User:Enkyo2/Sandbox/Okinawa

Vocabulary

 * Alexander, Francie. "Understanding Vocabulary" Scholastic

Icons
<!-- A. Notes B. Suggested "compromise"== Forgive me for what may be an oversimplistic view of this content dispute, but the mediation committee posting drew my attention and as far as I can see there's absolutely no reason why a sentence couldn't be included which makes evident the clouded nature of this vessel's classification: could it not simply be said that "The Hyūga class helicopter destroyer has variously been described as an aircraft carrier (insert ref) and also a destroyer (insert ref)." I really fail to see the furore which this dispute seems to have garnered over something about which a compromise could be reached so easily. Coldmachine Talk 13:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Coldmachine -- It appears that my serial attempts to invite helpful intervention have produced zero effect.


 * Initially, I sought mediation for a variety of reasons, not least of which was because 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 below.


 * In circumstances other than this one, a demand for Formal Mediation would have seemed odd. When I caused this dispute by merely adding one sentence only, I anticipated a controversy different than the one Nick Dowling has engineered. --Tenmei (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

C. Verifiable citation=== NOT ASKING RHETORICAL QUESTIONS ... and then stonewalling delay becomes "proof" that questions are outdated or irrelevant. ... only editor opposing consensus ... not won support for any for arguments
 * 1. [NO ANSWER] This article cites no specific sources, and yet it is entirely credible as written. One short sentence has been added -- one fact only; and this plausibly controversial assertion is supported by a citation from a undisputed source.  In my view, this makes the edit somewhat resistant to easy deletion. --Tenmei (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2. [NO ANSWER]  "in article without sources, deleting the sole citation-supported sentence is untenable" ' .... In my view, neither well-informed POV nor reasonable consensus amongst a limited number of editors is plausibly sufficient to trump a credibly sourced sentence.  If not, why not? --Tenmei (talk) 06:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3. [No ANSWER] In an article with no citation of sources, I wonder how you justify removing the sole sentence which is actually supported by a credible in-line citation? --Tenmei (talk) 07:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 4. [NO ANSWER] In a dispute in which one side offers a specific, linked citation to support an edit, and an disconsolate, non-specific complainer merely asserts "bad faith" in lieu of actually citing any contradictory sources, it becomes difficult to divine a more constructive path forward. --Tenmei (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 5. [NO ANSWER] We're mired in a conflict which pits someone with a sentence supported by a cited, competent source trying to push beyond what are, as articulated thus far, naught but the result of "original research" or un-"verifiable" personal opinions -- albeit well-informed, on-topic and understandable opinions. Expressed in these stark terms, can you begin to see how I might feel unmoved, adamant and puzzled? --Tenmei (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

NON-ANSWER proof of sole subject repeated ad nauseam: This is not basically a discussion over the relative merits of references. No -- with all due respect : wrong --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see Citation and Citing sources and No original research and Verifiability. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

RE-STATEMENT: Nick Dowling -- No -- with all due respect : My responses to your sentences are folded into your text so as to be emphatic and clear. Please construe the green font as yet another attempt to be very clear, comprehensible, constructive. I've replied No ad nauseam to each distinct element of your paragraph posting -- not because I want to be difficult, but rather because of the depth of disagreement you've compelled me to parse again and again and again.


 * NON-ANSWER proof of "bad faith": I personally find WP:V's assertion that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" to be frustrating given that its basically an open invitation for people to use any professionally published source they like and it can be difficult to correct material which is demonstrably wrong if it is sourced to a mistake.

Nick Dowling (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)-- see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history


 * 6. Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests# A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever
 * 7. Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard# A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever
 * 8. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
 * 9. Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal# A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever

MEDIATION ISSUE 1: The issues he raises are also outdated or irrelevant given that the article is now fully cited and he is the only editor opposing the consensus on this article. Given that there is a consensus on the Talk page and Tenmei has not won any support for this arguments, I originally disagreed with the need for this mediation, but decided to endorse it as a way of ending this dispute. Nick Dowling 11:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

D. More than maritime architecture==== NON-ANSWER proof of sole subject repeated ad nauseam: This is not basically a discussion over the relative merits of references. No -- with all due respect : wrong --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2-a. ... but each contributor overlooks crucial factors which are conventionally outside-the-box in an analysis which parses engineering specs, functional prospects, etc. If outside-the-box, why ...? --Tenmei (talk) 06:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2-b. ... I'm forced to argue -- in words demonstrably consistent with Assume good faith ... that the beginning and end of all issues to do with JDS Hyūga lies in maritime architecture. --Tenmei (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see Citation and Citing sources and No original research and Verifiability. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

RE-STATEMENT: Nick Dowling -- No -- with all due respect : -- Please construe the green font as yet another attempt to be very clear, comprehensible, constructive.

E. Post hoc ergo propter hoc===
 * 3-a. I'm not convinced that a website decribing a TV documentary is a reliable source on this topic either. Jane's calls the ships helicopter carriers. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3-b. The website supporting the PBS documentary is, simply put, not a good reference. PBS is not an authority on ship classifications and it does not cite any sources which support this classification.
 * No -- with all due respect : we're not here yet --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 3-c. Jane's Fighting Ships is often considered the best reference on warship classifications and statistics, and it states that these ships are helicopter carriers.
 * No -- with all due respect : potentially valid, but unavailing --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 3-d. The very reliable Globalsecurity.org discusses the ships' classification and concludes that while they are "similar in design to a small aircraft carrier" and the 'destroyer' classification is a bit dubious it ends up consistently labeling them "helicopter-carrying destroyers".
 * No -- with all due respect : potentially valid, but unavailing --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 3-e. These references have been mentioned earlier, so I don't understand why you are accusing Bill and I of "original research" or un-"verifiable" personal opinions". Nick Dowling (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * NON-ANSWER proof of sole subject repeated ad nauseam: This is basically a discussion over the relative merits of references. No -- with all due respect : wrong --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see Citation and Citing sources and No original research and Verifiability. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.
 * RE-STATEMENT: Nick Dowling -- No -- with all due respect Please construe the green font as yet another attempt to be very clear, comprehensible, constructive.


 * 4-a. I would have thought that a less confrontational strategy would have seemed like a good idea? There are any number of plausible reasons for questioning this single sentence from this article, but you have articulated none save arguably some kind of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Why is that?


 * NON-ANSWER proof of sole subject repeated ad nauseam:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Japanese military history task force
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force
 * Several editors (including myself) are currently discussing whether Japan's new Hyūga class helicopter destroyers should be classified as aircraft carriers or not and whether the article's references are adequete. Interested editors are invited to comment on the article's talk page. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

F. Controversial sentence=== This edit was controversial -- not for any reason articulated above, but nevertheless suspect for a number of eminently valid, important, and arguable factors I expected to discuss here with interested, thoughtful and better-informed editors than me. That hasn't happened yet, but I have no doubt that it will. Moreover, this essential dispute would have arisen in due course without my input. This was and remains the gravamen of my carefully considered decision to post one sentence and one sentence only as a crisp addition to this article's content. --Tenmei (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

G. Reaching threshold of an NPOV dispute ===

Just to make sure based on the lengthy talk page posts and edit summaries, could someone clarify some issues here on what exactly is disputed
 * Is it over whether the ship constitutes (a) "aircraft carrier", or (b) a "helicopter-carrying destroyer, similar in design to a small aircraft carrier"(globalsecurity.org)?


 * Is it over whether the ship (a)constitutes a true aircraft carrier, and (b) constitutes the "first aircraft carrier to be specifically constructed for Japanese marine forces since the end of the Pacific War"? Or just a?


 * Is the dispute also over whether it is not called a helicopter destroyer versus aircraft carrier for political and not solely technical reasons? If it is simply a dispute as to whether Global Security and Jane's classification of the ship as a helicopter carrier come from a more reliable source, at least in terms of technical details than the PBS documentary, I tend to favor the global security and Jane's sources in this respect. But I didn't get through watching the full video on PBS site. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Tenmei wants to include text stating that the ship is an aircraft carrier, with a reference back to a PBS website. The diff in question is . Bill has reverted this twice as it's not correct and has been discussed before (see above). I've provided two references to highly reliable sources which state that these ships aren't aircraft carriers (Jane's Fighting Ships a gold standard for ship statistics and classifications). My one paragraph response to Tenmei's offer to discuss this was much shorter and easier to read when I posted it and before Tenmei dissected it...

Nick Dowling (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Nick Dowling frames a issue which might have been posed by someone else at some other time. His summary is not a fair characterization of the issues at hand or the questions raised. --Tenmei (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain your concern then? If this isn't a discussion about the reliability of different references, what is it?

Nick Dowling (talk) 06:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Aha, I see. In the context Nick Dowling creates, the question above is disingenuous, disquieting in causing offense -- a bad faith gesture which heedlessly diminishes credibility.

---ABOVE: Assumed good faith error, cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias

---PIVOT POINT: Precise time NPOV twarted; alternate query ignored, feigned ignorance

---BELOW: Demonstrated disingenuous, after proof of having read NPOV noticeboard posting
 * The otherwise unremarkable note below clarifies the gambit and the context, but candidly does nothing to demonstrate any willingness to grapple with the issues on this page. --Tenmei (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that I've sought comments at WP:SHIP and on the Japanese and maritime history task forces of the Military History wikiprojects. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

---BELOW: Repetition of knowing fraud
 * Given that you've sought comments on this dispute on three different policy noticeboards, it was appropriate to also notify the relevant Wikiprojects. I genuinely don't understand what your concern is if it isn't the reliability of the references and I would appreciate it if you could explain this. Please note that I've now cited the entire article using the external links and am removing the refimprove tag. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nick Dowling -- I've crossed out "with all due respect" above. I avoid personal attack by focusing on your words. You repeat a disingenuous question and your words have garnered my full attention. --Tenmei (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "...review the timeline which informed my modest decision to cross out "with all do respect". What you construed as unsupportable allegations were simply a matter of record.  Some questions are disingenuous -- regrettable sure, but there you have it. This gambit affected my assessment of Nick Dowling's credibility, which becomes relevant in this context. In the face of a difficult reality, my words have been seemly, appropriate, correct. --Tenmei (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 06:00, 13 July 2008 -- NPOV at Editor assistance/Requests
 * 06:32, 13 July 2008 -- Nick Dowling posts link to NPOV restatement -- see text below.
 * 06:56, 13 July 2008 -- Nick Dowling poses 1st "disingenuous" question

PIVOT POINT: Precise time NPOV twarted; alternate query ignored, pretended ignorance


 * 10:57, 13 July 2008 -- Tenmei points to ND's "diminished credibility"
 * 11:14, 13 July 2008 -- Nick Dowling poses 2nd "disingenuous" question
 * 12:17, 13 July 2008 -- Tenmei crosses out "with all due respect"
 * 13:09, 13 July 2008 -- Parsecboy's negative spin on T's "allegations"

H. Tokyo prefecture=====
 * IzuŌshima -- letter of inquiry
 * Toshima --reset
 * Niijima.
 * Shikinejima.
 * Kōzushima
 * Miyakejima -- Bellhalla
 * Mikurajima
 * Hachijōjima - lemonade
 * Aogashima -- NPOV, Coldmachine


 * See Virtual community of practice.
 * See Online ethnography.


