User talk:Phoenix7777

Archive 1

.

Hello, Phoenix7777, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Oda Mari (talk) 05:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Daikanyama

I see you removed the paragraph about the embassies. But, aren't you mixing up Daikanyama-cho (the administrative name) and Daikanyama (the area name)? Sarugagucho is in Daikanyama, so the embassies are in Daikanyama. Here is a map:[1]. Best regards,--Mycomp (talk) 06:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the article Daikanyama is about "the area name" but "the administrative name". The lead says "Daikanyamachō" and postal code is 150-0034 which indicates Daikanyamachō.[2]. And the "Daikanyama 代官山" in your map is not "the area name" but a station name. Please see next station "Nakameguro 中目黒" or zoom in appropriately.[3] I don't know what "the area name" Daikanyama means. Could you provide any information about "the area name" Daikanyama? I think it is probably a very vague name that no one can define explicitly. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You are right about the writing "Daikanyama" (it was the Toyoko line station). Mea culpa. But look at this: it is 代官山エリアガイド (Daikanyama area guide):[4] The Danish Embassy is listed as one of the embassies in Daikanyama. But, it's ok, if you think the embassies should not be mentioned in the Daikanyama article we can keep them out of it. I go to Daikanyama regularly, and "everybody" calls the area where the embassies are Daikanyama (yes, I know that is not an acceptable reference for Wiki :). Have a nice day.--Mycomp (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Trikemike (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)trikemikeTrikemike (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)I think if it is to be claimed that a connection remains undemonstrated between Japonic languages and others, a citation is certainly called for! Thanks!

Takamikura, 1917

Timely contributions

Thank you for your thoughtful contributions to the thread at Talk:Order of Culture#Requested Move. In this context, perhaps it will be perceived as welcoming to point out the gilded figure atop the canopy structure used in Imperial enthronement ceremonies? Perhaps this 1917 image of a phoenix is new to you?--Tenmei (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the honorable picture. I am proud of my user name which derived from the picture. I put it to my user page ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

New message...

Hi Phoenix! Actually, those coordinates are for Shinjuku, the capital of the prefecture, Tokyo, which is different from the Greater Tokyo Area.
 —  Paine's Climax  03:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops! you are right, Phoenix, I double checked and the correct coordinates for Shijuku are 35°42′2″N 139°42′54″E. I was a degree off on the latitude. My bad. The latd has been corrected.

 —  Paine's Climax  04:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• PS. I've incorporated the coordinates you gave me, 35°41′23″N 139°41′30″E, into the infobox in the Greater Tokyo Area article.

Reverts

Took me lots of time collecting infos. Please discuss before reverting a whole set. All teas are from what I find and what I've bought in stores. aracha sencha japanese might be 煎茶の荒茶 rather than 荒茶煎茶 aracha gyokuro

Koicha / Usucha 抹茶

konacha

Then you can't reasonably place genmatcha as a type of tea, as this isn't a tea but a mix. Same thoughts with aracha (raw), and houjicha (roasted sencha with can also be bancha).

Might need some more cleanup on this article, as most the the tea names are just different processings of gyokuro, sencha, bancha... Might need to sub-categorize.

FCartegnie (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(Copied above discussion to Talk:Green tea#Reverts in order to catch the attention of more editors. Subsequent discussion should be made there not here.) ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Japanese ?

It is very important whether you are native Japanese or not, demoiselle.--Giapponese (talk) 05:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Special Forces and Ninjas

Please read the following article from Dean Rostar, Croatian Police Special Forces and 15 dan Blackbelt, Bujinkan Ninjutsu:

http://www.specwog.bujinkan.hr/tekst-en.php?subaction=showfull&id=1084266135&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1& —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.222.236.154 (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The banned user

Look, please read WP:BAN. Banned user's contribution is usually wholly blanked out, struck or deleted per the rule regardless of whether their contribution is good or not. However, the "discussion" was whole harassment campaign by Azukimonaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) against me. Moreover, the thread titles were named by "me", and I let the harassment campaign stay instead of blanking. Archived discussions' titles were fixed by editors in some occasions. In addition, you're no right to falsely accuse me of doing vandalism for that. That is a personal attack. Even if the banned user appears to claim his authorship, the sockpuppeter has no right whatsoever edit Wikipedia because at the time the "discussions" occurred while the troll was already banned by persistently block-evading. There is no honor for you to defend the banned user's dignity. --Caspian blue 14:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Phoenix7777. You have new messages at NeilN's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Daifuku

Hi. I restored the text you deleted, and added a {{fact}} tag. Unless the tag is there, readers and contributors are unlikely to know a reliable source is needed, and for the tag to be there the text has to be there too. --Una Smith (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Una, thank you for informing me of your revert. However if it is left with {{cn}}, no one will never add a reference as with many other {{cn}. So I will bring it to the talk page, however probably no one will respond to my post either because no one can prove the description is true. Even if it is proved to be true, I am sure it is too rare case to describe it as a variation of daifuku.

I am concerned so many false descriptions are left with/without {{cn}}. Actually I removed dubious descriptions in Shumai recently.[5] In this case, I am not so confident as Daifuku, I brought it to talk page and Phillipine project.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If you delete the text, even fewer readers will even know a source is needed. So put the tag on, or better yet find a source. --Una Smith (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the rationale you removed tag[6] without adding a reference? ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Already given on Talk:Daifuku. If it is not clear, please say so there. --Una Smith (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

WQA

Hello, Phoenix7777. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing for "Geisha"

Thank you for starting an effort to source "Geisha" honestly. Yes, I realize it was somebody unrelated who decided to employ fiction for this purpose; but anyway see Talk:Geisha for an attempt at an explanation. -- Hoary (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

KFC claim in Christianity in Japan

It occured to me I didn't know if you were watching Aphaia's talk page or not; anyway, I have replied there: User talk:Aphaia. Perhaps we should be having this conversation in Talk:Christianity in Japan? -- Joren (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

After getting the support from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard please do so. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 06:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Phoenix, thank you for your reply. I don't believe RSN is intended to be a place where all sources must be vetted before being used; if you read the noticeboard, you will find that RSN is more of a place to go if you have doubts about a source that has already been used in an article and want it checked out. However, I appreciate the intent. WP:V and WP:RS are better places to direct people if you want to convey what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source.

I've been Googling and what I've found (filtering out blogs of course) are rather unsatisfactorily mostly news articles with bits of journal and encyclopedia sprinkled in here and there.

Voice of America - Japan and Fried Chicken: A New Christmas Tradition? - Seems to give a good overview but would prefer something other than VOA.

Reuters - It's Christmas! Have a little more bat meat! - This one is usable perhaps.... At least they had reporters in Tokyo.

Reuters - In Japan, $850 Christmas chicken defies recession - This one references the tradition, but only does so as a side note.

