Jump to content

User talk:Boneyard90

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mtking (talk | contribs) at 08:00, 14 January 2013 (Caution: Removal of maintenance templates on Execution of Rizana Nafeek. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

On the images of Hanaguri Ide

The images of Hanaguri Ide were removed possibly because of the copyright. Please help. Which one do you think is practical ? I will ask the copyright owner to join Wikipedia and he will enter the images. I will take photographs of Hanaguri Ide myself, but very poor photographs will be taken. Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the photos have a copyright, then the owner will probably not want to join Wikipedia. By adding photos, the owner MUST give up copyright, and many people do not like that. I advise taking your own photos if you live in the area. Pick a nice day, with a blue sky, and take 10 or 15 photos from different angles. Select the 2 or 3 you like best. Good luck! Boneyard90 (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Menstrual taboo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seva (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otome Sensō

Hi! Could you look at "Otome Sensō" again now? It was actually better that some of the articles that you assessed as C-class, so I'm puzzled a bit... I've restructured it now. By the way, Reni Takagi is not alone on the cover and it's the source who calls it a secret, not me. And you really have to look closely to notice, that's also what the source says. So I changed it partially back. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for taking the time to write. Yes, I altered the wording because it sounded like promotional language. I mean, if something is in a picture, but you have to "look very closely", then it's not really "hidden"; it's just very small, or camouflaged. If it was "hidden", it would be somewhere where you can't see it, like behind her or in her pocket or something. As for the assessment, I marked it C-class for lack of coverage, and this was related to the section "Reception". Everything else is pretty complete, I'd say. There's production, promotion, descriptions, but articles on songs or albums usually include not only chart ranks, but also critics' comments. What did the critics say about the songs? I think after a sentence or two on that would raise the article to B-class. I'll transfer these suggestions to the Talk page. Good luck! Boneyard90 (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation! If you still don't like the word "secret", rephrase it, but I think it makes the article more interesting. And I've already found a review, I'll add it in a few days. By the way, I asked simply because you marked the article as Start-class, not C-class. I thought it could be because it wasn't divided into sections "Music", "Cover art", etc, so I decided to ask. Now, after your explanation, I will expand it to B-class. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Hikashu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ensemble
The Gerogerigegege (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ensemble

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Agbarjin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ulus
Kazuko Hosoki (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Rolls Royce

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personal problem

Hey! You seem to be a respected member of WikiProject Japan, and in the now several times I have dealt with you you have been agreeable. I'm here because I am having a problem with another user who also regularly edits articles within WikiProject Japan's sphere.

The user and I got off on the wrong foot, and I misinterpreted his actions as being contemptuous of MOS's policy on macron-usage, and he misinterpreted my editing certain articles as "stalking" him. I know he was wrong (I have a strong interest in Japanese cinema, which is the area in which we disagree) and I am willing to assume I was wrong in my assumption as well.

I made a peace offering to him, but he responded by deleting it, and attacking my edits to yet another article. He insists that I am "hounding" him, and given that I have now asked him to stop numerous times, I asked an impartial user who had already intervened for help. He/she told me[1] that the correct course of action was to find a mutually-agreeable user who we both respect and can act as an intermediary.

Since I am not active on WikiProject Film, Japanese WikiProject seemed like the logical choice, and you are by far the most active user there, as far as I know. Would you by any chance be willing to help resolve what has the potential to become a very disruptive dispute if it drags on further? Or if not, could you direct me to someone who could?