 * Ethnography, cultural anthropology are scientific disciplines which employ observing and measuring activities. Netnography is a term coined by Dr. Robert Kozinets of at York University, Toronto, refering to the anthropology of online communities:
 * Restatement: Don't ask people what they think -- watch them and know what they do, instead.


 * Kozinets, Robert V. "E-Tribalized Marketing?: The Strategic Implications of Virtual Communities of Consumption," European Journal of Management. Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 252-264. June 1999.
 * Figure 1: Developmental Progression of Individual Member Participation in Online Communities of Consumption (p. 254/p. 3)
 * Figure 2: Types of Virtual Community of Consumption Member (p. 255/p. 4)
 * Figure 3. Online Community of Consumption Interaction (p. 255/p. 4)

I. clean-up== J. JDS Hyūga==

K. I have requested an admin review your behaviour at the Administrators' noticeboard ===

Hello, Tenmei. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Nick Dowling (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

L. Hyūga class helicopter destroyer ===

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Clearly, concisely and direclty define what your objection to the current wording is and propose alternate wordings on the talk page or in a sandbox. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Trout Ice Cream (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Over-reaching
 * I would also add that seeking to overturn a freely-discussed and openly-reached consensus almost immediately after it has been established can be construed as deliberate disruption. This, along with edit-warring, is a blockable offence, because it detracts from building the encyclopedia. I'm sure the other editors on Hyūga class helicopter destroyer have better uses for their time than rehashing settled discussions. We've all had to deal with being on the losing side occasionally; the correct procedure is to accept it gracefully, and move on. EyeSerene talk 12:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This nicely illustrates a 21st century application of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. My response is to leave this caveat in place until I've addressed Nick Dowling's spin at WP:AN/I; and then I'll want to copy EyeSerene's spin as the summation's grace note, as a constructive denouement which directs attention towards broader issues which are discussed superficially at WP:CIV.
 * Yes -- for the moment, I am indeed intimidated by EyeSerene's "potentially valid, but unavailing" threat; and yes, I have felt very intimidated by the tag-team ownership charade which played itself out at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. However, my misgivings are offset by
 * Verifiability. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.
 * When Nick Dowling reads this, what else is to be done? I can but firmly urge, "Think again."  This is no dainty Glasgow rugby test.  This is no game at all, and there's no "losing side" in a dispute in which WP:V is conflated with WP:NPOV. --Tenmei (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A nudge, Tenmei, not a threat, based on outside observation of the effect your editing is having on both the article and its editors. Because you're an established editor and know how Wikipedia works, I regret that I thought it was necessary... but we're all human and can find it hard to let something drop when we're convinced we're right. I did you the courtesy of hoping that a gentle steer would be sufficient. All too often I've seen similar situations end in blocks or even bans (an observation, not a threat), and it would be a real shame to see it happen again to a valuable editor just because they didn't know when to let go. EyeSerene talk 20:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

M. Too few points of view===

Thanks for your message on this subject. My "too few points of view" comment was an indirect response to your request that I re-visit my opposition to the one-word edit proposal. Soliciting input from "more (and more diverse) editors" was intended to get us a better understanding of how our fellow wikipedians as a whole see this issue. There is no need to hurry here. We can afford to wait days -- even weeks -- until more wikipedians have a chance to express their views. In the interim, please consider working on the many other wikipedia pages where your contributions would enhance our encyclopedia! (If you like I would be happy to make some specific suggestions in that regard. Just let me know!) (sdsds - talk) 00:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

N. Argument=== On my talk page you asked: "Specifically, [...] Did this argument on this one point change your view?" No, in this specific case it did not. More generally: arguments are rarely effective in changing people's views. A bit more specifically: the argumentative tone of many of your interactions with others is highly unlikely to be effective in improving our encyclopedia. There are many ways you could improve our encyclopedia. Please inquire about them if you are so inclined. I personally will gladly make some suggestions, and there are other venues for this as well. In fact, the wikipedia effort includes many people who are eager to assist editors like yourself! (sdsds - talk) 19:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

O. Here are my suggestions===

I appreciate your request for my comments that you made on my talk page. I don't know much about the topic being discussed, nor the particular context being discussed, but I took a glance at what was going on, and I feel that your edits were made in good faith, your writing is excellent, and you have an impressive command of the English language! You have an insight that is very valid, and you make an excellent point when you suggest that sometimes Wikipedia's consensus process occasionally turns an article into a consensus reality, ignoring what could be called inconvenient truths. Systemic bias is quite present in WP, and needs to be countered. Your writing style isn't a problem--it is excellent.

Some advice in an unsolicited area, that appears to be relevant on the posting you made about the Hyūga class helicopter destroyer--I've been known to occasionally defend my edits vigorously, and often when an editor undoes my edit, or deletes it entirely, I get pissed, and sometimes undo the edit in question. But one thing that I've refrained from is getting into conflicts which both sides can't back away from or won't back away from...or taking edits of my edits personally, even on topics where I have a strong personal interest in. I usually back away at the point when I feel my edits might be viewed as disruptive or tendentious.

About that dispute that's going on, I would suggest perhaps that all the editors involved, including you, might try to take a little time off from the article in question, and work on something else for a while in Wikipedia. This is not to suggest that any side was right or wrong in the dispute, but as a way of de-escalating the conflict...that way, all sides can save face, and let tensions decrease. Less WP:STRESS, more WP:LOVE, for everyone involved.

Again, just my personal opinion. Good luck!

Katana0182 (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Good advice from both the above ;) I think we've now gone beyond the scope of WP:ANI, so I've noted there that the discussion has been taken to my talk page, since you've followed up there too. However, I haven't marked the ANI thread as closed, because others may wish to comment further (though it seems unlikely). Normally I reply to posts on the poster's talk page, but that may make things hard to follow in this case, so I'll reply to you on my page. Regards, EyeSerene talk 09:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Quick reply here to your unproductive thread question (I'll be offline for most of the rest of the day). I meant unproductive in an ANI sense - the noticeboard there is for matters that specifically require administrator attention and aren't really suitable for the other, more specialised admin notice boards (like WP:AIV or WP:AN3). Nick opened the thread with a concern about disruptive editing and incivility, but we seem to have moved beyond that and into a more general discussion concerning aspects of operating within the Wikipedia system itself... hence a different venue is probably called for. I hope this helps explain. EyeSerene talk 09:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

<!-- ===Please, stop being disruptive ... I-don't-know-what?=== This edit is precisely the problem which other editors are highlighting in your conduct. From my perspective here, it's looking like you are intentionally being disruptive to prove a point. There's no need for this, as amusing as you may find it to be. Again, I repeat the request which a number of editors have already made - including myself - that you engage with other users on the talk page, and discuss your points succinctly and without resorting to personal attacks or being pointy. Coldmachine Talk 16:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Coldmachine -- What on earth are you so vexed about this time?


 * Why don't you re-visit this caption with a preconceived notion that it is conciliatory and constructive and well-supported by mindful attention, as demonstrated by the links it contains?
 * Systematic error
 * framing
 * Consensus
 * Informal fallacy
 * Critical thinking


 * These links would have seemed to be singularly unsuited to "spin" as being somehow disruptive. I intended no humour. I am certainly not amused by anything which has gone so terribly wrong since I had the temerity to post a single sentence on this page.  If you compare the first sentence of this page with the first sentence of every other ship in the JMSDF fleet, it might be easier for you to understand that my first post was modest, focused, precise.


 * YOU said I'd used too many words, so I emphasized the otherwise ignored edit history of this article by posting an image near a select sampling of only a few illustrative examples. This non-controversial attempt to communicate succinctly and clearly was ignored when I posted it the first time.  Why is that?  Can you answer that question?  I don't see how this modest edit is not now to be understood as a reasoned and better attempt to point precisely to issues which pre-date my initial edit, and thus to underscore that the problem which attracted my attention arises then -- not now, and certainly not just because of any disruption you seem too prone to perceive.


 * The caption is not a priori offensive, and if you choose to construe it that way, the problem you see is not of my making:
 * Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer is like car collision in which both vehicles are traveling at low speeds. As revealed in the edit history, the full range of nuanced, subtle, non-NPOV fundamentals in this talk page "accident" are set in 2007, not in 2008. In this context, re-framing questions in which the scope of "consensus" is limited by factors implicit in the premise is an impoverished logical strategy.


 * Frankly, your reaction would otherwise seem absurd; but your immediate response surely serves to illustrate something worth pondering further. After sober consideration, perhaps you'll decide to restore what was too rashly deleted? Or at least, you should be able to discern that what I have done does not deserve opprobrium. --Tenmei (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The links you provide indicate as much and the manner in which you are engaging on the talk page is evidence of this. Tenmei, you are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut here, and it's coming across as disruptive and pointy. I'd suggest recusing yourself from the article for a while since it seems you are incapable at present of using the talk page effectively. Coldmachine Talk 19:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Striking per this edit. Coldmachine Talk 19:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

P. Common cause==

I'm contacting you because of one small excerpt from a larger thread:


 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history
 * Strong oppose - This is a joke right? You want someone dismissed as a coordinator because they disagreed with your position on an article's name????????????????????????? Heeheeheehee! Thanks for the laugh - I need it! And thought maybe he had done something really bad, like support me in a dispute on whether a Japanese DDH was an aircraft carrier or not. Whewwww! - BillCJ (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * BillCJ, no, I am not asking to dismiss Nick because he disagrees with the historical name of the article, but the way he is going about achieving this, by using a straw poll to change it to a fictitious name unsupported by references which is completely contrary to Wikipedia policy and community consensus on straw polls--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what you made of BillCJ's odd observation? I would have thought you found it obscure or otherwise inexplicable? No matter -- I can explain. I'm the one he was angry with in this sentence, not you ... or at least, I'm the one who had the temerity to add a one-sentence edit to Hyūga class helicopter destroyer and he didn't like it. In scanning the page where I found this trivial exchange, it was the "DDH" which caught my attention.

