User:Enkyo2/Sandbox/Miyajima

statement
1. Military Medal of Honor (Japan):
 * The China Incident Medal medal was created by Imperial Edit #496 on July 27, 1939 ; and was awarded for service in China from during the 12th through the 20th years of the Shōwa period -- Shōwa 12-20 (1937-1945). An amendment was promulgated by Imperial Edict #418 in 1944 ; and the decoration was abolished in 1946 by government ordinance #177.

2. Order of the Rising Sun:
 * The Order of the Rising Sun (旭日章, Kyokujitsu shō ? ) is a Japanese Order, established in 1875 by Emperor Meiji of Japan. The Order was the first national decoration awarded by the Japanese Government, created on April 10, 1875 by decree of the Council of State.

3. Russo-Japanese War Medal:
 * A unique jugun kiso was ordered on March 31, 1906 by Imperial Edict #51 in recognition of those who served in the war which occurred during the 37th and 38th years of of the Meiji period -- Meiji 37-38 (1904-1905). This is more commonly known as the Russo-Japanese War.

____________________

A plausible fulcrum?

 * As you know, Guy describes WP:ANI as a "festival of Stupid" and Future Perfect at Sunrise characterizes it as mere "bickering." In that context, you represent a plausible fulcrum from which to leverage an ultimately constructive outcome:


 * Please re-visit just the second clause from a sentence which knowingly mis-states my AfD position: Caspian blue's summary of the complaint at hand:
 * Tenmei ... also claims that the nominated article should be completely deleted even after it is getting cited with a reliable source by me . [emphasis added by Tenmei]


 * For the moment, set aside the fact that each of the following explained that the only way to invite assistance from the Article Rescue Squadron was by nominating an otherwise unsourced article for deletion:
 * Talk:Joseon tongsinsa
 * Talk:Korean missions to Edo
 * Talk:Joseon tongsinsa
 * Articles for deletion/Joseon tongsinsa
 * Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron


 * Just focusing on that second clause, Caspian blue slyly managed to avoid scrutiny of the Korean language source which was cited. All that was needed was changing the venue from the fully-engaged AfD discussion thread to this one where the issues could be re-framed in more superficial terms.  The AfD was summarily closed by Seicer because of Caspian blue's unsupported (and ultimately insupportable) complaint that the discussion had degenerated into personal abuse.  Future Perfect at Sunrise has now merged the articles.  In my view, it was only possible to get as far as we had done because there were a sufficient number of others participating in the AfD discussion.  Without more, I don't see how this can be resolved in a conventional talk page discussion -- but at least that question remains undecided.


 * It plainly took more time to struggle with figuring out how to engage a process to resolve the WP:V problems with the rescue process than it took to locate and post a single Korean language encyclopedia entry. It took longer to translate the source than Caspian blue has invested in actually managing to make a substantive contribution to the contents of the articles which were so vigorously "defended" ...? What was this really all about?


 * The blunt reality is that the this specific on-line text does not support any of the specific sentences for which it was cited.


 * QED: From this experience, Caspian blue will have learned that this is an effective gambit. There's no arguing with its success; and as a special bonus, the exercise furthers an unfathomable anti-Japanese vendetta.  This was a victory in a one-sided fight was gained with relatively little effort except for a bit of argumentative prose.  The disputing itself has value because of a modest adrenalin-boost fuels a practice-session which improves Caspian blue English fluency.


 * Who can deny that Caspian blue achieved a defined set of goals? I would have wanted to add some part of the above to the thread which is soon to be archived; but I can't see how to explain myself more succinctly than this.

Perhaps you may become a fulcrum at some point in a future in which Caspian blue's over-reaching comes to your attention?


 * Accusation supported by further development in this thread? -- No.
 * 1. "I have been continuously attacked by on Articles for deletion/Joseon tongsinsa and relevant talk pages."


 * Accusation supported by further development in this thread? -- No.
 * 2. Tenmei "started to attack my comment on LordAmeth's talk page" ....


 * Accusation supported by further development in this thread? -- No.
 * 3. "[T]he Japanese user did some research on my contributions" ....


 * Accusation supported by further development in this thread? -- No.
 * 4. Tenmei "stated that his nomination is because I've been engaging in editing Comfort women" ....