KFC Christmas (BBC, et al) - Kind of short, not terribly thorough; seems to rely mostly on KFC's own version of events

On my next library visit I'll search their journal database and see what they have. Who knows, might discover something on my bookshelf too :O -- Joren (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if I offended you by reverting your edit. Yes, you may be able to find a reliable source supporting KFC, however you may also be able to find a reliable source supporting McDonald's sells special chicken menus during the Christmas season. What is clear is that chicken is very popular in Japan during the Christmas season regardless of fried chicken, roast chicken, chicken burger or chicken nugget. So if you mention only KFC, it is against NPOV. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well, no. I didn't state I was looking for a kind of source that talks about it being on sale. I'd be looking for a secondary source that authoritatively states that it is a tradition. But anyway... no offense taken, just, we seem to be miscommunicating. You seem to believe that "what is clear" to you is clear to me as well. It is not.
• You might want to keep this in mind before saying things are POV or NPOV; after all, unless you cite evidence to back up "what is clear", it just seems like someone's POV and you make as little sense to me as I made to you :P From what was "clear to me", there was a KFC tradition, anecdotal, news media, and article evidence seemed to confirm it, so I was not aware of any bias, and your calling it POV wouldn't have made much sense to me if I hadn't read Aphaia's reply before reading yours. However, Aphaia has actually explained her understanding in a way that makes sense, so I'm willing to go with that. In the future, instead of just asserting "what is clear", you might want to explain and back it up, as Aphaia has done, and we can avoid further miscommunication. Thank you,

-- Joren (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ady Gil article, Peter Bethune's detention and arrest

Hello, You removed the referenced video showing Peter Bethune delivering his bill to the captain of the Shonan Maru 2. This video is important because another editor inserted the word "ostensibly" into the Ady Gil article, regarding the purpose of Bethune's visit to the Captain of the Shonan Maru 2. But the supporting news story which is referenced states that as a fact, and the video of Bethune knocking on the door of the bridge of the Shonan Maru 2 with a piece of paper in his hand also supports this. He was not attempting to sabotage or blow up the ship, for example. I'm going to revert your recent change based on this information. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, this is not a self-published source. Bethune did not take a video of himself on another ship or post it. It is evidence that he was there to contact the ship's captain. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

tenno title

1; there is no word in japanese for the latin word Imperator, or emperor in english or emperador in spanish, 2;the meaning of the title which belongs to Japanese monarch, shown in this publication is incorrect, there is no literal translation of the word emperor of origin in the Latin language,to the Japanese language,

3; As I explain here, is obvious and need no sources this 天 means, heaven or heavenly or celestial , and this 皇 NOT means "Emperor" or "king", this 王 means "king"...., this 皇 means some type of "sovereign" rather than king {王}, 天子 this means son of heaven, from 天 {Heaven} and 子 son or prince, that is why 天皇 {tennō} means "heavenly sovereign" Thats is why.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.129.106.213 (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss at Talk:Emperor of Japan#exactly meaning of the title tennō, not here. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Kofun Haniwa soldier

What can I say? I do agree with you Phoenix7777 about the caption being too detailed for a picture. Yet I still think the caption is far too laconic as it is. If you pay attention to my edits you will find out that I had actually started trimming down and redistributing the information to the more suitable Chokutō page. The Haniwa soldier holds a Chokutō indeed, additionally showing a slight though obvious inward curvature.

I have been researching this particular ancient sword and its roughly 5 different pommel based sub-varieties. I have personally visited the largest collections of Kofun Period material including Kofun period swords, and engaged in discussions with resident experts and archaeologist versed in this topic. One particularly important reference is one publication by the Chikatsu Atsuka Museum (Osaka prefecture) which documented the most ample collection of Kofun period swords from various museums across Japan. I will soon enough provide this reference, amongst other equally valuable references published by the Tenri University Museum which I also visited. I have pictures, which they allowed me to take, of two exquisitely well preserved Chokutō (one Kantou-tachi and one Kentou-tachi), which I would like to add to the Wikipedia Chokutō page, though I have never done it, tried once but failed for some reason. Can you help me do it?--Luxgratia (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Japanese Buddhist architecture

Hi, Phoenix7777. Thanks for the changes you are making to the article and for the message. I am dropping a line just to say that I am receptive to more suggestions about this or other articles, and that I will learn how to use properly the Harvnb template. Frank (Urashima Tarō) (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Taro. I hope the readers will find it useful. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Ken Hirai

Hello. In February you added a citation to a book from the "Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" series published by Icon Group International to this article. Unfortunately, Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this, see e.g. [7]). I've only removed the reference, not the text it was referencing. I'm removing a lot of similar references as they are circular references; many other editors have also been duped by these sources. Despite giving an appearance of reliability, the name "Webster's" has been public domain since the late 19th century. Another publisher to be wary of as they reuse Wikipedia articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences&Windows 17:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks....

... for your contribution to the article Nureongi! Chrisrus (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

... for your contribution to the article Nureongi! Chrisrus (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Does Prof. Morris have anything more to say about them? Chrisrus (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry I didn't notice your post above. I am not sure what you are expecting me, but the book says quite similar things like here. The book can be quite easily accessed at your local library.[8]. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Tributaries of Imperial China

As you can see, I supplemented and slightly modified the inline citation at List of tributaries of Imperial China which was restored by JamesBWatson here.

The actual copy of the book you used must have Pratt listed as first author; but OCLC lists Hoare as first author. I used the version which was online verifiable. Under the circumstances, I wondered if there might be a need for me to explain this?

I do not have a copy of this book, but I was able to verify the accuracy of the citation using Google in a non-obvious way:

• re: Goryo (173 tribute missions)

using "173 tribute missions" as search topic in Google books yields several "hits", including this one — http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=173+tribute+missions&btnG=Search+Books

• re: Baekje (45 tribute missions)

using "45 tribute missions" ... yields ... — http://books.google.com/books?id=e7pyBEWioLsC&pg=PA482&dq=45+tribute+missions&hl=en&ei=_4ViTLTYBYS8lQeF_7jTCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBA

• re: Unified Silla (63 tribute missions in 8th century)

using "63 tribute missions in 8th century" ... yields ... — http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=1&tbs=bks%3A1&q=63+tribute+missions+in+8th+century&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

I hope this mitigates a "problem" which was never really a problem. --Tenmei (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Tenmei. I am not sure the intent of your edit. I rearranged the refs.

1. Why did you discard my template {{cite book}} of "Korea: a historical and cultural dictionary"?
   1. Why did you remove the Google book link to "Korea: a historical and cultural dictionary"?
   2. "Why did you change the author's name from "Pratt, Keith L.; Rutt, Richard; Hoare, James (1999)" to "Hoare, James et al."?
2. Why did you concatenate the refs like "Hoare, p. 482; Korea Herald. (2004) Korea now, p. 31; excerpt, "The Chinese also insist that even though Goguryeo was part of Chinese domain, Silla and Baekje were states subjected to China's tributary system.""? I think this is not a standard practice.

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that your question was rhetorical. There is nothing wrong with your edit, nor is there anything wrong with your citation format. Any point I may have been trying to make is not very important. --Tenmei (talk) 02:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Whale meat

Hello folks, as expected, the POV tag on whale meat is preventing it from hitting the front page as DYK. I would really like it to make it. As you know, DYKs get thousands of hits. A whale meat DYK might get 5 thousand or more.

This would be very good for the article, as editors would improve it, and neutrality issues would certainly be resolved. Also, if you feel strongly about whale meat consumption, this is a good way for it to get exposure.

So, please, could we remove the tag? Or, if there are issues, could we remove the contentious text for the time being. After DYK, other editors will restore it or leave it out, based on consensus. I hope this seems fair. Time is short, so please act quickly.

I also sent this message to User talk:Malick78. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

See also DYK nom. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If you think it's POV, please remove the offending text. Then, in your eyes, it will be neutral, yes? Then please remove the tag. Then, we can let the new eyes decide. Does that seem fair? If not, what do you suggest? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is now too late for the article to get DYK exposure. Now there will probably be a POV tag and extended dispute over content. A real shame. I am wondering why you didn't take the time to respond. You objected to removing the tag. I offered a solution. You didn't reply. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Re-visiting a proposal

Please give some thought to my arguments in support of Elmor's proposal to rename Eulsa Treaty -- see here. Do I need to explain any part of this using different words?

Do you have any questions or suggestions? --Tenmei (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Tenmei. I responded to Talk:Eulsa Treaty#Requested move. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix7777 -- You may not have noticed that I relisted the projected move of Eulsa Treaty at WP:Requested moves#Current discussions/August 31. It is only prudent for me to alert all contributors in our discussion about changing the name of this article.

Please consider Talk:Eulsa Treaty#Relisting at WP:Requested moves. On one hand, this can be construed as an unnecessary delay. On the other hand, this ensures the possibility of wider community input which may bring out any points-of-view which remain unstated or glossed over. --Tenmei (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ping. I sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ping. I sent a follow-up e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Void

I understood you well enough, but I questioned one word in the following context:

"An opposition without a valid refutation is void."