Kind regards,
elvenscout742 (talk) 08:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, first of all, thank you for the kind words! Next, about your dilemma, you should know that if it's the editor I'm thinking, he & I have not always seen eye-to-eye, and while vitriol was minimal, perhaps so was amicability. But that was a while ago, and maybe no grudges are held. You can suggest me as a mediator. If he is not receptive to the idea, you might alternatively see WP:Third Opinion for a specific problem, WP:Mediation for an overview & official policies of the mediation process, or you might suggest WP:Editor Assistance for a completely neutral editor with mediation experience. Let me know what happens. Good luck. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation refusal

There was a talk page notice regarding "mediation" from User:Elvenscout742 on my talk page. As far as I'm concerned, this user is harassing me. See WP:HOUNDING. When confronted, the user basically admitted that he was indeed doing exactly what is described on the page WP:HOUNDING. He also tried to get some administrator to attack me by reporting on the administrators' noticeboard and various other things. I don't think there is a need for "mediation" so much as a need for this user to be clearly warned about harassing other editors. I will remove anything from him which is deposited on my talk page, and I completely refuse "mediation" with this person. JoshuSasori (talk) 06:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and glad you could keep me updated on the development of this situation. User:Elvenscout 754 contends that there is simply overlapping areas of interest. If he is not sincere, what do you think is the root of the harassment? When did it start? Boneyard90 (talk) 06:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, this user noticed a post of mine discussing a proposal to alter MOS:JAPAN so that macrons on Japanese names would not be used. This was discussed and the consensus seemed to be that my proposal was not necessary or was misguided. OK. I dropped the topic. After this User:Elvenscout742 first appeared at a discussion on Ryo Kase, arguing very hard about the macron and not really wanting to follow the policy described at WP:JATITLE. Following this, he evidently looked at the list of pages which I had created, and then started moving pages which I had created to different names. In at least two cases his moves were correct. For example as I was unable to locate the name of a film in English, I'd temporarily named the stub article Sonezaki Shinju (1978 film) without a macron, where by MOS:JAPAN it should have one. Also Akumyo series. However, in two other cases, he moved pages which were correctly titled according to WP:JATITLE. Ryoko Nakano, a stub article on a 70s Japanese actress, and Reikou, a variety of citrus fruit. I moved these back because the non-macron style is correct (Reikou is actually the registered variety name, with the "u", and Ryoko Nakano uses this style on her home page). It would have been very obvious if he had checked the references and links on those pages. He also started a requested move at Kindai Eiga Kyokai even though I presented very strong evidence that this is the company's own styling of the name, on film titles and DVDs. However, even when presented with evidence that he is wrong, in all cases the user endlessly barracks on the talk pages in this exasperating haranguing style, telling me for example that he speaks much better Japanese than I do, and therefore only his opinion counts, and other such frankly offensive and egomaniacal behaviour (see my talk page history if you really want to dig up the dirt). I am forced into replying to these discussions with him instead of making productive edits on the article pages, and no matter how obvious the case that he is wrong (see the talk page of Ryo Kase) he goes on and on arguing. I think this following my list of created articles and then renaming them all, then going into these endless nitpicking squabbles on talk pages is a clear case of WP:HOUNDING. JoshuSasori (talk) 06:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
JoshuSasori, I was undoing some of your edits to articles where I genuinely believed you were violating policy. I thought this about Reikou, and when you presented me with the opposing evidence I apologized and stopped trying to move the article. You have still not presented me with any reasonable evidence on Tadao Sato (which you didn't create) or on Kindai Eiga Kyokai. As to my "following you" to the latter article, it needs to be pointed out that it is a company behind two films (Onibaba and Kuroneko) I saw almost a decade ago, and whose articles I had edited long before you created your Wikipedia account. I have been watching hundreds of Japanese films for a very long time, and I have every right to edit Wikipedia articles relating to those films constructively. However, as soon as I touched the articles Double Suicide of Sonezaki and Tadao Sato, you started working to hide all my contributions to those articles, as is demonstrated by your nitpicking my translation of the word 精神 and going out and searching for an "English title" of Sonezaki Shinjū so that you could remove my gloss. You did this after repeatedly reverting my gloss under a blatant misrepresentation of MOS:FILM and WP:NCFILM.
The fact is that I want to be able to have constructive debates over whether this or that article should have a macron in its title, but you have tried repeatedly to shut down these debates by making personal attacks/assumptions of bad faith, and to shut me out of editing these articles entirely. I can't help but feel that if I now tried to edit Twenty-Four Eyes again, you would accusing me of following you there, too, even though I created that article. When I first tried to make you a peace offering, and offered conclusive proof that my editing of JFILM articles is in good faith[2], you removed my post as "hounding"[3], when in reality I have done a lot less "hounding" than you have in constantly undoing my good faith edits to numerous articles.
elvenscout742 (talk) 09:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions

Good to see we can come together on neutral ground for open & frank discussion of personal viewpoints that may contribute to a cessation of hostilities. I have been trying to gain an overview, while at the same time trace the increasingly heated exchanges. As pointed out, the ongoing dilemma finds its root earlier in December on Talk:Ryō Kase. As best I can see, the exchange really began to escalate after 14:55, Dec 16: the words "absurd" and "ludicrous" were used, which ordinarily might be considered very mild nonconstructive criticism, but in the heat of discussion catalyzed further hard feelings, ranging from the suspicion that the opponent was not assuming good faith and engaging in "abusive" behavior. First, you both are constructive content editors, with dedication to the cause. Personal styles of repartee can sometimes conflict sharply leading to harsh debate. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Elvenscout742

First, we must remember that Wikipedia is consensus driven. This sometimes seems to take precedent over established policies. I have also found myself in debates, in which, from my viewpoint, I was correct based on policies &/or guidelines, but the move I advocated was over-ruled by a consensus of the opposing side. My opinion, or my advocated move, was considered too inconvenient or was simply outside the interest of the other editors. You must consider that even though you're sure you have policy on your side, a consensus may be built against your view. Ideally, all us editors would then re-visit the policy and amend it to reflect practice, as demonstrated by consensus. In reality, hard changes can be difficult to obtain, since this is all volunteer based.

Advice: First of all, it does not benefit your position to extoll your credentials. Remember, here at Wikipedia, almost nothing of our outside lives counts for anything. I know, this is a hard pill to swallow. I can put userboxes on my User page, for your benefit, but then again, I can put any userbox I want; there is nothing to validate my claims. This is why some new editors can be quickly frustrated and why more experienced (and embittered) editors have to be reminded not to talk harshly to newcomers. Remember that the only thing that counts is consensus, which includes the consensus that an editor is knowledgeable in some area.
Next: It may benefit your debates to keep your position concise. Keep your words confined to the debate at hand; avoid bringing up debates on other pages. If you feel you are being baited, avoid the temptation to address it. Keep your remarks confined to the subject. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To JoshuSasori

After some reading, I can see why you may think you're being "hounded", but I also wonder if this label was too quickly applied. The best evidence of "hounding", as in malicious, targeted disruption of one editor's edits, is when the hounding editor begins to contradict himself. When the harassing editor is more intent on disrupting an opponent rather than contributing to the content & format, then the exchange has moved to personally motivated disruption. I do not believe this is the case here, as Elvenscout742 has been consistent in his position. Even if he goes through your list of created articles, we must look to see if he is editing other, similar articles consistently. It seems he has, and therefore we must assume good faith, to the extent that we may have to give the benefit of the doubt, as it seems he is more motivated to correct format rather than editing simply to confront you.

JS: You advise me to look at your Talk page for example of "hounding", but after some time searching, I come to find out you have deleted the exchanges. I suppose since it's your Talk page, you have the right, but this is not conducive to open dialogue.
JS: Your debate style and comments walk a line between humor and sarcasm. I sometimes fall into the same trap, which can frustrate a debate participant, even though I gain some humor. We both must be aware that our words may not be interpreted as we intend. Please avoid assumption of motive - any motive, and keep your edit summaries confined to your reason. It does not benefit the debate to admonish another editor to avoid taking the first Google hit as a reliable source. We must assume that he believes his edit to be genuine and valid, and you should state your reason minus any other assumption. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion

I would suggest a moratorium on editing, say for 3 days, but as you are both quite dedicated to The Cause, I doubt there would be consensus. I also doubt there is enough evidence for any admin action against either of you. Furthermore:

  1. I have seen that both of you can reasonably withdraw from a debate, when you find there is a reliable source to back the opponent's position, or you find consensus is against your position; however, in both cases, it can be a drawn-out grudging withdrawal. Recognize the turn of events sooner. You can begin to see which way the debate is turning much sooner than when you finally say, "Whatever, I don't care". State plainly that you do not agree, but will wait until you find a reliable source to support your position. Most of these articles are not going anywhere, and there is nothing to stop you from coming back in a month or a year after you have found a reliable source.
  2. Streamline the route to discussion. At this point, it should go :Text correction -> Revert & Talk page discussion. That is, instead of further reversion, there should be discussion with the first revert; either the reverting editor should explain, or if the initial "correcting" editor disagrees, he should initiate discussion.
  3. Once discussion begins on a Talk page, refrain from further edits on that article until the point of contention is resolved, either between you two, or with consensus of other editors. You're not going to "win" all the time, but this isn't about winning.
  4. If one editor makes an inflammatory comment or reply, really take a step back, take a break for an hour or so. Consider your response; frame your wording to be as neutral as possible. Before hitting the "Save page" button, re-read your comment, and really deconstruct it, looking for points of possible contention or misinterpretation.
  5. Remember that everyone is equal here. All authority and experience, within & outside of Wikipedia is irrelevant. Even an unknown AnonIP has as much right to contribute as an editor with a specialized education and/or years of Wiki-experience. It's all about consensus.
  6. The macron debate will not end soon, and there is no blanket policy. In any article with macrons, each must be ready to reverse position, accept that reliable sources go against policy, or accept that reliable sources are not to be found, and default to our MOS.
  7. Last, you both seem to have overlapping areas of interest. In all further communication, consider that you will be confronting each other time and again. You must find a way to communicate effectively, efficiently, and courteously, or you will be faced with many stressed hours in front of a computer.

I hope this helps. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boneyard, firstly I would like to thank you for all the effort you have put into investigating this case. The above research is almost-100% accurate (JS didn't technically delete any exchange, per se, on his talk page, but reverted my offers of compromise immediately without replying) and your recommendations are all agreeable and appropriate. I did not actually intend to reply here unless JS did as well, since I assumed this would be the end of it. However, not long after reading the above I went to edit the article Kuroneko[4][5], and my edit was immediately tagged as OR[6] by JS. After a brief debate in which I demonstrated willingness to compromise on what he initially claimed was an problematic point (I removed part of my own edit[7]), and also demonstrated that since my edit was based on a reliable source it can't be OR[8] (he was really contesting the definition of a word I used), he posted two sarcastic remarks[9][10] and removed my edit completely[11]. He has now done this -- engaged in draconian measures to hide any edit I make -- on three separate articles. I tried coming to you for mediation but it apparently didn't work; any advice on where to go next? I guess I could try taking a Wikibreak, but does that mean I have to just come back and let this happen again before I do anything? elvenscout742 (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, initially I put the tag on the notion you had added to the article without actually reverting the edit, and pointed out to you that you were making a synthesis of two things (a possible meaning of a word and the meaning of the title of the film). You went on and on arguing with me, with the discussion spilling onto three Wikipedia noticeboards. You continued arguing even when presented with absolutely overwhelming evidence that your opinion about the usage of "yabu no naka" was wrong. Then you started using "collapse" templates to hide my inputs on discussions. And now, you present yourself as a victim. JoshuSasori (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've given the latest turn some thought and I believe it is helpful and quite acceptable to place a tag and discuss, and beneficial to do so without reverting the edit, as User:JS originally did. A synthesis is made when a conclusion is drawn for the reader. As one experienced editor pointed out on one of my articles, if there seems to be a correlation (as in this case), you can write about this (as in translate the title of the movie), and you can write about that (as in the metaphorical or idiomatic usage of the phrase), and as long as both are acceptably sourced and independent, both relevant items can be included in the article. Without a source, an editor should not make the connection for the reader, no matter how "obvious" it seems. If it is that obvious, the reader should be able to draw the same conclusion as you - or not, but it's not up to the editor. Now, as far as Wiki-etiquette on Talk pages, mild sarcasm may not be conducive to amicable cooperation, but should not be a great obstacle. Sincere readers will see through it, and it may be more detrimental to posting editor. As for the Collapse feature: As long as this is applied fairly, to large sections rather than a single editor's comments, it should be acceptable. I spend so much time scrolling up or down various discussion, I'd like to see this feature applied more often. I think it is more often applied to "censor" discussions that went off on a tangent or became offensive, and therefore carries some wiki-stigma, but I think it is acceptable as long as the heading reads something like: "Collapsed for ease of navigation", or something, and should be applied after the discussion has reasonably moved past that point of discussion. As far as the "yabu no naka" meaning, to be honest, I began to get lost in who was making which claims. Boneyard90 (talk) 08:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Victoire Pisa