I stumbled into your further response only as a secondary matter.

If you're interested, I'll try to explain at least a tiny part of what you can't learn any other way, I suppose ....

What intrigues me even more than whatever is going on with BillCJ is your observations about Nick Dowling, whose words and actions demonstrate that he seems to espouse a non-standard disdain for WP:Verifiability.

Nick Dowling's unique notions about citations and references have caused me a great deal of what I would like to think of as otherwise avoidable difficulties; and it may be helpful to introduce myself.

Perhaps you may be able to help me learn more about this narrow aspect of your experiences with this difficult Wikipedia administrator. At best, something unforeseen may lead to something constructive?

In scanning your messages, I have to say that you sound like a bit of a loose cannon; but I fear others may describe me in the same way. I would have thought we were very, very different -- similar only in that we've both managed to blunder within range of Nick Dowling's highly-developed personal radar? Does that make us "peers" ...? --Tenmei (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Q. Peers? ===

Hmm, I'd have to thank you for calling me a "loose cannon" given my current project article is Artillery. :) I find reading you quite interesting. At a guess you are a very well educated citizen of the UK, right?

Actually I do not harbour particular ill feelings towards most editors I have come into conflict with, but I am particular about statements of fact. Your own predicament may have been resolved earlier if Nick and others had been pointed to the Moskva class helicopter carrier which is actually an attempt to marry a light cruiser hull with a function of an anti-submarine carrier, though the class did not exist in the 60s because helicopters had only been introduced in that role late in the 50s (I think), and mostly operated from conventional carriers. Militaries of course have agendas that reference works are not supposed to :)

I don't know how peer-oriented I am given that the first person I offered to cooperate with turned into someone who constantly uses any pretext to oppose me, and stalks my edits with a vengeance. What I found objectionable about Nick's behaviour is the way he pursued his agenda, or rather that of User:Buckshot06 who was the one to raise the straw poll.

The world of Wikipedia is far more complex than one supposes. Not sure how long you have been editing, but you see, what happened originally is that Buckshot wanted me to help him in his articles on the Russian/Soviet topics, and I was not prepared to commit due to my own plans. Further, I had the temerity to point out that what he considered to be a Featured Article had many failings, all largely due to his lack of knowledge of Russian, and access to sources. After that he went after me trying to rename ubiquitous "Battle of..." articles into their proper named operational entities, largely basing it on works by a former US Army Colonel whom even BS06 acknowledges to be the expert in the field. The argument: it seems that by doing so, I am trying to Russify the English Wikipedia, that the names are "too long", and that "people don't know what a strategic offensive operation" is. All these are of course his point of view unsupported by any Wikipedia policy, convention or guideline, the last of two which he holds to be "as policy" despite explicit references in them to citing sources taking precedence over use of "common English names".

In any case, while all this was going on, I got involved in a defence of another "loose cannon" who was trying to edit the Battle of Stalingrad article by adding sourced statements who had been apparently battling bureaucracy for years, and having returned from a year's block was blocked again within a couple of days. One person who was explicitly against giving this editor another chance was, Raul654. Of course BS06 followed my participation, and Raul is also a member of the MilHist Project.

The editor who came up with "references" is User:Biruitorul who is a Rumanian editor whom I encountered in the dispute over the naming of Yassy-Kishinev Strategic Offensive Operation renamed to Jassy-Kishinev Operation, my primary arguments being that German names (Jassy) of Rumanian cities have no place in an English Wikipedia, and that one should be less ambiguous in the article title by using official names. You will note that although there was a flurry of activity on the article from Rumanian editors around the time of the protracted debate over the name of the article, it has since ceased despite the article being far from complete. The article was initialy brought to my attention because it had been renamed by User:Eurocoptertigre, also Rumanian, who renamed it into Rumanian because the two cities were (without a proper RM!) :) Note that Eurocopter is the editor who in the end renamed the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation into the "Soviet invasion of" on this occasion also. Eurocopter is also a Military History Project coordinator, but authors predominantly Rumanian articles with the exception of some Soviet articles where he had replaced me in assisting Buckshot06 because I suppose he also knows some Russian. Oh, Nick and Buckshot are very close through their co-participation on a range of articles related to Australian and New Zealand defence forces, Nick being Australian, and BS06 being from New Zealand.

Others present were User:Wwoods whom you probably met during the Hyūga class helicopter destroyer "discussion". User:Davewild is an admin who does a lot of article deletion, and doesn't seem to participate in military history, so I wonder what brought him to the article talk; Raul? And that's about it. So you see, all things are connected :)

Had I been more attention seeking and networked more, I may have put together my own "coalition of the willing" to counter the straw poll, but in any case, between them the other participants can call on about three dozen people, and one admin usually stays out of the poll to block anyone as an "uninvolved" admin as soon as there is any mention of "incivility", "trolling", being "disruptive" or "wikilawyering" in Wikispeak. The only one missing was Piotrus who represents the rather vocal Polish contingent in English Wikipedia. I have also had a run-in with a member of the former Yugoslavia brethren who calls himself a DIREKTOR (yes, in capitals) that almost immediately on me asking for sources in an article called it a "dispute", at which point BS06 appeared to offer him support as he always does. All the Eastern Europeans usually come in lots of 1/2 dozen, so I can only guess that Manchuria, seeing me isolated, was not a priority.

As for the endemic issues of Wikipedia, please email me on the subject and we can chat further. I do agree with most of what you have said in the AN/I, but prefer to stay out of there in case some enterprising admin decides to take an interest in my editing and I have to get into yet another "discussion" with someone who prefers "common" to exceptional quality standards.

Read your post again. I have to say that I really like the elegance of your expression. Wish I had it in me to emulate that, but alas. In any case, Verifiability is a huge problem in Wikipedia. I see that you mostly edit Japanese articles, so it may not apply, but in may subjects citations are drawn from what is available in GoogleBooks, which is not necessarily a bad thing, however I find that research by keywords means editors who do so do not bother to read the entire paragraph, chapter, and certainly not the book, or several books on the subject to gain subject perspective and context. The outcome is edit warring when someone discovers a Wikipedia article that offers far less than a reference article should.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 08:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

R. ASIDE addressed to unknown, unidentified readers===
 * Aside: This small bit is oddly addressed to anyone and everyone other than the one user whose talk page it is supposed to be. This was composed for those readers other than Mrg3105 who are studying these words: I encountered an unexpected response to the carefully drafted thread I sought to begin above -- a brash observation, not from Mrg3105, but from an unexpected, unsympathetic commentator:
 * Trying to rally others towards the same sort of disruptive approach to dispute resolution not only affirms the view I hold but is also unhelpful to the extreme.


 * Aside: On one hand, I don't know how to respond to this distinctly unfriendly writer, but I've no doubt that simply re-posting these poorly-chosen words becomes a response of sorts. If I can somehow  juggle the flow-chart reasoning needed here -- what happened is that I posted a message for Mrg3105 on this talk page; and my words were then copied and linked within the body of another message posted somewhere else by someone else.  So, does that mean that in responding here, I'm acknowledging in a forthright way that I got the message?  I did read it.  I did think about it.  I don't understand -- not yet.


 * Aside: I can't be alone in recognizing that this talk page represents a unique venue. The often strident prose in most, if not all of the threads which stretch out ad nauseam above is impossible to parse without knowing much more ..., but I'm guessing anyone can take the measure of the headings, including:
 * 2 Insulting people
 * 5 Discussion at AN/I
 * 6 Editing restriction reminder
 * 30 Formal warning
 * 33 AN/I discussion
 * 56 Civility and inappropriate accusations
 * 66 Blocked
 * 77 WP:Civil
 * 92 Blocked (2)
 * 93 Editing restriction
 * 97 Ban
 * 98 Common cause?
 * 98.1 Peers?
 * 98.2 ASIDE addressed to unknown, unidentified readers
 * 98.3 Focusing attention towards a constructive objective
 * 99 Ping


 * Aside:In this demonstrably non-standard talk page, I would have thought it well-established that "rallying" Mrg3105 to adopt a more measured, thoughtful approach to anything and everything within Wikipedia's ambit deserves approbation, encouragement, applause. I don't think that's what the writer meant -- no, probably not.


 * Aside: I will continue to try to fathom the depths of whatever it was I was supposed to have known a priori; but I just don't "get" it. In the meantime, I don't want to delay reiterating a sterling phrase:
 * " ...Trying to rally others towards the same sort of disruptive approach to dispute resolution ...."
 * Aside: If the problem isn't so much what I wrote, but rather that I had the temerity simply to contact Mrg3105, that would seem like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut -- an apt simile.  Perhaps it will ameliorate misunderstandings by explaining that the genesis of the idea to contact Mrg3105 was suggested by imitating BillCJ and Nick Dowling. Imitation is a form of flattery, I know; and I wouldn't want this to be taken that way.  Nevertheless, I recognize that these two are "established users" in ways I wouldn't have imagined before chance intervened.  I admit frankly that I wouldn't have thought of this on my own. --Tenmei (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

S. Focusing attention towards a constructive objective=== Mrg3105 -- The odd, awkward, voyeur's context above was not created by you or me, but what is to be done except to acknowledge it. In light of that intrusive audience, do I need to say frankly that I disagree with a great many things you've written? Do I need to announce that I'd not be willing to endorse much of what I've read on this page? What matters most is this: even if you were wrong, wrong, wrong in all sorts of ways I can't even begin to enumerate, that would not affect my belief -- my near certainty -- that some of what you've alleged is credible, not proven or demonstrated, but plainly credible.

Separating wheat from chaff becomes a labour-intensive chore ... but I'm persuaded to invest in that winnowing in order to protect the other opportunities which attend participating in the Wikipedia project.

I can only guess about the issues implicit in the Aside, but it seems undeniably dark and only obliquely related to WP:V and WP:NPOV. On the other hand -- looking on the brighter side -- I guess we should have reason to feel gratified that our writing is likely to garner a much larger readership than I would have otherwise speculated. If the consequences prove ultimately beneficial, then the term "voyeurs" would seem less relevant perhaps? For an unsolicited audience, the following becomes a timely, wholesome rejoinder? I'm at a loss for words ....