In my opinion, "void" is provocative without suggesting a way out of the dispute which may ensue. Another way to say the same thing might be:

"An opposition without a valid refutation is counterfactual thinking."

What do you think? --Tenmei (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

I sought assistance here — Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-10-04/Eulsa Treaty. I do not know what happens next. --Tenmei (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Summarizing the so-called discussion which began at Talk:Eulsa Treaty in early August here:

A. In an attempt to help us start discussion, options were proposed here and refined here.

1. Leave it at its current name?
2. To Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty?
3. To Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905?
4. To 1905 Protectorate Treaty?
5. Or what?; see the second paragraph of page Eulsa Treaty.

B. Valentim presented the results of a Lexis/Nexis search here. This supplements several Google searches.

In the many weeks of so-called discussion thread development, those opposing the move have either been unwilling or unable to present refutation or counterargument; and therefore, I propose we delay no longer.

In other words, I suggest that there is a consensus to act now on the basis of the Lexis-Nexis search outcome. The time has come for this article to be renamed Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905. --Tenmei (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Phoenix7777. You have new messages at Qwyrxian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Move edit warring on Senkaku Islands

Please do not engage in move edit warring on Senkaku Islands. The proper way to take care of the issue would have been to raise your concerns first on Talk:Senkaku Islands, let everyone come to a consensus, and then request that the article be moved according to that consensus. Further POV-pushing by moving the article without any discussion may result in an escalation of consequences. Thank you for your cooperation. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are talking about. I posted a comment to Talk page immediately after the move. If you were a neutral admin, you should have revert the move to the long standing stable name and suggested the new comer to review the past discussion and to read Naming convention. The result is you encouraged the user to insist a POV because of your action. "An admin (nihonjoe) and I have moved the page...."[9] ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix7777, your move of neutral Pinnacle Islands to Japanese Senkaku Islands seems to be based on a flawed google search with a careful choice of keywords. Correct me if i'm wrong. Anyway, Wikipedia is not a place for nationalists to claim sovereignty and it's hardly productive to stir up a move warring between the use of "senkaku" or "diaoyu" as we can see in Liancourt Rocks and Sea of Japan which become an unproductive gala for Korean and Japanese nationalists but left nothing to the community. --Winstonlighter (talk) 05:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Phoenix7777. You have new messages at Benlisquare's talk page.
Message added 11:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fénix

As you may know, en:Phoenix (mythology) = es:Fénix.

Did you notice that "Fénix 2" was the name of the rescue capsule used in the 2010 Copiapó mining accident? --Tenmei (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

I'm not sure how long you've been working on Wikipedia, so please don't feel like I'm being patronizing, but I do think you want to re-read WP:VANDAL. The edits you marked as Vandalism (the one's you're talking about over on User Talk:Magog the Ogre, weren't vandalism--they were content disagreements. By definition, vandalism primarily involves things that the editor thinks will make Wikipedia worse. While you or I may not agree with Winstonlighter and other's edits, they certainly aren't making them with the intent of harming the encyclopedia, or defacing it, or spamming it. Even if they added things Senkaku Islands with "These islands obviously belong to China, anyone can see that, because Chinese are just superior," that wouldn't even be vandalism (although might possibly rise to that level if they removed major chunks of sourced info). It would be an extreme POV, it would violate WP:NPOV and WP:OR and WP:V, but it still probably wouldn't be vandalism. In other words, you reverting them was okay (as long as you weren't going so far as to edit war), but you probably shouldn't label their edits vandalism. You may want to consider retracting your claims of vandalism, and just saying that you weren't aware of the exact definition. Note that I say this even though I think their edits and plans for the article are quite often wrong, but I still think that what they're doing isn't vandalism. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for enlighten me with your explanation above. Actually I haven't read the policy before. Although I rarely used "identified as vandalism" in my edit summary except for an unexplained removal of a citation or a cited material which I believed as a vandalism, I will follow the policy from now on. Thanks again for your input. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a relevant read for you. I reckon that it can help newcomers understand Wikipedia more. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello. 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. The thread is Senkaku Islands dispute. Thank you. —Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Tolstoy

In part, this is a follow-up to the problems you are helping to resolve at Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute.

I wonder if you have previously stumbled across this quote?

The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him. -- Leo Tolstoy, 1994

For me, this concept has resonance in a variety of Wikipedia settings. These sentences were introduced to me by someone interested in Metonymy and WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion ≠ WP:Straw poll. Although I still haven't resolved what I think about the context, I do come back again and again to Tolstoy's words.

Perhaps these words might be usefully stored in the back of your mind? --Tenmei (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC Senkaku Islands

The RfC provides an opportunity for additional comment by other interested editors. Can you frame a constructive response to Bobthefish2 pivotal question: Even if the policy does not recommend the use of Senkaku/Diaoyu-style dual names, is our situation exceptional enough to make it a good solution?

In this RfC context, please consider an overview here? --Tenmei (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2010 (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) 08:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Your opinions

This is not a site for your opinions. Your bias is impeding the proper reporting of history. Just because you believe something is fictional doesn't make it so. If you find facts contrary to what has been said, please site your sources. Your own stubbornness should not influence this site. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popeyeatucb (talk • contribs) 18:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment - the templated warning was entirely inappropriate. I've already asked you to assume good faith and to stop referring to other editor's changes as vandalism. You had no idea if this editor was doing so on purpose or not; in this case, he was not. So let me state this point blank: if you continue to bite our newcomers and other editors with false accusations of vandalism, I will block you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

If I may chime in as a talk page lurker, I believe that the problem was the use of the vandalism template. The new user's edit was incorrect, because it asserted something to be certainly true when it is merely the opinion of a single historian (at least, according to the reference given). As such, I went and changed the article statement to read properly. However, Popeyeatucb's edits don't qualify as vandalism, because they were done with good intentions. Vandalism, by Wikipedia's definition, is always something done to harm the encyclopedia. While Popeyeatucb violated WP:NPOV (by asserting an opinion as a verified fact), I suspect that's more a problem of not understanding how we work here (i.e., how to properly attribute opinions). You could have gone ahead and reverted, just not called it vandalism, and instead made a more clear comment to Popeyeatucb (which I'm going to do now, actually).Qwyrxian (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I made a mistake again. I used a wrong template. What I originally intended to use was an unsourced template instead. I corrected the user's talk page. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh OK well then thank you. It sounds like an error on your part, so no need to get worked up; apologies if I was forceful, but I was under the opinion that you were doing so carelessly. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Good step in process of collaborative editing

Please take note of my apology to Historiographer for delay in responding to his edits of January 24 -- please read Talk:List of tributaries of Imperial China#Good step in process of collaborative editing. --Tenmei (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Attributing the Remin Ribao statement on Senkaku Islands dispute

Currently, 4 editors have been able to come to a compromise wording on the sentence in Senkaku Islands dispute about the Remin Ribao article. We've agreed (Tenmei still disagrees) that we should change the sentence to say "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." I believe that you have objected to this wording in the past, on the grounds that since this is already the Japanese section, it's obvious that this is a one-sided claim. However, I think that since this is obviously a highly contentious article, and the subtlety here is that this is an interpretation of a translation, it is beneficial for readers to understand clearly that this not "literally" what the original article says, but specifically an interpretation. In other words, it does no harm to clearly attribute this opinion, but that not attributing it may be confusing. I'm hoping that since this opinion was arrived at in part through the comments by two previously uninvolved editors (Nlu and Ohconfucius), you might be persuaded to see that this version will make the article better. If you do agree, I think we can show a very solid consensus to make an edit request and have that line changed. I sincerely appreciate you providing your input on this; it would feel really great to know that we were actually able to move forward through a consensus decision. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Your unanswered questions

You mention an important concept when you use the word "refutation" here.

In one important paragraph, you make two related points:

¶-Part A. The attribution doesn't help improve NPOV in this case because trying to make the Japanese POV claim to NPOV is nonsense. What we should do is to represent the sources accurately not to represent the editor's "POV"/"NPOV" interpretation.