You may want to run the rule over Victoire Pisa as it has been nominated for DYK (not by me) and could be on the main page fairly soon. Thanks for your help so far.  Tigerboy1966  01:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Japanese funeral, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CE (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Japan Assessment

Hi. Would just like to inform you that there are currently two articles up for assessment over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Assessment, one of which has been sitting there since November. Happy editing! Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the only one in the project who can assess an article. You can post this to the WP:Japan Talk page or the WP:Japan Assessment Talk page. If you are requesting my personal attention, then I can take a look at the articles, if you like. Boneyard90 (talk) 07:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, why not. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I love gerundicity..

But your edit at "Impalement" was a distinct improvement over my own! :-) Arildnordby (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you agree! And welcome to Wikipedia! Boneyard90 (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! By the way, I've added the direct quote from John warkworth's chronicle relating to Tiptoft's act (used by Evans in Death of kings), shouldn't Warkworth's words be the primary source to Tiptoft's actions, rather than the unreferenced story that previously stood there? Perhaps you could take a look at it?

Arildnordby (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll take another look at it. I was going for a "this is what everybody thinks, but here's the real deal" kind of approach. I didn't write the paragraph about Tiptoft (not really my area), so maybe we should just delete all mention of Vlad and Wallachia. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Wallachia and genitals in the mouth should out. That's mere sensationalisms and MUST have independent source. Furthermore, these 20 8not thirty) were hanged, drawn and quartered, and the impalement was a post-mortem INDIGNITY, rather than a form of execution.

Arildnordby (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a rough draft of what I think is a better re-telling than the unreferenced one.

Arildnordby (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I made some tweaks, and removed the Vlad mention entirely. A couple points for your consideration: I do not believe "sensationalism" is an adequate argument against the addition of relevant information; I've too often seen ideas dismissed as "sensational" in academia, that were later demonstrated as accurate or at least worthy of consideration (in this case though, as there is no reference, so I don't mind deleting the information). Also, the description is of disemboweled corpses arranged to appear as if their own heads were sprouting from their buttocks, undoubtedly in front of friends & family. I don't think castration and oral investment of the amputated genitalia can add much more to the already gruesome image. Boneyard90 (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good points! Anyhow, I think we have made the latter half of the England section much better than it was. The first half is still sorely lacking in references (I know you didn't write it); perhaps one might add a few "reference needed" markers?

Arildnordby (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could. The article has a "ref improve" banner at the top of the page, but if you want to add the [citation needed] to specific paragraphs or claims, or the section-specific template of the banner, it couldn't hurt. (See Template:Refimprove section. Boneyard90 (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC

The reason for the link is that as per WP:NFCC non-free content is not allowed on talk pages. ✍ Mtking ✉ 07:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Execution of Rizana Nafeek, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Please revert the POV, the issue has not been addressed ✍ Mtking ✉ 08:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boneyard90&oldid=532997285"