 * The range of your Wikipedia experiences is wider than mine; and the subjects which seem to attract your attention comprise a broader array as well.


 * Please forgive my narrow-mindedness, but I think I need to admit a priori that I've not much interest in Russian or Soviet subjects. I can't easily recall having made any contribution to Russia-related subjects, except in minor edits to Sergei Witte and articles about other Russian negotiators who hammered out details of the Treaty of Portsmouth. In fact, what little attention I've even given to Russo-Japanese War -- other than the treaty which ended the conflict --  has focused only on the Western military attachés serving with Japanese armies: Herbert Cyril Thacker, John Charles Hoad, Ian Standish Monteith Hamilton, etc.


 * When you think about it, the fact that our interests are so divergent could be a good thing. It might help limit and focus what we might be able to work through together.  In varying ways, we both   seem to have stumbled over issues and consequences flowing from WP:V.  That alone won't be enough of a fulcrum to leverage anything worthwhile, but it's a start.  I've only scanned your talk page threads, not studied them; but sometimes, maybe -- not always -- I think you're trying to get a handle on issues or topics that I'm trying to grapple with as well.  I don't have any suggestions about what to make of whatever we might have in common, no plans yet; but if we could figure out how to manage something both small and constructive, the effort could be worthwhile.


 * There's no particular reason to rush, of course; but I'm eager to try something new. I'm guessing that you generally move along faster than I do sometimes.  You might be more impulsive than I am.  So what?


 * Time is an unknowable element in whatever we need to do. It is inherently impetuous to propose inventing something different from tactics and strategies which haven't worked nearly well enough thus far.


 * Changing tone a little bit: I wonder if a couple of coincidences are worth mentioning:


 * 1. When I read what you had written above, the first and only Russian who came to mind was Sergei Witte, which caused me to think of his Japanese negotiating counterpart at Portsmouth, Komura Jutarō. As it happens, Baron Komura's family comes from the region of eastern Kyūshū which was once known as Hyūga province ... and, as you know, I only happened to notice something you wrote because BillCJ mentioned 16DDH (Hyūga class helicopter destroyer) just before a contribution you made to a tendentious and ineffective thread.


 * 2. When I re-visited Talk:Sergei Witte, I was reminded of a trivial incident I'd forgotten about entirely. An anonymous reader had posted a plausible question about Witte's official government title in Russia; and another editor had simply endorsed the question as a seemingly valid one. The short thread focused on one of the very, very few aspects of the article in which I actually had something to offer. At Talk:Sergei Witte, the question has to do with whether  Wikipedia should or should not identify Witte with what seemed like an Americanized title -- assuming his position was just like that of the American Secretary of State?  Obviously, a thoughtful question with easy-to-parse ramifications ....


 * What pleases me has nothing to do with Witte or the answer -- rather, it's the reasoning which underlies this trivial contribution in April 2008. As you can see for yourself, I posted:
 * If the term "Secretary of State" is an error in this context, it's at least an error which we can attribute to the New York Times in 1905. Does this help, perhaps, to better focus this discussion or perhaps to move it forward constructively? --Tenmei (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I could have typed out in April 2008 (as I did in July 2008) --
 * Please see Verifiability. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true ... which, as you may know, is really nothing more than the first sentence of the official policy page explanatory text.


 * I could have drafted wiki-jargon in April 2008 (as Bellhalla did in July 2008) --
 * Also, I want to add that the policy is verifiability, not necessarily truth. NYT meets All three sources meet the WP:RS standard. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Again and again and again over the past month, I've witnessed this kind of salutatory reasoning rejected, twisted, ignored, blocked, etc. I don't have an adequate vocabulary to describe what I felt about the combination of stonewalling and disingenuous spin and who-knows-what-else.  In July, I found myself on the fringes of an odd "event" which still feels overly-orchestrated in retrospect.  Although I tried my best to pay attention, my participation -- even as a passive witness -- was ineffective.


 * In contrast, finding this thread from last Spring feels like a refreshing drink of water on a hot day.


 * What an odd chain of lucky links: Your introductory exposition/narrative mentioned a number of Russia-related subjects ...; and THEN that inspired me to think of Sergei Witte ...; and THEN that caused me to check-out the talk page ...; and THEN I chanced across this helpful illustration of something small which worked out nicely .... It's good to be reminded of something good. I don't know where to go with this, but maybe we can manage to work together towards a modestly encouraging start.  What do you think? --Tenmei (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

T. Framing the issues=== Mrg3105 -- It is clear that you and I are very, very different. You seem not especially reluctant to confront disagreement head-on; and I tend to be risk-averse, avoiding conflict and disputes as a general rule. As you know, sometimes that becomes impossible. I'm dealing with just such an unavoidable impasse now. Having exhausted other dispute resolution options, I sought help in a formal mediation process. As you know, the first attempt faltered -- see Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Hyūga class helicopter destroyer; and I promptly re-filed with modifications based on what appeared to have been mis-steps --  see Requests for mediation/Hyūga class helicopter destroyer2.

Curiously, this thread -- yes, your talk page -- was mentioned in that remote context; and I'm not sure what to make of it, nor whether I should or should not let you know -- see Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Hyūga class helicopter destroyer2. By posting this excerpt now on your talk page, I show that I did indeed make up my mind about what to do. Nick Dowling posted the following:
 * ... I don't really think that mediation is necessary but am willing to enter it to end the dispute. As per WP:M, I reserve the right to withdraw from this mediation if it goes ahead if I judge that Tenmei is continuing to not engage in a good faith and civil discussion of the article. Given that he has been canvassing support against me from other disruptive editors I don't have high hopes but will assume good faith. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Mrg3105 -- My full attention was aroused by a difficult-to-overlook phrase: " ... has been canvassing support against me from other disruptive editors ...." I have invited Nick Dowling to explain or withdraw sentences which would seem to have been unhelpful in any context, but he has declined to respond. Despite this, I proceeded to with what I considered to have been a plausible, constructive approach.


 * As you can see, my writing style is not like yours; and my "negotiation" tactics are not like yours, but perhaps I can profit from your unique perspective as my newest failure seems to be playing out in the lines below -- see Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Hyūga class helicopter destroyer2:

Framework based on points of agreement It is possible that we can make some small steps together before a mediation process begins. For example, in the context of Issue 1 below, it seems reasonable to hope that we could find a way to agree on the specific date when "unanimous consensus" was reached? There may be other points of agreement as well. Maybe there will be points on which one or more agree and one does not. That information may help the mediator to assess how best to proceed. --Tenmei (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll let the mediator assess how to best proceed, and am not going to invest any time in this until the mediation goes ahead, especially as you seem to want to discuss how to interpret weeks-old discussions, including some which you chose to sit out of at the time. By the way, there's no need to post vast amounts of text all the time. I'm not going to read blocks of text which are so large that they have to be hidden to avoid them filling up this talk page and the various messages are available on the article's talk page, complete with edit history and the posts you're leaving out. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nick Dowling -- That's a clear statement, very clear.


 * Just for a moment, why not try again to look at what I've tried to create here.  Why not try again to parse what is posted -- not parsing in the way you do now, but in a different way? What if the time and work which went into creating the following template was an authentic attempt to communicate meaningfully about enhancing the quality of this article?

what if ...? = MAJOR PREMISE A = WP:AGF


 * In as clear a way as I can, I've tried to address the propostion that you or anyone else can't understand what I'm thinking, what I'm doing -- or why ? I've proposed a plausible plan to help answer at least part of that complicated set of nested questions.  My oft-repeated, preferred strategy would have been to start with something on which we can agree, and then to use that common understanding as foundation from which to build, just as Bellhalla did do - see here -- in that process which resulted in what you describe as "unanimous consensus" in your re-statement of what you identify as ISSUE #1.

strategy ≈ plan = MINOR PREMISE B = WP:CONSENSUS


 * Now you seem to be asking me to accept that you cannot or you will not or you are unable to identify a single point of agreement, not even when I try using your own words?
 * POINT I: Date of unanimous consensus ... pointless waste of time? no agreement?
 * POINT II: Substance of unanimous consensus ... pointless waste of time? no agreement?
 * POINT III: Changes affecting corollary articles and template ... pointless waste of time? no agreement?


 * I see the blank wall that Nick Dowling presents now -- today, is sadly characteristic; and that's a problem for me personally and for Wikipedia more broadly. The dull record of talking past each other is expressly verifiable; and I'm wondering anew about what part of WP:V is just too subtle to be understood?
 * Verifiability -- The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.
 * Citation.
 * Citing sources.

persuasive verifiability = MINOR PREMISE C = demonstrated credibility A + B + C = what? QED? neutral assistance is needed? = CONCLUSION = WP:Request for mediation
 * Am I supposed to take this new twist to mean that the serial attacks on one sentence in only one paragraph of Hyūga class helicopter destroyer are now going to end? Was this no more than an Ōnin War (応仁の乱)?  To clarify, here is that paragraph -- just two sentences:


 * The first Hyūga class vessel resembles a light aircraft carrier or amphibious assault ship such as the Italian Navy's 13,850-ton Giuseppe Garibaldi, the Spanish Navy's 17,000-ton Principe de Asturias or the Royal Navy's 21,000-ton Invincible-class carriers. The JDS Hyūga is the first aircraft carrier to be specifically constructed for Japanese marine forces since the end of the Pacific War.


 * QED -- consensus reality? Is that all there is? --Tenmei (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What can you make of this? Mrg3105 -- What would anyone make of all this? It is frustrating, vexing and tiresome. On the other hand, the above demonstrates that you are not the only one who has trouble from time to time in awkward wiki-communication disputes about small matters.

The fact that my approach attempts to be more conciliatory than yours is at least interesting.

Should I take away from this experience a lesson that I need to make a concerted effort to be more brusque, more assertive, etc. Maybe? Perhaps I should pay less attention to those who complain that I use too many words?

Should I just decide to give entirely?

I do know this: No one is driving me away from the opportunities which I perceive as inherent in the Wikipedia project; and I urge you to show a little back-bone as well. Don't let anyone push you away from what you also seem to recognize as a worthwile pursuit.