Your point is simple, transparent, obvious to me; however, it seems to be ignored. I don't know why.

¶-Part B. In this case, NPOV can be easily attained by adding the refutation from China to "Arguments from PRC and ROC" section as is done in Chinese article. I cannot understand why pro-Chinese editors won't add the refutation ....

I am persuaded that Qwyrxian does not recognize the importance of this underlined sentence; and I do not know how to re-direct attention to the pivotal point you make.

In other words, Qwyrxian and others ignore it; however, you put your finger on the central problem with this so-called "compromise" sentence.

We need to figure out why your words are not understood to be significant. --Tenmei (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I was going to answer here, but I realized I should do it on the article's talk page...but the short version is that the sentence as written now is wrong--it states a falsehood, something which is not true. Phoenix's points about me misattributing are good, but the sentence just has to change somehow.Qwyrxian (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian repeats a characteristic mistake. Instead of investigating a specific question with research (WP:V + WP:RS), the focus of attention shifts to something else. This is a kind of con game or confidence trick in which misdirection is a key factor; but in this scam, Qwyrxian is a victim.

Qwyrxian is a person who has been deceived. This is not a personal attack. Rather it is a simple restatement. It is an accurate assessment of a what has been going on in this thread since Qwyrxian began to participate and things have gone horribly wrong.

In the diff above, Qwyrxian functions as a shill for the Bobthefish2 game of Cups and balls which has been evolving slowly for months.

The so-called "compromise" Qwyrxian sentence is not valid. It is incorrect. It is unsupported by WP:V + WP:RS. It is only a factoid. This word is defined by the Compact Oxford English Dictionary as "an item of unreliable information that is repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact".

Qwyrxian has read Bobthefish2's use of the word "fraudulent" so many times that factoid and fact are indistinguishable. --Tenmei (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix7777 -- Your question is the key. Your question is implied: "I cannot understand why pro-Chinese editors won't add the refutation."

The word "refutation" is key to why Qwyrxian's sentence is unworkable, not because I say so, but because the premises of the sentence are not supported by WP:V + WP:RS.

There is no refutation added because there is nothing to refute. This is only smoke and mirrors; and Qwyrxian has been seduced by the fraud.

In the context of the above, please review the following from the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. There is no evidence to support a belief that Qwyrxian has looked at anything outside the ambit of the talk page threads; and this means that not even the the MOFA website has been examined superficially In other words, if Qwyrxian looks at the following, it will be for the first time here on your talk page.

Counterargument/Japan Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA)

Question 1 尖閣諸島についての日本政府の基本的な立場はどのようなものですか。 . What is the basic view of the Government of Japan on the Senkaku Islands? Question 2 尖閣諸島に対する日本政府の領有権の根拠は何ですか。 . What are the grounds for Japan's territorial sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands? Question 3 日本は尖閣諸島を有効に支配しているとのことですが，具体例を教えてください。 . What are the concrete examples of Japan's valid control over the Senkaku Islands? Question 4 中国（・台湾）による尖閣諸島の領有権に関する主張に対して，日本政府はどのような見解を有していますか。 . What is the view of the Government of Japan on China's (and Taiwan's) assertions on territorial sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands? 日本の領土たる尖閣諸島の領有権について，中国政府及び台湾当局が独自の主張を始めたのは，1970年代以降（参考）です。 It is only since the 1970s that the Government of China and the Taiwanese Authorities began making their own assertions on territorial sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands, which constitute Japan's inherent territory (See reference). Responding to Question 4: Some examples which contradict the PRC's post-1970s allegations include: なお，1920年5月に，当時の中華民国駐長崎領事から福建省の漁民が尖閣諸島に遭難した件について発出された感謝状においては，「日本帝国沖縄県八重山郡尖閣列島」との記載が見られます。また，1953年1月8日人民日報記事「琉球諸島における人々の米国占領反対の戦い」においては，琉球諸島は尖閣諸島を含む7組の島嶼からなる旨の記載があるほか，例えば1933年に中国で発行された「中華民国新地図」や1960年に中国で発行された「世界地図集」では，尖閣諸島が日本に属するものとして扱われています。 There is a description of "the Senkaku Islands, Yaeyama District, Okinawa Prefecture, Empire of Japan" in the letter of appreciation dated May 1920 sent from the then consul of the Republic of China in Nagasaki concerning the distress which involved Chinese fishermen from Fujian Province around the Senkaku Islands. In addition, an article in the People's Daily dated 8 January 1953, under the title of "Battle of people in the Ryukyu Islands against the U.S. occupation", made clear that the Ryukyu Islands consist of 7 groups of islands including the Senkaku Islands ..."The Republic of China New Atlas" published in China in 1933 treated the Senkaku Islands as part of Japan ..."World Atlas" published in China in 1960 treated the Senkaku Islands as part of Japan In other words, the People's Daily article (8 Jan 1953) is identified as refutation -- as one among several illustrative examples which show that the PRC's words in the pre-1970s were different than its post-1970s position on the sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands. 諸島は，我が国（注：中国。以下同様。）の台湾東北部及び日本の九州南西部の間の海上に散在しており，尖閣諸島，先島諸島，大東諸島，沖縄諸島，大島諸島，トカラ諸島，大隈諸島の7組の島嶼からなる。 "The Ryukyu Islands lie scattered on the sea between the Northeast of Taiwan of our State (note: China; same in the following text) and the Southwest of Kyushu, Japan. They consist of 7 groups of islands; the Senkaku Islands, the Sakishima Islands, the Daito Islands, the Okinawa Islands, the Oshima Islands, the Tokara Islands and the Osumi Islands. "

Summary conclusion. The often repeated lie that the translation of the first sentence of the article was "fraudulent" is a fantasy -- it is now shown that this lie is part of a bigger fraud. It is a scam.

It is demonstrated that this fraud was constructed by Bobthefish2 and not supported by WP:V + WP:RS. Nevertheless, Qwyrxian continues to be unable to distinguish fantasy from reality, factoid from fact, verified from unverified, etc.

The so-called "compromise" sentence is fatally flawed.

Do you understand what I have written. If not, please ask questions. Let me try to explain again in different words.

Can you suggest any part of this which could have been left out? Can you point to any sentences which would have been deleted? Can you help me see how this could have been shorter?

This is not simple. --Tenmei (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You are kindly requested to stop guessing my motives and/or reasoning; none of this is relevant. However, I must sincerely thank you for your listing of the info above; while I had read the MOFA cite before I hadn't realized how badly we had misinterpreted it. I'll bring this to the article page. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the interpretation of the MOTA site is not that important to this stage of the discussion. While the attribution part of your proposed compromise is not necessarily 100% accurate, I believe we've also explicitly made it known that whatever you proposed is just a basic idea or a draft. If we want to make the attribution 100% appropriate (which we probably do), then it's only a simple matter of opening up another small discussion on how to make it right. But for now, I think we are at the stage of debating whether or not there should be any attribution at all (which, according to the discussions in the talk page, seems quite necessary for WP:NPOV).

By the way, railing against the imperfections of a draft does not help the overall editorial process especially if no constructive input is given. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, it appears User:Qwyrxian was not referring to the issue of attribution after all, but something else. Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's block bobthefish2

Hello User:Phoenix7777, how's it going? It appears that User:John Smith's has filed a complaint of misbehaviour on User:Bobthefish2. Since I am under the impression that you have much to complain about this pesky Chinese editor as well, your opinion on this is going to be very helpful to our friend User:John Smith's cause. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:14, 19 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 23:43, 24 February 2011

I have uploaded File:Atlas 1960 Senkaku.jpg and it is added to this table. --Tenmei 02:19, 25 February 2011 --Tenmei (talk) 23:55, 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) 06:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

WQA

Hello, Phoenix7777. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for my belated reply. The thread was already archived to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive99#User:Phoenix7777. I checked the thread, but there is no comment by reviewers. I haven't seen such an unanswered thread in WP:WQA before. Was there any problem with your thread?

