Talk:Morikami Museum and Japanese Gardens

Untitled
I removed a recently added "See also" reference in this article because it duplicated a link in the body of this article. This was probably added because the Roji-en article is named Roji-en Japanese Gardens, while the gardens, which are part of the Morikami Museum and Japanese Gardens, are properly called Roji-en: Gardens of the Dew, and are so referenced in this article. I hope to clarify this naming in the near future. - Dalbury 22:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Category question
Should this article be in the category Japanese-style gardens? Since Roji-en is in that category, it seems unnecessary to have this article as a second entry in the same category. Fg2 00:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not a big deal. The Roji-en article was written as though the gardens were an an entity separate from, or even superior to, the museum, but the gardens are really part of the Morikami Museum. I do intend to clean this up some more, but I've been putting it off until I could take some pictures of the museum, and that has been postponed because of the damage from Hurricane Wilma. The Morikami Museum and Japanese Gardens also has a bonsai garden that is separate from the Roji-en, so technically the category probably should apply to this article rather than the Roji-en article. Again, I hope to clean this up eventually. --  Dalbury ( Talk )  01:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed merge
The Morikami Museum and Japanese Gardens are only one element in Morikami Park. It is also home to the American Orchid Society Visitors Center and Botanical Garden and to an area called the Biwa Pavillion, which are not part of the Museum and Gardens. So, the answer is no, they are not the same thing. --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  03:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Dalbury: Thank you for helping me to understand Wikipedia's rules, and I intend to incorporate them in future edits, but also bear in mind that you are violating the following Wikipedia suggestion:

"Avoidance The best way to resolve a dispute is to avoid it in the first place."

Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The revision you would prefer will not be established by reverting, and repeated reverting is forbidden; discuss disputed changes on the talk page. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, resist the temptation to respond unkindly, and do not make personal attacks."

Thank you...

Mokumbear 23:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Mokumbear


 * I have again removed the unsourced and slanted comments you added. Per the Wikipedia verifiability policy burden of evidence section, please do not add the material back into the article without providing citations to reliable sources for any any of the material you add. Note also that the angelfire.com site is not acceptable as a source per Reliable sources. Your comments are also not acceptable under the Wikipedia neutral point of view policy. -- Donald Albury 00:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Dalbury: Please take a moment to reread my post above, especially the part about:

"Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it".

You are not making any positive suggestions towards helping me improve my contributions.

Simply constantly reverting the site to your original content is not consistent with Wikipedia policy.

Erasing every last one of my edits is simply not acceptable. Every single piece of information I have posted is true and verifiable.

I have made every attempt to make my point of view neutral and factual.

How can you justify erasing a sentence that simply states that a good book about George Morikami has been published and contains a fascinating history of George Morikami, the Yamato Colony, his land and his intentions for a public park to be built at the end of his life?

I am citing factual history of the Morikami Park, its past and it's current state.

I am trying to be as neutral as posible. Bear in mind that being neutral is consistent with citing facts about the current drastic changes that have occured to this park which was formally freely open to the public.

"Sugar coating" matters by erasing my factual edits and making it appear that nothing has changed at the Park is hardly a "neutral point of view" on your part. You are not presenting a factual account about the Park and its current state.

Once again, I am going to repost my edits. I ask that you work with me to present it in a suitable format per Wikipedia policy.

If you continue to vandalize my contributions, I will have a Wikipedia mediator intervene in this situation.

Once again, I would prefer to work with you calmly and politely to present my facts in a form that is compliant with Wikipedia policy.

Dalbury:

Once again, I have tried to improve my edit, cite my sources and you continue to vandalize this page by removing every edit!

I have listed specific Quit-Claims deeds filed with Palm Beach County. Is this not a cited source?

Please refrain from this behavior, it serves no purpose.

Once again, if you want to be a helpful ambassador for Wikipedia, you will offer me assistance, not vandalism!

Once again, if you would like to work with me, and show me how to better cite a source, that is fine and is consistent with Wikipedia policy.

70.146.122.239 16:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Mokumbear


 * Please read Verifiability and Reliable sources to learn what counts as a source. Also, please read Verifiability, which states that is the responsibility of the editor who wants to add or keep a challenged statement to provide a reliable source. You have yet to provide a reliable source for anything you have posted, and much of what you have posted appears to be original reasearch, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 17:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)