I know this as well: Your blunt, abrasive style and manner don't bode well in an environment devoted to a massive collaborative writing project. You do need to re-think, re-format, re-package ... and the only way to do that is to keep trying. An alternate approach would be to spend a little less time on subjects which truly interest you; and instead, you might generously devote a little bit of attention to mentoring me.

In other words, let's assume that 50% or more of your investment in the Wikipedia project has been counter-productive -- not satisfying for you, not encouraging for others, and not particularly helpful for readers you'll never meet. If so, then aren't you looking at a glass half empty, rather than recognizing the same glass is also half full? Do you see my point?

What about this? Let's hypothesize that you're even worse than a "problem" (whatever that might be)t -- let's proceed on the basis of syllogistic reasoning:


 * MAJOR PREMISE: Let us assert as a fact that you are a disruptive editor ; and while we're both skulking in the shadows, let us also assert as a fact that I am a disruptive contributor.
 * If this premise were true, the best thing anyone can hope is that I continue to work on this thread, because while I'm writing here, I'm not causing trouble elsewhere. And, fortuitously, while you're reading this treacle prose, you're not causing trouble elsewhere.


 * MINOR PREMISE: Let us assert as fact that I have been "been canvassing support from other disruptive editors" like you.
 * If that were the case, I've no problem in admitting that what I've written here is an improbable trouble-making strategy. Still, let us carry this forward fully and assume that you and I were obsessed with no other object than to be against Nick Dowling, how could we go about that?  Well, to begin with, we would have to agree a priori that the world -- our focused weltanschauung'' -- revolves about a center-point which is located somewhere in the antipodes ...? Already you see where I'm going with this -- Reductio ad absurdum.


 * CONCLUSION: ______________________ what to do?
 * If my off-kilter world did revolve around Nick Dowling, then what could be worse than defying his derogatory definition of me. What alchemy would then needed to convert me from disruptive dross?  Yes -- now I'm getting into the spirit of things.  What could I do to become anything other than a disruptive figure.  Yes, yes ... and I'm going try to drag you into my miserable little plans.  Yeah, I know -- Reductio ad absurdum gets tired quickly.

On a more serious note: Although I'm trying to diminish the power of that label by making fun of it, I have no doubt that Nick Dowling was crafting no well honed joke. Frankly, I'm not really laughing, nor should you be.

As I see it, circumstances have united us in two distinct, but related aspects of the Wikipedia project: WP:V and WP:Consensus.

I can't really speak for you, but I'm very pleased to have discovered the first line of the first paragraph of WP:V; and my worst experiences in a Wikipedia venue have all had something to do with someone else's unwillingness or inability to recognize that this has to be a sentence on which there needs to be universal agreement. In brief, Verifiability has to be an agreed-upon starting point or all else becomes a house of cards, or in other words -- That's why the phrase "core content policies" has been disseminated so widely throughout the Wikipedia project. Is this wrong-headed? No, not really ....
 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

As for WP:Consensus, I learned most of what I need to know about WP:Consensus when I encountered the children's story about The Emperor's New Clothes and another well-known fable about the Blind Men and an Elephant. Both stories are summarized by the wiki-phrase: consensus reality; and I'm at a loss when I confront another editor who either will not or cannot join me in acknowledging the Wikipedia core content policies as a mutually understood basis for moving forward. Am I being thick-headed? No, not really ....

I've been a bit distracted lately, but even if you do decide to leave Wikipedia for a short time or forever, I'd urge you to postpone that wiki-break just for a short while. Your unique "voice" may be more valuable than you think ...? --Tenmei (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

AA. Meatpuppet===
 * --Meatpuppet is a Wikipedia term of art meaning one who edits on behalf of or as proxy for another editor according to Sock puppetry. --Tenmei (talk) 05:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering if I might have been mis-recognized as your evil sock puppet? The angry tone escalated so fast, too fast.

One sentence with supporting in-line citation on a page with no "Notes" or "References" sections is usually a good step in a constructive direction. My edits aren't the kind of contribution which ordinarily inspires a response series like the ones I encountered. BillCJ wrote: "you are a liar" and " I will not engage in a bad-faith confrontational discussion "?

So I'm asking a strange question: Can you tell me what you were editing on July 11th and July 12th? Have you any recollection of a noteworthy dispute in early- to mid-July involving WP:V or WP:Cite or something similar?

When I innocently mentioned WP:V in a context where I thought such a mild reference would be non-controversial, did I ruffle feathers which you had only recently ruffled as well?

I know this becomes an odd leap; but, there you have it. --Tenmei (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

BB. Temerity in posting anything here?=== The mere fact that I posted anything at all on this page was proffered as reason enough for Nick Dowling to withdraw from mediation. I do not see anything I regret in the paragraphs which are posted here -- in fact, the only thing I can be sure that Nick Dowling does read is here on your talk page. He says that he can't be bothered to read what I post elsewhere; ergo, this becomes an odd, but effective back channel mode of communciation.

I've asked the Arbitration Committee to address the gravamen of Nick Dowling's concerns about my "bad faith" and "disruptive behaviours" at Requests for arbitration. If successful, it is my hope that this will remove any remaining barriers to re-initiating the mediation process focused on content issues. --Tenmei (talk) 03:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

CC. === I found the use of this template by Nick early on in the dispute somewhat amusing. One can not dispute a citation with the editor who had added it, though one can take the claims up with the original editor of the cited material. The template use states in part This template is not for flagging items that an editor simply thinks might be incorrect or unsourced (this is what is for). It is for tagging statements that are subject to ongoing dispute among editors, e.g. due to conflicting sources or doubts about sources' reliability. At the time the "dispute" was but two reverts old, and there were no other sources in the article other than your own--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 13:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

DD. Framing of Hyūga mediation 2 ==

Hi again!
 * A. This is just a quick note to wish you well with your effort to start Hyūga mediation 2 using a description of the problem phrased in someone else's words. I'm guessing that's your best bet for convincing a mediator to accept the case.


 * B. I do have a comment for you about the other issues you raise, identified as 2a through 2g.


 * C. Many systems of rules, regulations or laws work by establishing precedent using test cases. It appears this idea might be motivating you to some extent. Perhaps you are thinking the resolution of the Hyūga issues will be usefully applied to other Wikipedia articles. I wonder if there is any evidence that Wikipedia really does work that way? (If you have thoughts on that, and would be so kind as to express them here, on your talk page, I assure you I'll gladly read them!) (sdsds - talk) 19:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sdsds -- I've been thinking; and here are incomplete thoughts ... more to come when I've pondered a bit more.
 * A. Whether or not this gambit has any effect on mediators, I can't possibly say?  I can't quite fathom the personality mind-set which would make it a worthwhile volunteer activity.  In the few cases where I've dawdled at the periphery of a wiki-dispute, it seemed altogether too disheartening; and I always assumed that I was only paying following more constructive issues (or the less intractable problems). That said, this turned out to be a bit of a win-win option for me because the very act of trying to work with Nick Dowling's words brought me a bit closer to being able to see things from his perspective.  I fear that sounds overly optimistic, but I don't know how to carve out a more apt niche for what I don't quite understand well enough.  I've not miraculously become empathetic -- no, no, not so generous. But I did inch closer that I had thought possible.
 * B. I wonder if the framing of the complaint using wiki-linked articles actually may have served us better than I could have guessed. Two mediators have taken very minimal actions -- one asked a question on the talk page, and another sent a note to Buckshot06 give assent or dissent ... but not to leave off responding at all.  Who knows?  This is very likely part of the normal process, unremarkable, insignificant, etc.  However, in the absence of reliable data, I'm inevitably going to wonder if there might be a salutatory cause/effect relationship ...?
 * C. I have nothing to say just yet, but the following is noteworthy, I guess. --Tenmei (talk)

EE. Using arbitration for constructive purpose=== Are there any illustrations of a win-win game in any wiki-arbitration context? If there were, how would one go about looking for the record of that rare wonder? --Tenmei (talk) 05:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Arbitration is a last-resort forum for resolving disputes. By its very nature, I doubt there will be an example of a case where the decision made has been to the total satisfaction of all. Here's hoping such a utopia is forthcoming, of course! :) Anthøny 15:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There have been, when the case was due to good faith actions by well intentioned users who got the wrong end of the problem. For example:
 * Requests for arbitration/BJAODN contemplated a wheel war that was actually, miscommunication and best resolved by dropping it all round.
 * Other cases include WP:SRNC which was a dispute centering on the genuine problems of reaching consensus on a difficult area, and where the main remedy was "consider how to do proper consensus seeking without argument" (so to speak)
 * ... a few "train wrecks" where sorting out who did what wrong is so messy that it's simpler to say "okay, these were bad things to do, don't repeat", and try for a clean start for all, going forward.
 * ... cases like this also.
 * Look for complete cases that got dropped or dismissed, or had very minimal remedies, "advice", or simply no enforcements, or cases that were resolved at the RFAR page stage, without a case needing to be opened. They happen regularly, although they are a minority. FT2 (Talk 15:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

FF. All parties do not agree to mediation === Well isn't that interesting? It appears mediation isn't going to be possible! Another venue you might try is writing a WP:ESSAY. (Personally I've become particularly fond of this relatively recent addition to the collection! Usually, though, essays have multiple contributors and plenty of talk-page discussion.) Eventually essays can become guidelines, too! (sdsds - talk) 15:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

GG. Request for Arbitration=== I've asked the Arbitration Committee to address the gravamen of Nick Dowling's concerns about my "bad faith" and "disruptive behaviours" at Requests for arbitration. If successful, it is my hope that this will remove any remaining barriers to re-initiating the mediation process focused on content issues. --Tenmei (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

HH>> More clean-up==
 * related aspects of the Wikipedia project: WP:V and WP:Consensus. ==

It seems to me that many editors, while not having a problem with writing, have a problem with reading. The problem is not restricted to me or you putting together logical constructs that seek to reason-out the issues at hand within various articles and how they relate to the general Wikipedia framework. While I have been told I am verbose and that "too long, didn't read" takes over, which explains some appalling discontinuity in some article sections I have encountered, it also applies to shorter text such as this

You will note that these are in two sections

Article standards
 * Neutral point of view
 * *Verifiability*
 * No original research
 * Biographies of living persons

Working with others
 * Civility
 * No personal attacks
 * No legal threats
 * *Consensus*
 * Dispute resolution

Here is the funny thing, Article standards are NO WHERE mentioned on the /Wikipedia:Consensus. Simply put, people have no idea what they are talking about when they insist that anything is decided by consensus in Wikipedia. Consensus is part of the process how editors work together, not how Article standards are truncated for the sake of group opinion on any given subject regardless of facts. And this is the reason I get into trouble with Civility. When I see people over-riding article standards with a behaviour modification process using administrative "tools" to get their opinion into the articles, I become quite distracted.