By the way, I noticed that you haven't replied to User:Diannaa's talk page where you requested for comment yet. I think it is a courtesy to show your appreciation to the response you requested to User:Diannaa. Diannaa replied "Many of your comments towards other users are inflammatory and are leading to an un-collegiate atmosphere on the talk pages you choose to edit. Perhaps a relative newcomer such as yourself might be better off starting out editing less contentious articles at first and then coming back to this work later in your Wikipedia career." ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Woo... this has been a while. Wikipedia is a place anyone with any qualification can participate. Since there is close to zero quality control in this place, I wouldn't place such a high regard to the consensuses established or the feedback from admins or other individuals.

With that said, I've offered you a non-combative response and I think we can leave it at that.

Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Bridge used by everyone

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

Phoenix7777 -- 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) 17:59, 7 March 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. 04:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Please consider what I have written at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands#Additional issues.

• Would adding these corollary issues make you more willing to agree to mediation?
• Would you recommend re-writing any part of this draft text?

What are your thoughts? --Tenmei (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Japanese people in China

I've reverted your edit in good faith: it doesn't make sense to compare a 2010 figure from one source and associate it with a separate variable elsewhere from 2009. It would be similar to comparing 2007 Toyota car sales in Manhattan, New York, as reported by the Washington Post, with 2006 Toyota car sales in New York, as reported by the Chicago Post. Such a comparison would also be WP:OR in itself.

As for the discrepancy in figures, I've replied to your post on my talk page; I've thought of a few possible situations, but nothing can absolutely explain the mismatch with absolute certainty. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I just wanted to clarify the difference between 127,282 and 66,159 is not presumed to be a figure for Hong Kong and Macau. How about adding "(including 21,518 in Hong Kong and Macau)" immediately after "127,282"? Then we can easily tell there is a considerable discrepancy between the two census. The figure 21,518 in 香港総領事館(p.36) includes the figure in both Hong Kong and Macau.(p.64) ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that seems fine. Though, doesn't Japanese people in Hong Kong already mention the figure quite clearly? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. However as I explained above, I myself misunderstood the figure for Hong Kong. I will also add "nearly a half of the Japanese statistics." to the last sentence in order to indicate the discrepancy between the two stats. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand your desire to delete the association of horse meat with Dog meat

The meats I have listed are viewed in similar/logical consequence here in American culture, and in readership of English Wikipedia, namely American people(and closest international constituents) typically find consumption of the following meats: cat, dog, horse among various others as unusual or even immoral. I understand your need to maintain a certain level of white pride and Asian cultural-secessionism: disassociating certain European and close western-ally Asian taboo meat culture/nations with others and make an outright disconnect in these taboo meat articles relative to dog meat, which have their largest proportion of consumers in such places as China, Korea and Vietnam: whereas cat and horse meat the partiality toward the eastern/central Asians and that of non-Asians is far less. But this is nothing to do with proper presentation of white people's eating habits, or the eating habits of American's closest ally nations should be seen. The inclusion of horse meat in the See Also section constitutes a consistent American reader-observation of relevant facts and comparative study to the culture of eating these animals to which American and other "democratized" people should objectively examine, and not feel humiliated, like how the editors and Dog meat article-controllers here are doing here by omitting direct reader-access to these relevant articles for comparative examination. Of course, as difficult as it may be for some of you to accept, the link to horse meat and other relevant "taboo meats" will be included in the See Also section. 99.130.8.150 (talk) 03:04, 16 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.)

Ridiculous -- yes

At Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute#"Simply being of the opinion", I repeat the words of John Smith's as if they were my own: It's ridiculous to keep proposing name changes until people come up with the "right" answer. Last October, John Smith's arrow hit the mark. I get it.

Repeating the invitations which are explicit here and here, I asked Qwyrxian to consider addressing issues and questions in the diffs posted by John Smith's and by you. Continuing failure to engage directly and meaningfully is not good. --Tenmei (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

My signature

Thank you very much for pointing that out. I guess I don't click on my signature much... CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 11:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Please self revert on Senkaku Islands dispute

The tag was placed in good faith. There is a clear dispute here, based in policy. I believe that, once we work our way through mediation, it will become abundantly clear that policy supports the current name. But there is a dispute, and those disputants are not just asserting an opinion--they are legitimately interpreting data and policy differently than you and I. Please, there is no harm in the tag being there while mediation is under way (presumably it will start once the Mediator comes back to editing). Qwyrxian (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

In order to answer your post on the talk page, I would have to make their argument for them. I would prefer not to do so. But they do have a policy based argument--several, in fact. In that very section, STSC advances a policy-based argument. Previous discussions also were based on policy, based on how exactly we interpret the search results. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This is smoke and mirrors. The so-called arguments which Qwyrxian proposes are best compared to hot air balloons which are untethered to the ground. Despite all the time and words invested in "hot air" arguments, no fact-based data which are inconsistent with Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute have been shown. In other words, the current name is supported by verifiable sources; and the complaints are unsupported by anything except the intensity of preference of those who argue for anything and everything except "Senkaku Islands". --Tenmei (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Need your input regarding the new editor on Dog Meat

I just opened up a thread at User Talk:Anna Frodesiak#Personal attack? regarding comments by the new editor on Talk:Dog meat, and would like your input there if you don't mind. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Getting the most out of mediation

Hi Phoenix7777. I've noticed that your edits to Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands have been quite aggressive of late and that you've taken quite a combative stance with the mediator. That's your choice, but I'm not sure it's going to allow you to get the most out of the process. As a mediator, Feezo will be looking to find compromises acceptable to all parties - that's going to mean everyone being at least a little unhappy with the option, but maybe willing to give it a go to try and solve the dispute. Sometime it may also mean bending the rules a little - Wikipedia is meant to be a pretty flexible place and guidelines can be tailored to individual articles where individual consensus requires it. Feezo's task here is to try and find a consensus among editors who haven't been able to reach one by themselves. If everyone doesn't give way a bit, then there's no real chance of solving the dispute.

I suggest you engage with Feezo - and the other participants in the mediation - a little more calmly and consider whether you are willing to compromise at all. If the only solution you're willing to accept is 100% the one you want, I'm not sure why you agreed to mediation in the first place.

I really believe you'll get a lot more out of the process if you engage with it less aggressively. Don't edit war with the mediator - if you want to be part of the process, you need to work with them - not against them. All the best, WJBscribe (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Management by objectives?

Perhaps it would have been better if two sentences were underscored at User talk:Feezo#Archiving Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands:

For the time being, all side issues are considered to be off topic. Once we resolve the core issue, we may proceed to deal with them.

I construe "for the time being" to suggest that we may not need to understand or accept or refuse anything. I may be wrong; and I am uncertain about the rationale which informs Feezo's mediation plan. I do grasp that waiting -- simply waiting -- is what seems to matter most for today and for the near future. --Tenmei (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Please recall my observation here -- referencing Qwyrxian's argument from February that a mediator like Feezo "can help us by structuring the discussions. Why wouldn't you want to do that?" --Tenmei (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Search data

Sorry about that, sure I'll explain it. STSC (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

SPI

Since you've been involved with these editors before, you might wish to review the evidence and participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KoreanSentry. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sub-headings

If you set up sub-headings, other editors can reply by clicking the "edit" function under the sub-heading. I suggest you sign your comments within any sub-heading so that the replies do not appear as inserting into your whole comment. STSC (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I removed sub-hedings. Thank you for your advice. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

(S vs D vs D vs T vs T) vs (S vs (D or D or T or T))