 * Accusation supported by further development in this thread? --No.
 * 5. "[T]he user clearly states about his WP:Ownership on his created article."


 * Accusation supported by further development in this thread? -- No. I don't know how to label this.  In the absence of a question posed to either Taemyr or me, how could we have imagined a need to explain an exchange on my talk page which seemed clear enough to each of us.
 * 6. Taemyr ''pointed out on his usage of the perjorative 'Wonkery' as well.".


 * Accusation not supported by further development in this thread -- No. There was nothing to complain about in my trying to copy from personal talk page to AfD discussion thread]
 * 9. "He also pasted my warning to him without my permission several times."


 * Accusation not supported by further development in this thread -- No.
 * 10. He rather more making inexcusable ad hominem attacks regardless of the chances."


 * No. I don't know how to label this; but the determination about any problems with the thread was not decided by consensus. Why not?
 * 11. AfD is going to nowhere.


 * Accusation not supported by further development in this thread -- No. What is the relevance of this?
 * 13. The user recently was recently reported for his personal attacks like this. WP:ANI#Personal abuse and disruptive behaviour by Tenmei filed by admin, Nick Dowling.

Ameth
LordAmeth -- Of course you recall writing this:
 * "But I really wish you would stop making personal attacks on people . You ignore the issues at hand, and refuse to express yourself in brief, simple, to-the-point posts, instead posting massive opuses, written in the most unnecessarily over-sophisticated language one could muster, addressing not the key points (validity of using Nihon Dai Ichi Ran as a source; invalidity of using the non-English "Joseon tongsingsa" as a title, etc) but instead dredging up unrelated past AfDs and other debates/discussions, and veering off into personal attacks, yet again ."

Is it fair to ask if you would have written the same thing if your views had been informed by the following? These postings informed my words and actions in the period after I invited you to read Fostering scholarly collaboration -- analysis, text and source development; but all were deleted before you encountered the section Caspian blue created about alleged personal abuse?


 * EXCERPT A:
 * According to Caspian blue, my very first personal attack was on your talk page, e.g.,  "You were very sensitive at my choice of "against" to merge under "Korean mission to Edo" and then denounced it as "premature, unhelpful, discouraging" by your own definition.


 * deleted by Caspian blue
 * Do not pretend to know nothing. You did not realize what you're doing here? Look through your own wording again. You were very sensitive at my choice of "against" to merge under "Korean mission to Edo" and then denounced it as "premature, unhelpful, discouraging" by your own definition. Then your word choices and make drama is not even surprising. Don't make a play with me, you know what your poor analysis on my contribution history, editing habits, and intention for merging the three articles are referring to and going to be. That is called "personal attacks".--Caspian blue (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC) ==>23:37, 28 Aug


 * EXCERPT B:
 * According to Caspian blue, the issue at hand is my alleged "bashing" and "anti-Korea sentiment," e.g.,  "It is quite obvious that your anti-Korean sentiment covers your eyes and your head to not think reasonably." 


 * deletedt by Caspian blue
 * --This thread was copied from User Talk:Tenmei. ==>23:51, 28 Aug]
 * [[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Caspian blue (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC) ==>23:51, 28 Aug


 * Be more specific. NO. We aren't going down this path. --Tenmei (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC) ==>23:51, 28 Aug


 * You ruin the whole AFD page with your rant and irrelevant matters (Liancourt Rock, Comfort women and my contribution histgory). It is quite obvious that your anti-Korean sentiment covers your eyes and your head to not think reasonably. If you can't remove such thing from the page and make a proper apology, well, I would seek normal procedures. --Caspian blue (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2008 ==>23:51, 28 Aug


 * Excerpt C:
 * According to Caspian blue, the issue at hand is my alleged "anti-Korea bashing," e.g.,  "Apology and removing your anti-Korean bashing craps from the page are strongly required." 
 * deletedt by Caspian blue
 * You pretend not to how vicious languages you have intentionally chosen. I quote the notable example.


 * Apology and removing your anti-Korean bashing craps from the page are strongly required. --Caspian blue (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC) ==>23:57, 28 Aug

If you continue to construe my writing as "personal attacks," then you would be helping me if you invested a little time in being more specific. I don't recognize "personal attack" in anything I've written. I cannot address what you see as a problem unless I can study what you see as wrong. Your heading  "Here we go again"  assumes a common understanding which is simply not there.