I will see what I was doing in mid July and get back to you--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 22:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes. You've caused a number of disparate threads to come together with this observation. In terms of payback, this perceptive observation could be your intellectual reward for the time and thought invested in the Wikipedia project.  This comment solves no problems, addresses no issues; but it reveals that you've been able to ascribe a sophisticated construct from the available data. I had noticed this in a vague, inchoate manner; but I had not myself been able to move beyond that inital data-gathering phase towards more scholarly synthesis and analysis.
 * Now I begin to appreciate how and why your targeted interventions were so consistent across the range. I see ... precisely selected edits for maximum effect? --Tenmei (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how it was construed to be lying, but I think this may have been the post referred to by User:BillCJ--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 05:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

II. Involved parties - included === It seem because I am brought into that AN/I, I am not an involved party, so maybe I will find out why I am called "disruptive" also--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 03:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Mediation, Arbitration, oh my!
Tenmei, I appreciate your efforts in letting me know about the arbitration request. However, I would like to ask that you keep me out of this and any other future proceedings regarding the Hyūga discussions. My time on Wikipedia will begin to be extremely limited in the next few weeks, and I'd like to minimize the drama I'm involved in and maximize the time I do have to concentrate on writing and improving ship articles. With that said, how you choose to spend your wiki-time is entirely up to you. If filing various requests for this or that is your idea of fun, have at it, but I must say that this situation is beginning to look like the Wikipedia version of the real-life Pearson v. Chung. I don't know if you've heard of that lawsuit or not, but the gist of it is this: A dry cleaning store, owned by the Chung family, lost the pants of a men's suit owned by Pearson, a Washington D.C. municipal judge. Pearson was angry, as most would understandably be, but instead of working to solve the problem with the cleaners, he filed a $67 million lawsuit, which was later dismissed. In the end, Pearson got nothing from the Chungs, got fired from his job, and was ridiculed in the media.

Unfortunately, that's what your situation is beginning to look like. You will have to be the judge (no pun intended) of whether your situation is worth: Do all of those things outweigh whatever slights—perceived or real—you may have felt from Nick Dowling, or anyone else? They do for me, which is why I've asked not to be included in this. You will have to decide for yourself. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) your time already spent filing two mediation requests and numerous, considered replies on the Hyūga talk page
 * 2) your time that will be spent in future proceedings
 * 3) the time of everyone else involved
 * 4) any potential hit to your Wikipedia reputation (Try typing "crazy pants man" into a Google search, and see whose name comes up. I'll wait… )


 * Please read what I have submitted as part of the Request for Arbitration. The text is improved by your comments above.  I added one specific sentence because of what you wrote:
 * "Perceived slights can fall by the wayside; but this case puts a spotlight on worthy issues, not trival ones."


 * I'm troubled to discover over the past couple of weeks that my words are so vulnerable to manipulative "spin" ..., and that's not an easy problem to remedy.


 * This was never simple or easy. I'm learning some tough lessons the hard way; and, no this isn't my idea of fun. Just the same -- I do very much appreciate the sense of humor in the heading you contrived.  Isn't it a parody of one of those songs from The Wizard of Oz -- somthing to do with lions, tigers and bears? --Tenmei (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

JJ. Joseon tongsinsa ==

OK, gimme some time to read the talks and to understand what is the proble is, and I will try to give my contribute to the best of my ability.--Dejudicibus (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

KK. Request for Arbitration== LL. Statement by Tenmei Request for Arbitration====
 * This forum has not been challenged to contrive a "win-win" resolution, but this instance requires just that -- nothing less. In all other fora except WP:AN/I, my voice was unheard, lost, drowned out; and what I seek here is something like the successful intervention I encountered there.


 * This dispute began too quickly. Claimed offense came too soon. One sentence with citation support was added in an article with no other references cited. It was rebuffed as a "bad faith confrontation." That gambit of shocked indignation persists.


 * Nick Dowling frames issues consistent with a fixed confirmation bias and feigns not to understand anything which doesn't fit a pre-existing schema. In the context of this three-part restatement, please re-visit (a) the last paragraphs of the last citation Nick Dowling offers below; (b) the last two paragraphs of the first citation which is offered below. Cognitive dissonance excluded the 2nd and 3rd points Optigan13 raised, and the momentum of discussion on the framed topic drowned all else. Dispute resolution failed seriatim because each was re-framed with a confirmation bias; and Nick Dowling now avoids neutral scrutiny of an extended charade by withdrawing from formal mediation. I may have drawn the wrong tactical conclusions from Bellhalla's salutatory model, but I believe that this paragraph was never possible before now.


 * My "bad faith" and "disruptive behaviours" are ascribed as reasons for this untimely withdrawal. I'm calling a bluff by inviting closer scrutiny. My frustration is illustrated by one crucial sentence: The issues he raises are also outdated or irrelevant given that the article is now fully cited." Contrasted this sentence with my serial attempts to overcome framing and confirmation bias in the dispute resolution steps listed above.  Confirmation bias thwarted all queries about a credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever?  Where else could I have gone, what else can I to re-engage the mediation process on this point.  My words and actions have been seemly, constructive, prudent.  If my conduct were so irredeemable, then let Nick Dowling now support such facile claims with more than innuendo. Perceived slights can fall by the wayside; but this case puts a spotlight on worthy issues, not trival ones.


 * I don't care if Nick Dowling's sham sense of offended dignity is exposed -- no, no, not, not the point. If valid elements to this vague charge are to be found, good -- I can learn from this experience.  If phoney elements are found, I'd hope for the presence of mind to rise above it.  In the end -- bottom line, I'm seeking enough of a "win-win" outcome from this process so that the flimsy veil of any barrier to mediation is rent asunder.


 * Expressed in other words, I'm asking the Arbitration Committee to address the gravamen of Nick Dowling's complaint:
 * "I am withdrawing from this mediation as User:Tenmei is continuing to seek advice from a disruptive editor concerning me and is continuing to personalise this dispute. This combination of diffs shows the text in question: (it is worth stressing that User:Mrg3105 was recently blocked and then placed on editing restrictions for, among other things, disruptive behaviour which included a totally unsuccessful attempt to get me sacked as an assistant coordinator of the military history wikiproject and an attempt to have one of the members of Arbitration Committee sanctioned because he didn't agree with our views and actions over a minor content dispute - Tenmei is aware of this behavior given that he quotes from and discusses the talk page discussion in question). I don't see any purpose in entering into mediation with an editor who behaves with such bad faith or who reacts in such a way to disagreements such as those I posted above." Nick Dowling (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nick Dowling's persisting cognitive dissonance and problems with taxonomy or nomenclature paradigms seem to foster a perception of bad faith where none exists; and worse, that point-of-view exacerbates the effect of critical logic fallacies which affect Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. Again and again, the effort to re-focus on framing has failed, and this pattern of miscommunication needs to be ameliorated.  If not here, then where else? when else? how else?


 * The Committee's challenge is to achieve a kind of alchemy: to make things work out better than I dare hope -- despite whatever flaws and limitations the parties bring to this venue. --Tenmei (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

MM. WP:ANI ==


 * Caspian blue (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 

<!-- NN,Junk food and single-edged swords ==

Yes, that is how the original reply to you was to conclude, alas I decided to cut it short.

In essence I study conflicts not necessarily for the obvious reasons, but as a reflection on societies the engage in them. How conflicts are conducted is also illustrative of the social culture, and the individuals who subject themselves to its influences.

As it happens, Wikipedia has developed a sub-culture among other virtual cultures, and how it manages conflicts is illustrative of it. Conflicts are a necessary evil of social expansion, usually linked to some productive or consumptive processes. In Wikipedia, far from espousing being ostentatiously egalitarian, it has become a technocracy, that is it is no longer important what such a society produces, or what the inputs into the process are, but that the process is maintained regardless. Anyone who seeks to highlight this are ostracised as "......." (insert your favourite wikiword) for meddling with the process. And yet, the output is intended for consumption by the wider and far more real society that would use this information unquestioningly to form insight and opinion on the subjects of articles.

That is why I devote time to trying to ensure that articles are correctly named. If one can not pose the question what it is the article is intended to be about, and frame it succinctly in the title, what is the point of seeking to capture the essence of the subject in the content of the piece?

It could be that I do suffer from Confirmation bias, but I can not say because in each case information available had been centred on limited sources which is not may usual approach. I do in fact try to follow a self-imposed rule that no article I create is to be authored without consulting at least three references on the subject, so I do strive to avoid "tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoids information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs". There is of course the obligatory Tolstoy 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."

That I failed to convince people in something, does not discourage me because numbers in the pursuit of insight rarely matter. The correct conclusions of enquiry, no matter how well diluted in preconceptions, will, like the oil in water, always rise to the top eventually--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 04:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I take your point ...; but it appears to me that you argue a number of specific propositions only in a series of select venues chosen by someone else. Instead, would it not be at least equally effective, and plausibly more effective to contemplate a strategic, coordinated campaign across a broader spectrum.  On one hand, you appear to have adopted Gandhi's point-of-view -- that "even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth."  You do also recognize that Gandhi's formulation is too simplistic -- not incorrect, and yet a bit misleading precisely for the same reasons that the words sound so compelling.


 * In contrast, you invite me to ponder the Tolstoy formulation, and you encourage me to acknowledge that it is very much on-point in the context of Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. Indeed, you appear to argue, this crisp quotation is more useful precisely because it captures a more complicated set of applictions.  Without disagreeing or changing the subject, what I'm suggesting here is that you've overlooked a complementary tactical opportunity in the long twilight struggle ....