I know that my answer to your question in the JSTO section is probably still a little confusing; that's mainly because it depends (I think) on the input we get from WT:NCGN. When I was typing out my answer to you, I realized that it sounds unfair to put Senkaku up against 4 other names combined; but transliteration makes this a weird issue. I think you actually have more experience with this issue than I do (I think I've seen your name come up in some of the interminable discussions about Japanese transliteration at Wikiproject Japan and other places). My intuition tells me that we should be able to compare them all separately, but I can't develop a logical proposition to support that point. Note, too, that no matter what gets decided on this one tiny point, there's so many other points (the questionable reliability of search results, the debate about where our cut-off for "recent" usage is, the encyclopedia and almanac data, etc.) all add up to a huge knot that is, understandably, difficult and/or impossible to unravel. I so wish we could just say "Look, whose military ships patrol the coastal waters of the islands"? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The four Chinese names are transliteration of two different native name 钓鱼 (Diaoyu or Tiaoyu) and 釣魚台 (Diaoyutai or Tiaoyutai). Then if we even accept different transliteration be collectively dealt with, we should compare three different names "Senkaku", "Diaoyu or Tiaoyu" and "Diaoyutai or Tiaoyutai". " "Diaoyu State Guesthouse" doesn't make sense. Please compare with "Diaoyutai State Guesthouse" 钓鱼 and 釣魚台 are quite popular name in China and there are many other places in China. See BGN and click "search" then enter "Diaoyu" (without quote). I am afraid you are too much emphasis on JSTOR. It is one of the many supplementary tests. Moreover its hit count are very limited. We should not determine a widely accepted name only by such a limited search. Basically the guideline recommend Google Book, and HathiTrust is another large database with 8.8million of repository. We should determine the widely accepted English name by overall evidences. I don't understand your recent comment "they are nearly equal". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I said nearly equal only in JSTOR. JSTOR is just one part of the discussion, one part of the puzzle. Specifically, JSTOR looks at a certain type of academic source, which is useful, but not definitive. I just wanted to do a complete search on it so that we could be certain what the JSTOR data says. In fact, none of the searches we can do are definitive. However, if you are saying that some of the false hits we are getting, in general, from Diaoyu are not referring to the islands, then that is a definite problem. However, places like that almost certainly won't show up in JSTOR--I sincerely doubt an academic is writing about the Diaoyu State Guesthouse. Also, a scan of the titles/abstracts indicates that those articles are likely about the islands. But, again, I'm not saying this means that the names are equal--I'm only saying that the names are approximately equal in JSTOR. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The search results from Google Books, WorldCat, and JSTOR can be easily manually verified. I've looked through them in the past and I have never seen any book talking about a Diaoyu Zhen. Diaoyutai State Guesthouse was also explicitly accounted for. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears you don't take kindly to disagreements. I am a programmer and I do not work in the medical field. Hopefully, that answers some of your questions about my hours. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Posting Pointless Templates

I understand you love posting all sorts of templates on other people's talk pages, but you should try not to do that in an unnecessary manner. Just a friendly advice. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Cognitive bias

Perhaps you may have read ja:認知バイアス. At Note2 in that article, please consider this very small point:

一部の認知バイアスは主体の「動機づけ」を反映している[2]

The concept is treated superficially in a stub article Motivated reasoning. Over the next couple of weeks, I will try to improve the quality of the writing.

I know that this is outside your normal editing area, but it may have a practical use.

Please watchlist this article. Do you have any suggestions to offer? --Tenmei (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Statistical analysis

Please give some thought to my edit here.

FACT: These are the identified participants in this thread, with the total number of edits and the percentage of edits which are in articles.

• Phead128 -- 260 edits ... 27.03%.
• Lvhis -- 329 edits ... 41.85%

This is a single-purpose account since Feb 2011

Compare, e.g., diff 04:28, 22 February 2011 Talk:Senkaku Islands ‎ (→The title of this article sounds quite POV: new section)

• STSC -- 548 edits ... 23.72%

This is not a single-purpose account since Sept 2010

Compare, e.g., diff 02:17, 24 September 2010 Talk:Senkaku Islands ‎ (→This article is now completely hijacked by the pro-Japanese contributors: new section)

• Bobthefish2 -- 1,381 edits ... 5.37% --> Wikipedia:Not here to build an encyclopedia

This is a single-purpose account since Oct 2010

Compare, e.g., diff 21:38, 4 October 2010 Senkaku Islands ‎ (I find the neutrality of this page to be in dispute)

• Phoenix7777 -- 2,888 edits ... 60.06%
• John Smith's -- 13,114 edits ... 49.24%
• Kusunose -- 13,417 edits ... 82.29%
• Benlisquare -- 21,609 ... 45.56%
• Oda Mari -- 24,104 edits ... 53.58%
• Qwyrxian -- 24,384 edits ... 50.13%
• Tenmei -- 54,839 edits ... 73.92%

I have sorted this list in ascending order based on total edits, but the percentages are also revealing.

The edit history of Bobthefish2 shows only 5% of his total edits are invested in articles. In contrast, 60% of your edits are related to enhancing the quality of our articles. --Tenmei (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy#Groups of disputants, factions in mediation are recognized; and they are identified as "a group".

For example, we are able discern a number of common factors in the contribution histories of Lvhis, STSC and Bobthefish2.

• Stepping back, we notice that The edit histories of the group are characterised by a small number of total edits.
• We also notice that the statistical analysis is married with There is a fine-focus attention to Senkaku Islands only.

Also, the fact that we can discern a factional group does not diminish the There are noteworthy differences among the "disputants" in this group. It becomes evident that The contributions of Bobthefish2 present an anomaly in this narrowed context.

I bring these facts to your attention in hopes that it helps you to better appreciate These are some of the differences between your edit history and the contributions of others who are actively participating in our mediation exercise. --Tenmei (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Good work

Confounding factor (交絡因子)-- Construing Senkaku Islands dispute as a variant Onin no ran

汝（なれ）や知る都は野辺の夕雲雀 あがるを見ても落ちる涙は

Now the city that you know

Has become an empty field,

From which the skylark rises

And your tears fall.

In a difficult situation, you have done well.

Sometimes I followed your lead because the rationale was congruent with your edits at List of tributaries of Imperial China. In other words, your strategy was consistent with WP:V, i.e.,

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

This cannot be repeated too often -- especially in contexts which seem to value "spin" rather than the specifics of a permanent edit history. --Tenmei (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Japan Old Province

Thank you for helping me to parse and evaluate a trivial problem. --Tenmei (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Stop harassing me

I don't know what your problem is, but I've been here on wikipedia for one month and you are already harassing me and following my every step like an obsessive person with a personal vendetta. And seriously, "thank you" for wanting to start a possible edit war with my edits (I really have no desire in participating, I noticed it on my watch page). Also, reasons:

• V-1_flying_bomb#Japanese_versions - "Ume" is a Japanese term and "plum" is the English term. Thus I replaced "ume" with "plum" in the translation in this English wiki.
• Fireworks - I've added basic information that you removed for being "unsourced" like that, but now I have provided a reference in detail.
• Vinegar#Fruit - I removed info of the byproduct Umezu (sour plum liquid) not being a true vinegar in an article about vinegar, trivial info as stated in the edit summary and there is no mention of it being considered a vinegar-ish product to warrant the info being in a vinegar article. Also it is unsourced, which I find ironic since you give anyone a hard time about basic info being unsourced (and remove it) while this is added back by you unquestioned too. Though this wasn't even a reason for me to remove it. Might as well make a list of what is not vinegar there.

Either report me for whatever you are accusing me or let me be. I'm dead serious, report me or let me be. Caca7 (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Pro-Wikipedia

I propose a strategy to combat the contrived appearance of an WP:edit war by using words like this in all future edit summaries at Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute:

This is a "PRO-WIKIPEDIA" edit. This edit is explained in detail and in advance on talk page

Please consider this pair of edits at Senkaku Islands dispute:

1. diff 17:35, 19 July 2011 Tenmei (talk | contribs) (58,318 bytes) (Undid revision 440335859 by Lvhis pro-Wikipedia -- This revert explained in detail and in advance on talk page)
2. diff 16:55, 19 July 2011 Lvhis (talk | contribs) (58,346 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Oda Mari (talk): This is a POV title. rv Japanese POV pushing. (TW))

The edit summary of Lvhis is an example of Framing (social science). We need to reject the false dilemma. Do you understand the meaning of the logical fallacy in a "false dilemma"?