In my view, your talk page comments about me were taken as a kind of encouragement which propelled Caspian blue to create the complaint at WP:AN/I. Without your input, I believed that the AfD discussion was closing towards consensus; and your words informed actions which thwarted that work. I only hope this wasn't the purpose you had in mind? If not, you still need to appreciate the consequences. If you did believe it was best to displace WP:AfD with WP:AN/I, then I'm misunderstanding you on a scale greater than I had previously imagined. --Tenmei (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI -- I think the last two sections of the WP:AN/I thread are not too long:
 * 1. Tenmei apologizes to Caspian blue
 * -- Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents


 * 2. When two men fight over a woman it's the fight they want, not the woman
 * -- Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

The last section was begun with the intention of posting it on your talk page, but when I'd finished, I thought it would be more favourably received in the WP:AN/I thread. What I meant was that I don't log on to Wikipedia for the joy of fighting. --Tenmei (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

K

 * 1. I have consistently moved posts from my personal talk page to the thread in which the subject context can better become the center of focus.
 * 2. In the hour before Caspian blue created the complaint thread at WP:AN/I, I tried to move relevant postings to the AfD talk page; and at the time, I thought the fact that they seemed to disappear was some systems glitch or that I was doing something wrong.
 * 3. It didn't occur to me until some time later that there were Caspian blue's reverts.
 * 4. When I figured it out, I tried to ask an administrator to restore these lost postings.
 * 5. If the following do help clarify the thread at Wp:AN/I, please suggest a non-controversial way to introduce them.

1. According to Caspian blue, my very first personal attack was on User:LordAmeth|LordAmeth]]'s talk page, e.g.,  "You were very sensitive at my choice of "against" to merge under "Korean mission to Edo" and then denounced it as "premature, unhelpful, discouraging" by your own definition.


 * deleted out by Caspian blue
 * Do not pretend to know nothing. You did not realize what you're doing here? Look through your own wording again. You were very sensitive at my choice of "against" to merge under "Korean mission to Edo" and then denounced it as "premature, unhelpful, discouraging" by your own definition. Then your word choices and make drama is not even surprising. Don't make a play with me, you know what your poor analysis on my contribution history, editing habits, and intention for merging the three articles are referring to and going to be. That is called "personal attacks".--Caspian blue (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC) ==>23:37, 28 Aug

2. According to Caspian blue, the issue at hand is my alleged "bashing" and "anti-Korea sentiment," e.g., '' "It is quite obvious that your anti-Korean sentiment covers your eyes and your head to not think reasonably." ''
 * deleted out by Caspian blue
 * --This thread was copied from User Talk:Tenmei. ==>23:51, 28 Aug]
 * [[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Caspian blue (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC) ==>23:51, 28 Aug


 * Be more specific. NO. We aren't going down this path. --Tenmei (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC) ==>23:51, 28 Aug


 * You ruin the whole AFD page with your rant and irrelevant matters (Liancourt Rock, Comfort women and my contribution histgory). It is quite obvious that your anti-Korean sentiment covers your eyes and your head to not think reasonably. If you can't remove such thing from the page and make a proper apology, well, I would seek normal procedures. --Caspian blue (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2008 ==>23:51, 28 Aug

3. According to Caspian blue, the issue at hand is my alleged "anti-Korea bashing," e.g., '' "Apology and removing your anti-Korean bashing craps from the page are strongly required." ''
 * You pretend not to how vicious languages you have intentionally chosen. I quote the notable example.


 * Apology and removing your anti-Korean bashing craps from the page are strongly required. --Caspian blue (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC) ==>23:57, 28 Aug

This message has five sentence in the body and three which emphasize the gravamen of the complaint in three excerpts. --69.86.156.197 (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oversight
I have filed a request for mediation at Requests for mediation/Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. I identified you amongst the relevant parties:

Involved parties Assent from the following need not be a factor in the decision to accept this dispute for mediation; but perhaps these contributors might consider themselves as parties because of their participation in creating the talk page record.
 * , filing party
 * , mediator
 * , mediator
 * , mediator
 * , mediator
 * , mediator
 * , mediator


 * The step-by-step instructions for filing a request for mediation did not explain that I needed to notify others; but Nick Dowling's notice here implies that I have a responsibility to remedy that oversight without further delay.