 * Consider this: YOU presented a very clear and compelling quote from Tolstoy. For you it was familiar -- obvious.  For me it was unfamiliar -- unknown.  I could (and did) verify the accuracy of your citation by checking Google books.  One could have checked out Wikisource, and I did.  It simply didn't occur to me that this polemic would have it's own article in Wikipedia, but I did eventually find that page as well.  However, what you seem to have taken to have been a very well-known quotation was not yet incorporated into Wikiquotes.  Although I did add it to the Tolstoy page, there seems to be an obvious error in that I did not cross-reference the quotation elsewhere within Wikiquotes.
 * Google books.
 * Wikisource.
 * Wikiquote.
 * en:Wikipedia: The Kingdom of God Is Within You


 * I'm noting that you seem to be making a coherent argument only in those instances which provide opposition. Why not broaden your conception of the contested arena?  As a constructive suggestion, I invite you to focus on repeating and refining your reasoning in the corollary sites after a dispute in one place will have reached an impasse.  Expressed differently, you could have made a scrupulously neutral contribution in advance of a dispute by attending to the corollaries as I have done in terms of this one quotation from Tolstoy.  The question becomes, why not?


 * I am suggesting that if you're going to go to all the trouble it takes to ruffle feathers, you might as well use the focused analysis which accompanies a specific dispute as a utilitarian research tool which highlights aspects of a subject in ways you may not have previously understood.


 * As you know, Nick Dowling has a specific point-of-view which is arguably neutral. Consistent with that point of view and presumed neutrality, anyone can find his username in the edit histories of Hyūga class helicopter destroyer, Dokdo class amphibious assault ship, and Jane's Fighting Ships -- but not Global Security.org.  One could as easily ask why or why not?


 * At this point, for me, the overview devolves once again to the related topics which first brought mrg3105 to my attention -- the crucial relationship between WP:Verifiability and WP:Consensus, which is not the same as WP:Straw polls. --Tenmei (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I need to invest a little time in chasing down this quotation: "Einstein said, "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them"? --Tenmei (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have very limited time to solve Wikipedia problems. Even less so from today. What other editors who outvoted me in the previous discussions don't realise is that by doing so they directly affected the flow of my contributions, which I measure in producing solid, i.e. referenced and cited articles, nothing else. Everything outside of that is peripheral. I know I contribute in those terms more than the average editor. I contacted several ArbCom Committee members; only one replied. I sought advice from long time respected editor and administrator, and was told nothing will change. I don't have the time to invest in the Village Pump to shift wikitorpidity.
 * My enjoyment here comes from the articles, and not trying to point to people their own policies and how they are blatantly negating them, and common sense. One should not place a barrier before the blind, but if the blind choose to ignore the warning, it is a choice made freely. I did not create the problems. I try to work within the existing sets of policies, guidelines and conventions, but I am first and foremost an editor; my concern is with data, not bureaucracy. I see intrusion of the later into the realm of the former as a form of violence. I know very much about weapons and warfare. Where a quick and complete success can not be gained, one has to consolidate the position, renew one's resources, rethink strategy...or ask if a further effort will gain more than the resources one is prepared to expand.
 * I will support any initiative you may deem worth while because I see that you are now understanding the crux of the matters at hand. However, I can not be the initiator of these strategies. Wikipedia is just an outlet of relaxation for me, or was intended to be, and not a significant and essential occupation in daily life though I had tried to contribute significantly to it, sometimes making unnecessary sacrifices for sake of doing something which I now see to be overly idealistic and ill conceived.
 * Let me be blunt, the idea of Wikipedia was, to produce a reliable online reference work. It has failed at that, and produced an online sub-culture. This is plain to see from the ratio of reference quality articles vs total articles available. I can spend 24/7 for a year adding the tag to articles, and not cover the lot.
 * People who edit articles are editors. "Wikipedians" are clearly not just that. For some it has become a refuge in life from their inability to have a life outside of the virtual environment. They are no longer office workers, Americans, trades people, Indians, students, but "Wikipedians". They see this belonging as a value in itself, and will defend it, because it has become for them far more than it will, I suspect, be for either of us. It is why Christianity was banned in Japan, and why Communism was fought in the Russian Empire. The pursuit of ideals foreign to the society which take on a social order of itself to seek and change society. Consider the implications this has in the medical science. Life is growth, but when that growth seeks to overwhelm life, what is one to do with it?
 * Fortunately sharp instruments are not limited to either scalpels or Japanese swords :) The pen is mightier, for it can be as sharp as the tongue that wields it ;-) I may pursue that strategy because at least I will be paid for the effort, so will be appreciated for it--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 00:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * PS. You may find this an interesting read to understand how Wikipedia changes--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 00:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your words sound like an enigmatic valedictory. I will need time to think about this -- indeed, I need time to think through what I myself have written here. The substance of these musings are food for thought.  At the same time, I want to reiterate how it was only accidental chance which brought you came to my attention at all.  This is a good point to re-post the beginning of the thread I started on your talk page:
 * I'm contacting you because of one small excerpt from a larger thread:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history
 * Strong oppose - This is a joke right? You want someone dismissed as a coordinator because they disagreed with your position on an article's name????????????????????????? Heeheeheehee! Thanks for the laugh - I need it! And thought maybe he had done something really bad, like support me in a dispute on whether a Japanese DDH was an aircraft carrier or not . Whewwww! - BillCJ (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * BillCJ, no, I am not asking to dismiss Nick because he disagrees with the historical name of the article, but the way he is going about achieving this, by using a straw poll  to change it to a fictitious name  unsupported by references  which is completely contrary to Wikipedia policy and community consensus on straw polls. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC) [emphasis added by Tenmei, 11 August]]
 * I wonder what you made of BillCJ's odd observation? I would have thought you found it obscure or otherwise inexplicable?   No matter -- I can explain.  I'm the one he was angry with in this sentence, not you ... or at least, I'm the one who had the temerity to add a one-sentence edit to Hyūga class helicopter destroyer and he didn't like it.  In scanning the page where I found this trivial exchange, it was the "DDH" which caught my attention.
 * I stumbled into your further response only as a secondary matter.


 * Allow me to be somewhat enigmatic as well: My response to that accident which brought us together has produced unexpected and felicitous consequences, not least of which was an unanticipated lens for re-examining the likes of Kume Kunitake or Tsuda Sōkichi. Without explaining in more detail, just accept that I don't really intend to be quite so flattering ..., but the fact-of-the-matter is that your non-standard, under-valued point-of-view did suggest different lines of inquiry than I'd previously thought were relevant in coming to grips with such disparate topics as Tsuji Zennosuke or Wikipedia's consensus reality.--Tenmei (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What a delicious article! However I note the tag "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards." - standards determined by consensus :)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 06:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

OO. Netnography=== mrg3105 -- As you may know, ethnography and cultural anthropology are scientific disciplines which employ observing and measuring activities. Netnography is a term coined by Dr. Robert Kozinets, refering to the anthropology of online communities:
 * Re-statement: Don't ask people what they think -- watch them and know what they do, instead?


 * Responding to your paragraph :
 * "As it happens, Wikipedia has developed a sub-culture among other virtual cultures, and how it manages conflicts is illustrative of it. Conflicts are a necessary evil of social expansion, usually linked to some productive or consumptive processes. In Wikipedia, far from espousing being ostentatiously egalitarian, it has become a technocracy, that is it is no longer important what such a society produces, or what the inputs into the process are, but that the process is maintained regardless. Anyone who seeks to highlight this are ostracised as '_______' (insert your favourite wikiword) for meddling with the process ...."
 * I did some preliminary research online -- only a first step, superficial really; but the time invested would seem to have led me in directions I hadn't anticipated. In effect, I guess I was struggling to "re-invest the wheel" without realizing it.  Althought that intellectual exercise was rpobably worthwhile, it seemed very slow-going.
 * FYI: These are preliminary notes. --Tenmei (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Netnography ≥ Wikipedia technocracy?

See also In the context you describe, at least two wikipedia articles seem worth scanning: Also, I discovered ... never thought to look for something like this before ...:
 * Virtual community of practice?
 * Online ethnography?
 * Reliability of Wikipedia?
 * Criticisms of Wikipedia?

Further reading
 * Kozinets, Robert V. "E-Tribalized Marketing?: The Strategic Implications of Virtual Communities of Consumption," European Journal of Management. Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 252-264. June 1999.
 * Figure 1: Developmental Progression of Individual Member Participation in Online Communities of Consumption (p. 254/p. 3)
 * Figure 2: Types of Virtual Community of Consumption Member (p. 255/p. 4)
 * Figure 3. Online Community of Consumption Interaction (p. 255/p. 4)
 * The dense text is not precisely on-point in terms of the issues and concerns raised in your provocative paragraph above. However, three of the figures which accompany the above article from the European Journal of Management were arguably helpful -- especially the graphic attempt to represent the progression of an individual's participation as a multi-step development continuum.  Perhaps you may agree with me that this graphic opens up a new way to examine Wikipedian "consensus" and "dispute resolution" -- not that I have a grasp on how to leverage the illustrative tool in a way which leads towards resolving any problems, issues or concerns.

PP. Re your comments... ==

Thanks for keeping me up-to-date with events on my talk page. I apologise that I haven't responded - I've just returned from my Summer wikibreak (two weeks off is a small sacrifice in the name of domestic harmony!). All the best, EyeSerene talk 14:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Not everything requires a response. Prayer, for example, is not always accompanied by tangible evidence of a reply; but the mere act of identifying and composing some aspects of a problem in the form of an otherwise unanswered question is a good thing in itself. Instead of "apology," why not reconsider in favour of another more accurate and more forward-looking term.  Why not consider re-framing your analysis?