Lvhis sets up a misleading pro vs con schema.

A better strategy is to emphasize a "pro-Wikipedia" foundation -- that is, to underscore that our edits are not

• pro-Japan nor anti-Japan

• pro-PRC nor anti-PRC

• pro-ROC nor anti-ROC

In point of fact, an extensive edit history informs my belief that Oda Mari's interests are demonstrably "pro-Wikipedia" ....

For us, the first and foremost question is: What is best for the long-term prospects of our collaborative editing project?

What do you think? --Tenmei (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

Thank you for your support

Thank you for your question and support at my RfA. While, yes, we have had our differences, I hope that they are always resolved in a way that best benefits the encyclopedia. There's still lots of work to be done on SI, and I am always glad for your interaction there, even in cases where we disagree. I hope to live up to your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Warning

My article on South Korean stance on Kuril Islands dispute is NEUTRAL and supported with various sources. There is nothing in the article that is not true. Obviously South Korea supports Russia on Kuril Islands dispute and 3 members of the National Assembly did visit Kuril Islands on May 2011. It comes to my attention that you are blatantly erasing my article, which I have putted my efforts on, just because of your right-wing political stance. I suggest you to keep in mind that 'Wikipedia' is a place where everyone edits neutrally, not with any pre-bias or perception. Also, you mentioned that the article is not supported by sources. However, if you take a closer look at sources, it actually does. Can you even understand Korean, or are you using Google Translate to verify sources? It is almost pathetic how you are trying to erase the article, but as a matter of fact you are only trying to stop the general public knowing 'truth'. I believe all Wikipedia readers deserve their rights to know what other country's stance is, on Kuril Islands dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hangyun (talk • contribs) 10:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC) This is a warning: If you disrupt peace in Wikipedia by erasing my article again, and edit articles with political motive, as you did at Kuril Islands dispute, you may be banned from Wikipedia without further notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hangyun (talk • contribs) 10:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Hangyun, I strongly suggest you stop threatening editors when you don't know what you're talking about. Even if Phoenix7777 is wrong (and note that I am not implying that xe is), what xe has done isn't even worthy of a block, much less a ban. Please calm down, and discuss the issue at the article talk page. Right now, Phoenix is saying that what you wrote does not match what the article says. For those of us who don't read Korean, we may need an actual translation of the article to proceed. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Unryu Suganuma

Please take a look at a stub article about an associate professor of geography at Oberlin University in Toyko. Perhaps you may have suggestions or comments? --Tenmei (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands dispute

I am withdrawing from active participation in this subject.

Is it possible that my contributions are somehow "feeding" conflict?

One way to test the hypothesis is by simply stepping back for a while. --Tenmei (talk)

Arbitration on Senkaku Islands

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Senkaku Islands and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Qwyrxian (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Untimely deletion

There were some things worth salvaging from mediation -- for example, your diffs and mine.

The deletion of all diffs from our mediation is summed up in an idiomatic expression -- throw out the baby with the bath water.

The few, small successes of collaborative editing are thrown away carelessly.

The deletion of the mediation threads was unexpected. For me, the surprise was also untimely.

• (Deletion log); 21:29 . . Feezo (talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands" (For the Mediation Committee, due to arbitration case)

I asked Feezo to restore the missing diffs. There was no response. I asked for Nihonjoe's help. He suggested here that I may need to ask an arbitrator to do this. Elen of the Road explained here that it is standard practice when a failed mediation results in an arbcom case for the mediators to delete the files - it's part of MEDCOM's ground rules for mediation that it cannot subsequently be used as evidence against any of the parties.

I have no interest in "evidence against any of the parties." For me, that is quite beside the point, tangential, unimportant.

I read nothing that would have reasonably warned me that deletion of all diffs would be a direct consequence of Qwyrxian's request for arbitration. Did you?

The fact of the matter is that your very few diffs were useful and constructive and I do not see any good reason for us to throw them away like smelly garbage. --Tenmei (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the deletion is quite an extreme challenge to Wikipedia. This should be corrected by the community's discussion. However, I have all these deleted copies of discussions, if you require the contents, I will email the contents to you. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification of arbitration case opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 31, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification of arbitration case opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 31, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Phoenix7777. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 15:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WP:RfArb/Senkaku

According to Elen of the roads, "A useful thing that the parties can do is help Arbcom with ... what it is that [WP:RfArb/Senkaku] is all about...."

It would help me -- and perhaps it would be perceived as helpful by others -- if you were willing to give your answer to Elen's question.

A summary re-statement of what you think this case is all about would appear reasonable here in the context of the analysis of the evidence others have presented. --Tenmei (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The time for presenting or resummarising the case has long passed. Please read what Newyorkbrad, one of the drafting arbitrators, says four days ago. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Phoenix7777. You have new messages at Oda Mari's talk page.
Message added 10:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Oda Mari (talk) 10:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Signpost

Please consider my comments about you here. --Tenmei (talk) 06:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Make tea, not war

Dear Phoenix7777, I'm not your enemy on WiKi. Could you please just keep our edit conflict within the "Senkaku Islands"? Thank you. STSC (talk) 11:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you to explain your edit discussed at WP:ANI first. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Disabling Twinkle specifically

Considering that my edit summary got chewed up by Twinkle: It is now no longer possible to revoke access to Twinkle separately from editing access. The capability was removed during the rewrite of Twinkle earlier this year because the consensus at that time was that it was too easy to circumvent, it was too easy to break Twinkle entirely when modifying the block list, and that the admins that joined in the discussion said that they would be more likely to block a person outright than to remove Twinkle access. So the troublesome feature was done away with (and good riddance to it). SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

...and I will specifically warn you about edit-warring and the WP:3RR rules. Please do not continue down that path, or you could be blocked. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands closed

An arbitration case regarding Senkaku Islands has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. User:Tenmei is indefinitely topic banned from the subject of Senkaku Islands, widely construed. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace.
2. Tenmei is advised that his unusual style of communication has not been conducive to resolving this dispute. Accordingly, Tenmei is urged to develop a different style of communication, which is more similar to that used by experienced Wikipedia editors. Until this happens, Tenmei is advised not to engage in topics which are the subject of a dispute.
3. Tenmei is banned for one year.
4. User:Bobthefish2 is topic banned from the subject of Senkaku Islands, widely construed, for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and user space.
5. User:STSC is warned to avoid any sexualisation of discussions, especially during disputes.
6. The parties are reminded that attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground may result in the summary imposition of additional sanctions, up to and including a ban from the project.
7. The topic covered by the article currently located at Senkaku Islands, interpreted broadly, is placed under standard discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
8. An uninvolved administrator may, after a warning given a month prior, place any set of pages relating to a territorial dispute of islands in East Asia, broadly interpreted, under standard discretionary sanctions for six months if the editing community is unable to reach consensus on the proper names to be used to refer to the disputed islands.

   While a territorial dispute is subject to discretionary sanctions due to this remedy, any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in these topical areas, after an initial warning.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Phoenix7777. You have new messages at Talk:Sea of Japan.
Message added 09:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Oda Mari (talk) 09:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Graphics Lab

The following discussion was moved to Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop. Subsequent comments should be made there.

