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 Chinese protests

So how do you propose changing it then? Use the ROC and PRC official names? It can't stay "Taiwan" and "China", because that is not NPOV. De facto two governments of China. We need to find a common ground, it's no big deal in the end.--Tærkast (Communicate) 19:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Nah, it's not really a big deal. I didn't say Taiwan was part of the PRC in any way or form though, and I know the ROC doesn't recognise the PRC either. Your rationale is good though. Thanks, --Tærkast (Communicate) 19:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Myeah. Saw your edit and summary about the protest status. Soon, it will become clear that nothing is going to happen because the screws have been turned so tight inside the PRC. The Tsunami might one day happen, though my guess is that it won't be now or six months time, but is that enough to keep the status indicated in the article as 'ongoing' indefinitely? The dissidents will lose face if they formally called off their thang, so it's just going to turn in to a joke, but funny thing is that it isn't funny (haha). --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear John Smith, I have noticed that you have spent some time helping with the article "2011 Chinese protests". Therefore I would like to inform you about two votes going on:

• "Vote for renaming article to "Chinese Jasmine Revolution"" at the bottom of the page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2011_Chinese_protests

• AfD for the article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/China's_2011_crackdown_on_dissidents#China.27s_2011_crackdown_on_dissidents

Thank you very much for your valued opinion! Best, Waikiki lwt (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

Formal mediation of the dispute relating to Senkaku Islands has been requested. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. For an explanation of what formal mediation is, see Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy. Please now review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then, in the "party agreement" section, indicate whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page.

Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 04:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Boxer Lede

I agree with your comments on this and other matters. I have a draft lede which I will go ahead with unless you think better. Maybe first post a link to my draft sandbox? (I;d have to figure out how to do that!)

I long ago suggested that the article should be renamed "Boxer Uprising," which is based on better scholarship and also is in line with what the Chinese call it. The discussion is buried someplace on the talk page archives. But this may be too big a leap! Any ideas? ch (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Glaring errors in Jung Chang's claims in Mao:The Unknown Story

I'm not immidietly adding to the article on either the book, Jung, or mao himself, but I want to address several glaring falsehoods in the story.

Chang and Halliday falsely claim that Chiang Kai-shek allowed the Communists to escape on the Long March, allegedly because he wanted his son Chiang Ching-kuo who was being held hostage by Stalin back. This is contradicted by Chiang Kai-shek himself, who wrote in his diary, "It is not worth is to sacrifice the interest of the country for the sake of my son." Chiang even refused to negotiate for a prisoner swap, of his son in exchange of the Chinese Communist Party leader. Again in 1937 he stated about his son- "I would rather have no offspring than sacrifice our nation's interests." Chiang had absolutely no intention of stopping the war against the Communists.

In addition, chiang Kaishek urged the Ma warlords of northwest China to hammer away at the communists, including allowing the governor of qinghai to stay since he wiped out an entire communist army [1]

It was reported that Chang and Halliday were "appallingly dishonest", and that Chiang Kai-shek never, ever let the Communists escape, contrary to Chang and Halliday's false claims. In addition, the alleged "source" Chang and Halliday claimed they met could not be found, on the contrary, a person who witnessed the battle, Li Guixiu confirmed that the battle had happened, contradicting Chang and Halliday.

6

And I'm not doing this from a communist perspective. Jung's claims can be construed as an insult to President Chiang Kai-shek, by falsely contradicting what Chiang himself proudly wrote in his diary about serving his country by making sacrifices, and saying that he had in effect no resolve. In addition, Chiang didn't just write it down, he refused out loud to swap his son for a jailed communist leader.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

credentials of authors

Credentials for mister Leonhard

the boredom is killing me, I can't wait for Halliday and Chang to display their phds in Chinese history or political science, while you continue to cite their book as reliable.

The website is an edu website. It would not lie on Leonhard's credentials, unlike Chang and Halliday.

Edu- ".edu, a higher education Internet top-level domain"

Robert R. Leonhard, Ph.D.

also from the same link on page 5- "LTC(R) Robert R. Leonhard, Ph.D., is on the Principal Professional Staff of The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory and a member of the Strategic Assessments Office of the National Security Analysis Department. He retired from a 24-year career in the Army after serving as an infantry officer and war planner and is a veteran of Operation Desert Storm. Dr. Leonhard is the author of The Art of Maneuver: Maneuver-Warfare Theory and AirLand Battle (1991), Fighting by Minutes: Time and the Art of War (1994), The Principles of War for the Information Age (1998), and The Evolution of Strategy in the Global War on Terrorism (2005), as well as numerous articles and essays on national security issues."

Leonhard is very well qualified in military affairs. Chang and Halliday are not qualified in Chinese history. Your citation of their book on numerous articles despite the fact that they hae no degree in the subject area, or experience, and attack on Dr. Leonhard, who has a PHD and was a military officer in America in addition to working for the American government, calls for all of Chang and Halliday's work to be branded as competely unreliable if Dr. Leonhard is someone to be ignored.

you have a pattern of personal attacks on authors whos views you don't agree with-"nobodies", I certainly hope you are not attempting to insult Dr. Leonhard with these obnoxious words- "On a separate note, who is Robert Leonhard, and why should we care what he has to say?", especially given the fact that you inserted the work of a completely uncredentialed author with no phd or degree, published by a "Christian vanity press".ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

This message is to inform you that a request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Senkaku Islands, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. Mediation of this dispute will begin within two weeks (once a mediator has been assigned to the case), so please add the case page to your watchlist.

• For an explanation of what is involved in formal mediation, see Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy#Mediation
• For a guide to accepted cases, see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide#Case phase

The entirety of the above two pages (the MedCom policy and the guide to formal mediation) are also important reading for editors who are new to formal mediation. If you have any questions, please post them onto the case talk page, or contact the MedCom mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 15:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

internet archaeology

Hello, You were one of the editors who still edits here that had a fair amount of interaction with Giovanni33. I would appreciate it if you would take a moment to look at a sock puppet investigation on a new editor by the name of BernieW650 Formally User_talk:67.169.68.203 when you get a chance to see if you see any similarities. It would appear that he edits from the same location on the same topics with the same pov. Thanks for your time.V7-sport (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi

There is discussion about ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ on ANI, maybe you would like to make some comments. Arilang ^talk 13:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)