 * At this point, Nick Dowling has already agreed to mediation. It's up to you to decide what, if anything, you want to do.  Even if you don't decide to participate, I hope you will watchlist the page so that you are able to follow this process as it unfolds. --68.174.148.88 (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Supplemental restatements?
The modest disagreement above creates a context in which restatement could prove to be helpful?

In order to reach the threshold which this request for mediation represents, I was obliged to stumble Sisyphus-like through a course of serial hurdles which effectively required reinventing the wheel ad nauseam; and Wikipedia conventions appear to have provided no other way to get from "A"-below to "B"-below ....
 * A. 14 July: Tenmei complains -- "Nick Dowling persists in framing sham "queries" in which any "answer" becomes irretrievably confined within the terms of narrowing premises -- a pernicious variation on the classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. This sly straw man gambit has rhetorical appeal, but it unfolds with insidious consequences."
 * B. 23 July: Nick Dowling complains -- "I genuinely don't understand what it is you're so concerned about and would appreciate an explanation. For example, are you concerned about something other than or in addition to the relatively narrow topic of the ships' classification as used in military publications and the media? (which is the only topic I have any views on here: for instance, I know almost nothing about the Japanese Constitution or about any implications these ships may have relating to it - my only interest is to ensure that the article does not make statements about the ships' design and characteristics which are not in line with the full range of reliable sources)."
 * Restatement A :
 * The gaps which separate "A"-above from "B"-above becomes a problem which invites mediation.
 * Restatement B :


 * As for the third comment: Zero possibility of apology -- nil.  Nick Dowling can apologize to me.  I'll make an effort to be gracious when I accept his words at face value.
 * There was never a "personal abuse" -- not at all. It was naught but a contrived sham.  There was never offense -- again, naught but a contrived sham.
 * As for the "disruptive behaviour" -- again naught but contrivance.
 * The words labeled as "personal abuse" do not fit the definition. Without that foundation, the so-called "disruptive behaviour" becomes nothing more than an aggrieved effort to redress what was wrought in sham.  Dishonor here doesn't stick to me -- no, no -- on the contrary.  Nick Dowling knew exactly what he was doing, and he persisted because he thought he could get away with it.  The real embarrassment is that he did get away with it to the extent that he did; as evidenced by your generous and reasonable counsel.  In this, you remain untainted by your error; but you and I are free from the disadvantage which comes from being soiled in public.


 * The the fact that both contributors continue to work needlessly at cross purposes becomes a problem which invites mediation.
 * Restatement C :
 * Despite the unwanted frustration and aggravation which are amply evidenced on the talk page and in every other venue, the tedious, slogging exchange-of-views or whatever-it-was has produced specific, practical, demonstrable results as shown at "B"-above ... which invites mediation. What went right? how? when? why?


 * Restatement alternative using plausibly useful medical terminology:
 * In oncology, the metastasis of cancer is conventionally described as insidious or "developing so gradually as to be well-established before becoming apparent." It is also well-known to be pernicious or "highly injurious or destructive."  It is unfortunate that criticism of Wikipedia has not yet encompassed the oncological model, but it is arguably true that the metastasis of systemic bias, like cultural bias elsewhere, is insidious, pernicious and sometimes invasive.


 * The non-NPOV problems in Hyūga class helicopter destroyer have escaped even cursory examination thus far. An ameliorative edit was initiated, involving one sentence only, supported by an in-line citation with an external link to a credible source. The talk page record reveals that this precisely-targeted intervention was reverted twice without substantive discussion.  The edit provoked intense resistance which blocked access to any perceived threshold from which to begin to address the unacknowledged bias which remains the article's pervasive flaw.


 * Talk page sequelae revealed underlying toxic peripheral wiki-pathologies which are become corollary subjects of this request for wiki-diagnostic and wiki-therapeutic interventions. --Tenmei (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This thread began with some serious complaints, but the thread failed to develop those specific allegations. Why is that? What was this all about? In such serious context, WP:TLDR would have no place.
 * "Building a taxonomy and nomenclature of collaborative writing to improve interdisciplinary research and practice" (abstract), The Journal of Business Communication. January 1, 2004.