Thanks so much for creating the map File:Revenue map for Bollywood films.svg. I'm really sorry, but I stupidly missed out a crucial country - Pakistan, in blue. Could you please update that too? I really appreciate it. Thanks in advance, and cheers! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, could you add an inset specifying the color scheme for the map? It goes like this :-

Red - Main country

Blue - Important and consistent revenue earners

Green - Erratic revenue earners

Thanks again! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. It’s one minute work. I updated the map. As for the legend, I will work later. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Whoopsies :( . I asked a few more editors to take a look at the map, and I seem to have forgotten a few more countries :D. Here they are :- Germany (blue), Malaysia (green). Thanks for the update. One minute work? Ooh, I thought making maps was a tough and highly specialized kind of job :). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Btw, Pakistan should be in blue - I stupidly missed out a crucial country - Pakistan, in blue. Thanks. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I corrected Pakistan. Malaysia need to be split from Thailand. So I will work later. Please be patient. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

There's no hurry at all, please take your time. I was just telling :D. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Drupe_fruit_diagram-cs.svg Thanks for the fix, here's one on me :) Murúg (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

A animal distribution map

I saw some of your work and liked it. Is it possible you make a map for the distribution of the black mamba using this File:Africa map political.svg map? You can use the current map File:D.polylepis range.png as a source map. Just read the black mamba section on "Distribution" too to get a better idea. RedGKS (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you post your request to either Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop or Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop? I may take the request if I am available. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

User is indef-blocked; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VeronicaPR. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

Wasabi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Iwate, Shizuoka, Oita and Yamaguchi

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Frank

Hello Phoenix. You ask elsewhere:

Hoary, please explain why User:Viva Frank Zappata was blocked for Disruptive editing? I am not sure the reason for your block. The user never did disruptive editing by these four edits. If the user is a sockpuppet of someone, the reason should be described so.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Because of trolling, pretty obvious to me in itself and made blazingly obvious in this fifth edit of his. (He made no other edits anywhere.)

In blocking him, I left the unblock template on his talk page. He's free to use that, to persuade another admin that he is a constructive contributor. But if you think that requiring him to plead innocence is unfair, you're welcome to bring up the matter at WP:AN/I. -- Hoary (talk) 13:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Phoenix7777. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Heron image done

I rotated and cropped the same as you did. I think it turned out okay. Thanks again for your help.

Here is another I did but had the camera a little straighter.

--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Taxobox please

If you have time, can you please add the taxobox to Reikou like you did for kiyomi? I don't understand the taxobox so I would like you to help. Thanks. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but I just copied the taxobox of the Japanese article Kiyomi. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, there is no Japanese one for this case. Thanks JoshuSasori (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This is for you

		The Eraser Barnstar
		The words "image" and "your name" remind me of what you did on the maps of Sea of Japan. Belatedly, thank you for the works. Sorry for my forgetfulness. Oda Mari (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding File:East Seas in East Asia.png

Regarding this image you created, in Chinese, the character for 海 is slightly different to the variant character used in Japanese, which is 海. In the case for Chinese, which uses the Kangxi Dictionary form, the 母 within 海 has 5 strokes, making the total number of strokes 10; in the case for Japanese, which uses a different shinjitai vulgar variant, the 毋 within 海 has 4 strokes, making the total number of strokes 9. Not a serious issue, but you may want to fix up the image. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing it out. I will fix the image as soon as possible. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the image. It took me a bit of work because the both characters are assigned to the same Unicode character (U+6D77) i.e. CJK Unified Ideographs. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Kumdo

Thanks for reverting to a stable version of the article, Kumdo. I didn't know that was a stable version before I revert new edits, and sorry that my reverting have been disruptive. Anyway, many thanks for your arbitration, --- PBJT (talk) 09:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Comfort women". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 17 July 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Comfort women, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

‎Signature vectorization

Could you look at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop‎#‎Signature vectorization?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.

Hey thanks for speaking out for me about my editing of the page "Liancourt Rocks" and its editing block. Actually the block was just expired and I can edit now, although this made me doubt on the trustworthiness of this encyclopedia... Anyway, thanks a lot.Wfumie (talk) 03:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back, Wfumie. We are here to improve the trustworthiness of Wikipedia. Without being discouraged by this unfortunate incident, please continue to edit Wikipedia. It is useful for you to enable your E-mail function by setting your preference so that we can communicate offline. I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia. Cheers. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Moved SI AN to ANI

Just an FYI, I moved the report you made at WP:AN to WP:ANI. For an incident requiring immediate action by an admin, WP:ANI is a better choice--it's more actively watched and commented on. WP:AN is better for either slower moving issues (like a ban discussion), or for comments/questions to admins in general when a specific action isn't requested. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. It's my mistake. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Article you requested per fair use

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B86iegI5pG5TdTBYbXdOb1JVaE0

Please let me know when you are done. Churn and change (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much Churn and change. I downloaded the article.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: your email

Thanks for the note, but location isn't an issue: this is owned by an archive, and the photo was taken in the archive. Thanks, too, for the SVG (I'll use it instead), but would you also be willing to do the crop and rotate? Nyttend (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I understand.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Nyttend (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your words here. Your gesture is appreciated. --Ansei (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Please notice the reasons for a username change here. A simple name change was done here --Enkyo2 16:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Bottle keep

Thank you very much for adding to the "Bottle keep" entry! Not only does that photo speak a thousand words, you also added two great references! Say, do you know anyone who could write a Japanese Wikipedia article for it? A ボトルキープ doesn't seem to exist, not at the moment (2012-11-25 00h GMT)— but there's some occurrences of "ボトルキープ" in the (ja-)encyclopedia which link (redlink) to it. And: presumably whoever could make a "ボトルキープ" stub there could throw a [[Category:飲酒文化]] into it ...along with whatever else that my near-nil command of Japanese has missed. —sburke@cpan.org (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Also: I've posted some random questions to Talk:Bottle_keep that somebody might know answers/references for. They're just food/booze for thought. Thank you! —sburke@cpan.org (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sburke. There is a requested articles page in Japanese Wikipedia, ja:Wikipedia:執筆依頼. However it doesn't seem to be active. Another option is to place a request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan. This may be the minimum description for the Japanese article.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your efforts to improve bottle keep. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Translation

Hi! If you are not too busy, will you please take a look at my en-to-ja translation? Please feel free to correct ja. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not good at translating formal documents. However, having a quick look at the translation, it seems to be excellent.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

United States Forces Korea

Hello. I'm not sure why you blanked several sections of the recent post that I made, but would appreciate an explanation. None of the content was removed, just added to. Jackson1950Korea (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

FYI

You know well about the conversation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military. Same nightmare occurs, what do you think about Talk:Rape during the liberation of France and related articles.--Syngmung (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I apologize

Sorry for posting the POV-push translation in Talk:Liancourt Rocks; I was trying to show what the POV-pusher thought, without agreeing with him/her, but I guess I was being very reckless at putting such POV in the talk page of a very controversial topic. I thought about this yesterday night for about an hour, and I now believe that I did a mistake so I should apologize. Thanks.--Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 02:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC) (also, I am not a POV-pusher. I am a a content creator. I also apologize to myself for tarnishing my reputation on Wikipedia.)

PS. I would like it if you could find a photo of a Japanese sea lion near the rocks. I don't have the time to do so.

Merge discussion for Air Defense Identification Zone (East China Sea)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Air Defense Identification Zone (East China Sea), has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Ansett (talk) 04:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you please stop being such a drama queen?

Are you not able to accept that people might not agree with the way you're bloating up the discussion page? I don't see you think you have the right to be a complete drama queen and threaten other people of bans, and how he has the nerve to move out his own clutter and not everyone else's. In words you can understand more easily: "お前は何様？" The section was hatted because it was clutter - we don't need someone to repeat a bunch of policies here. For those of us who have been here for quite some time we know what the policies are, you don't need to point out quotes for us. It takes up a huge chunk of space within this page, and to be honest, it's an eyesore when I'm trying to navigate the page to see what the hell is going on. If you want to make an argument, mentioning the policy is sufficient enough. Rewriting whole chunks of policy within this page is unnecessary clutter, which is the reason why I collapsed everybody's policy quotes, and not just yours; I'm not "unfairly targeting you" or "intentionally hiding things that aren't convenient for me", Phoenix7777, or whatever persecution complex excuse you can come up with. Stop this annoying rubbish, and realise that there's more to this planet than you. You're getting on my nerves, and it is really pissing me off. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess my previous comment wasn't clear enough. Stop this shit. If you want to debate, do it properly without being a "if you don't do what I like I'll get you back~~!" kind of person. It's annoying as fuck, and I've had it with you. You're being intentionally disruptive. You have zero right to threaten other people like what you just did. --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)