 * Why don't you re-evaluate what I posted on your talk page as further confirmation that the time and thought you invested at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive456 was well and truly a worthwhile value added exercise?
 * Aha, yes. On reconsideration, don't you think that "You're welcome -- glad to help" would be better?  One of those odd realities in the business of life is that sometimes investments pay off better than expected. --Tenmei (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm truly gratified that you appear to have found my contributions helpful. Wikipedia is a community unlike any other, and the sometimes Sisyphus-like process of negotiating its shifting set of policies, guidelines and community mores is a tricky one ;) If you don't mind some observations (as editor-to-editor, with my admin hat off):
 * Firstly, your proposed content addition. I'm in two minds about commenting, as I have no desire to get into a content debate. However, as I understand your position, you believe the official name of the vessel class to be a politically-convenient bit of misdirection, and consequently that the class still qualifies as an aircraft carrier. I have no reason to doubt your analysis (in fact it sounds very plausible), but unless it is presented in those terms in reliable sources, we can't put it in the article. In any case, we should normally go with the official name. You succeeded in getting some mention of the naming controversy into the body of the article; the lead, per WP:LEAD, is probably not the best place for that.
 * Secondly, you write extremely well and express yourself with great facility, but I feel that certain aspects of your posting methodology have unintentionally harmed your cause. I do hope you don't mind me saying this; no offence is intended, and I apologise in advance if I give any. However, I feel I would be doing you a disservice and reducing the value of our interactions if I failed to be completely honest. Your posts are well-constructed, literate... and often very long. It's a sad reality that many editors (including me sometimes, I'm ashamed to say) will not read posts of more than a paragraph or two. Especially on ANI and other dispute-resolution fora (and when making a content proposal) it really does help to keep it short and to the point. Also, you sometimes return to a post and edit it after it's been responded to - this makes it extremely confusing to follow a discussion thread, and frustrating for those editors who have responded, and whose responses may then be rendered obsolete. Beyond minor corrections, posts should not be significantly re-edited. Amendments or clarifications should be made in a new post. The exception to this is to strike through one's previous text to indicate that it has been withdrawn (though of course it can still be read by anyone interested enough to do so). Finally, it can add to the unreadability of a post to colourise, underline, embolden, quote etc - this might seem counter-intuitive, since you use such devices for emphasis and demarcation, but it's uncommon enough here on Wikipedia (even articles don't use it) that such text requires more effort to parse, rather than less, and is consequently off-putting to some readers.
 * Thirdly, when you commented personally on Nick Dowling, regardless of any justification you believe you had, you instantly surrendered any moral high ground and became the 'bad guy'. I can understand your frustration at seeing the consensus-building process addressing what you felt was the wrong issue, but WP:CIVIL is one of Wikipedia's five core policies. These are the foundations of the entire project - they're that important - and civility is a broadly-interpreted policy. I've seen people blocked for less, so in one sense you got off lightly (thanks, I think, to your history of good contributions). However, such things have a way of coming back to haunt one; if I were in your position, I would apologise to Nick and withdraw my accusations - being married, I well know there are times when one has to make the guesture... even if only to clear the way for meaningful discussion ;)
 * Well, this post was longer than I intended, but I hope it's useful. Re your last on my talk page, unfortunately it seems that, albeit unintentionally, you've alienated a number of editors (I don't think the conspiratorial accusations of tag-team reverting helped!) and they are now sceptical of your good faith and motives. Perhaps, as you suggest, it may be best not to respond for now. Wikipedia is a huge place, and there are plenty of other articles to edit... EyeSerene talk 18:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Korean missions to Edo
Hey, Tenmei, our discussion began peacefully to deal with three articles on the same subject. If you're a native English speaker, it would be good if you have a little patience with my English. I think you're a bit sensitive to my mention of "against". And you evaluate my statement "somewhat unhelpful, premature, discouraging.". That sounds offensive and uncivil. I think the parallel between Ryuku and Joseon from purely Japanese side can mislead the context, so I don't agree with the suggestion. We're responsible for taking the matter as long as we care about it, don't we? I might clean up Joseon Tongsinsa and Joseon tongsinsa with reliable sources. But opposing to merge is also not a good idea, I think, so why don't you give me some time? --Caspian blue (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do not feel rushed. Feel free to proceed at a pace which seems comfortable to you.  My opposition to the merge can change and will change when in-line citations and bibliographic references are added.


 * You may want to look at what I've posted at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron. It is possible that this may produce helpful results; and I hope we both find reasons to appreciate the additional help this gesture brings.  Maybe we will discover that this gambit was the most constructive step either you or I could have taken.


 * Please note that it is not possible to engage the attention of this Article Rescue Squadron without listing Joseon tongsinsa as an AfD nominee. Also, please note that I did not list Joseon Tongsinsa as an AfD nominee. --Tenmei (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am pleased to notice that you consider me too sensitive. That significant difficulty is easily resolved. I will strive to be more flexible.


 * You mention that you construed my words as "offensive and uncivil." That too is easily resolved. I can and do sincerely apologize for having caused offense -- noting easier or more welcome than to confess regret for having erred when nothing but finesse and diplomatic, cautious langauge was intended. --Tenmei (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD of Joseon tongsinsa
Hi. The nomination of Joseon tongsinsa for deletion sidetracks the recently started suggestion for a merge. Could I persuade you to withdraw the nomination? Taemyr (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No. In a word -- No.  As it stands, this article does indeed meet the criteria for deletion; and it is beyond my ability or willingness to resolve the serial problems it presents.  However, I would also invite you to give thought to what I have posted at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron. --Tenmei (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Now, I'm pretty disapponted at your AFD nomination. WE KNOW that the three articles should be altogether, but you nominated it in the middle of the discussion. That is not a wise move.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

More process wonkery
Don't mark AfD noms as minor. Minor edits are for things like typo fixes and similar, that other editors in general should ignore. Taemyr (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This one I don't understand. Please explain: What did I do wrong? I don't want to cause any confusion or misunderstanding in future.
 * You had the edit that introduced the AfD flagged as minor. This is bad because minor edits should be edits that "needs no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." Taemyr (talk) 07:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Aha. I feared this was what you meant.  No worries.  This is probably one of those cases in which I was simply wrong.  As I recall, the instructions which explain how to engage AfD were specific in this detail -- an important point; but this was not a careless error -- a mistake, yes probably, but not heedless, not intentional.  It took me several tries to get it right.  In fact, my first attempt was so wrong that someone alert me with a talk page message.
 * Listing AfDs
 * I noticed you attempted to list two pages for deletion, but the wrong way. This page tells you how to do it properly. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The following brief excerpt from my contributions list becomes meaningful in a number of ways: First, doesn't the  "N"  show that I did actually indicate "not minor" on that first posting? Alternately, if you check that 16:32 posting you'll see that I seem to have created a lot of "" ... which causes me to wonder if there wasn't another wrong posting, another failed attempt which was distinct from the one MrKIA11 was helping me to re-visit?


 * 17:12, 25 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Korean missions to Edo ‎ (→See also: adding "External links" -- Festival of Joseon Tongsinsa)
 * 16:41, 25 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseon tongsinsa ‎ (potentially successful effort to list "Joseon tongsinsa)
 * 16:32, 25 August 2008 (hist) (diff) N Articles for deletion/Joseon tongsinsa ‎ (1st effort to add "Joseon tongsinsa")
 * 16:30, 25 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 25 ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseon tongsinsa)
 * 16:25, 25 August 2008 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Joseon tongsinsa ‎ (→Deletion: adding bold font to "Article Rescue Squadron")
 * 16:23, 25 August 2008 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient Tombs of Goguryeo ‎
 * 16:22, 25 August 2008 (hist) (diff) N Articles for deletion/Ancient Tombs of Goguryeo ‎ (2nd attempt to put this article on list in a proper manner?)


 * Secondly, this provides an opportunity for me to point out two actions which are underlined above. We each reveal ourselves in Wikipedia by words and actions .  Words can and have been misconstrued, misunderstood ... twisted, perverted, corrupted in ways which have exacerbated problems which didn't need to get bigger and bigger.  In this trivial window into what becomes an escalating conflict, it is meaningful that re-edited Talk:Joseon tongsinsa before adding this unverifiable article to the AfD list; and that edit emphasized  "Article Rescue Squadron"  with a bold font.  This was not the action of a sly trickster, nor, in my view, can this action be conflated with any other intent but a constructive, thoughtful and well-reasoned one.  Furthermore, the evidence here is plain that the very first thing I did after discovering that link to annual festival in Brianyoumans comment,  was to post it. Again, this action is not consistent with any interpretation other than a genuine, demonstrable, repetitive attempt to do what I can to make this work out well.


 * This is no doubt a non-issue for you; but since I can well believe Caspian blue will read this, it becomes a way to make the point in a very clear way.


 * In this minor exchange, the context you create with your words becomes an illustrative tool as well -- perhaps a more important one.  The pattern is not so simple, but it's plain enough:  You noticed an error. I asked for amplification.  Then, when I understood your point, I checked further in order to figure out more fully what had happened.  In the process of trying to figure out how to avoid a similar mis-step in the future, I stumbled across an unanticipated tool for helping to resolve an important aspect of what led me to list the AfD in the first place ....


 * I find that my thinking and perceptions develop in complexity and nuance as data accumulates. In a sense, I suppose we all try to do the same thing.  Your comment was effectively a question.  It took many more words to explain than were needed to ask.


 * Taemyr -- In my view, the tone of your prose is noteworthy; and its value is not to be underestimated or inadequately appreciated. Thank you for that. --Tenmei (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop
The volume, hyperbole and repetitiousness of your posts to the admin noticeboard discussion are disruptive and ensure that your chances of being heard are diminishing rapidly. Please stop posting to that discussion and allow others to consider, otherwise I will have to block you to create some space for calm discussion. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing. You need to keep posts short. No one reads huge long posts. Try limiting yourself to a maximum of 5 sentences (normal length ones) or one short paragraph of 10 likes of text. That way people will actually read what you say. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have replied on my talk page. I notice that you tend to quote in full what others say. Using diffs is much better (see my talk page for why). If you need help with doing that let me know. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't delete items from the administrator's noticeboard. If you feel that they're wrong, add a comment, don't delete content. Black Kite 22:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, do not delete things from ANI, as you did here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the comments he is removing in that edit is his own. And he has faced frequent complaints about making to verbose posts. Taemyr (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again.
Okay. You, and I, and Caspian blue each, individually, came into this with the hope that it would be relatively quick and easy, civil, and with a minimum of argument. That has not been the outcome. Instead, things have blown up here, and I cannot imagine it getting much worse. ... I do not wish to give the impression of taking sides, as I am admittedly somewhat annoyed with Caspian as well, for his kneejerk reaction (at least in this one particular case) to claim pro-Japan/anti-Korean bias at the littlest things (e.g. inclusion of the Japanese era names isn't an overt attempt at being anti-Korean; it just means you don't have sources that list the Korean era name or year as well, and Caspian should take that in stride and add the Korean era name or year himself).

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. I remember some of my early discussions with you, and how exceedingly frustrating it was to even get through the massive posts you would write, let alone understand your main point, make mine apparent to you, or resolve anything.

Can we *please* stop doing this, and act like mature adults with a common interest and a common goal? I have no interest in getting involved in debates, particularly those that involve personal attacks, which veer way off-course from the goal at hand (working together to improve a given article), and which serve to make me afraid to load up Wikipedia for fear of that orange bar, and of what new attacks, new frustrations, await me when I click on that "new messages" link.

I have long been saying that your contributions are excellent. I want to be able to work cooperatively and constructively with you. LordAmeth (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)