On the basis of what I've learned the hard way from Dowling's contribution to this thread, Caspian blue's purpose may have been to create a record which will forever haunt me, devaluing anything I say or do because I've become irretrievably tainted with the opprobrium of sort of wiki-felony? No, that can't be right.

Dowling's posting in this thread seems to imply an understanding that the consequences of simply being named in this venue do matter far more than I can imagine; and all Caspian blue has to do is to make a few important-sounding accusations without risking any consequences for a failure to follow-through with specifics which can be evaluated. This presents a worrisome prospect.

Now that the thread has come to the top of the page and is close to being archived, I guess I have to make it a point to invite a review those first two paragraphs:


 * Accusation supported by further development in this thread? -- No.
 * 1. "I have been continuously attacked by on Articles for deletion/Joseon tongsinsa and relevant talk pages."


 * Accusation supported by further development in this thread? -- No.
 * 2. Tenmei "started to attack my comment on LordAmeth's talk page" ....


 * Accusation supported by further development in this thread? -- No.
 * 3. "[T]he Japanese user did some research on my contributions" ....


 * Accusation supported by further development in this thread? -- No.
 * 4. Tenmei "stated that his nomination is because I've been engaging in editing Comfort women" ....


 * Accusation supported by further development in this thread? --No.
 * 5. "[T]he user clearly states about his WP:Ownership on his created article."


 * Accusation supported by further development in this thread? -- No. I don't know how to label this.  In the absence of a question posed to either Taemyr or me, how could we have imagined a need to explain an exchange on my talk page which seemed clear enough to each of us.
 * 6. Taemyr ''pointed out on his usage of the perjorative 'Wonkery' as well.".


 * Accusation not supported by further development in this thread -- No.
 * 7. Tenmei "also uses very vicious languages against me" ....


 * Accusation not supported by further development in this thread -- No.
 * 8. Tenmei "drags his anti-Korean sentiment to the AFD" ....


 * Accusation not supported by further development in this thread -- No. There was nothing to complain about in my trying to copy from personal talk page to AfD discussion thread]
 * 9. "He also pasted my warning to him without my permission several times."


 * Accusation not supported by further development in this thread -- No.
 * 10. He rather more making inexcusable ad hominem attacks regardless of the chances."


 * No. I don't know how to label this; but the determination about any problems with the thread was not decided by consensus. Why not?
 * 11. AfD is going to nowhere.


 * Accusation not supported by further development in this thread -- No.
 * 12. "The page turns out to be a place for him to abuse the procedure and make personal attacks based on his strong bias against Korean editors."


 * Accusation not supported by further development in this thread -- No. What is the relevance of this?
 * 13. The user recently was recently reported for his personal attacks like this. WP:ANI#Personal abuse and disruptive behaviour by Tenmei filed by admin, Nick Dowling.

Was this prudent, necessary? If not, why not?

On the basis of the above, the only thing I did wrong was to say "You are offensive" when provoked; and it doesn't matter that Caspian blue deleted the immediately preceding provocation. The other thing I did wrong was to write as clearly and as specifically as I could, responding to an impossible situation with the seriousness it evidently required.

There's something wrong with a process which archives this thread in this state. I'm tired of this, but it would be foolish to ignore the probable consequences of silence. --Tenmei (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference to past context
[post by block evading sock removed by Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC). If you wish to post here you need to get your block lifted. Take it to the arbitration committee but you don't get to edit here in the meantime]


 * Please note that, following reports of vandalism on WP:AIV, I have just had to temporarily block 58.94.56.254. I was unaware of this discussion - but the reported actions were sufficient. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note that, following reports of vandalism on WP:AIV, I have just had to temporarily block 118.16.243.120. The actions were for identical vandalism to the above anon. Ian Cairns (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I did read this whatever-it-was before it was deleted; but the text was too complicated for me to understand with only a quick scan. From what I could gather, the writer was trying to say that I was on to something when I suggested above that Caspian blue's complaint is a cake baked from scratch by a knowing baker with a recipe in mind.

This becomes somewhat troubling in the odd context this thread creates. It causes me to re-evaluate what I thought was happening in the paragraphs above. --Tenmei (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)