User talk:John Smith's

Wikisource
John Smith's -- I was vexed by what I read about you and me here. In the context this short diff creates, a meaningful way to demonstrate "good faith and editorial integrity" is by enhancing and highlighting "all contents and references associated with that Remin Ribao article."

This also happens to be consistent with core wiki-policies.

Perhaps you did not know that the January 8, 1953 article has been uploaded to Chinese Wikisource and to Japanese Wikisource? I will try to figure out how to add an appropriate English translation to the English Wikisource. Perhaps it can be easily accomplished. We'll see. --Tenmei (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 琉球群岛人民反对美国占领的斗争 "Ryukyu Islands, the struggle of peoples against U.S. occupation," 人民日報 (People's Daily), January 8, 1953.
 * 琉球群島人民による反米闘争


 * The first step in a constructive direction. --Tenmei (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Locked article
I'm very sorry that Senkaku Islands dispute was locked -- not because of a short-term problem with the current version of the article, but because of the unintended consequences. Even if this action does succeed in mitigating some kind of short-term dispute, I anticipate longer-term problems as a result of Nihonjoe's decision. I tried to explain at User talk:Nihonjoe#Locking of Senkaku Islands dispute; but the effort was not well received:
 * diff . . User talk:Nihonjoe‎; 04:07 . . (-33,990) . . Nihonjoe (talk | contribs) (Reverted to revision 411729997 by Nihonjoe; rv edit war spllover from Senkaku Islands, please keep your discussion on THAT talk page, not here.)

IMO, this is a problem which didn't need to be a problem. I do not know how to be a force for good in this context, but I will think about it over the next few days. --Tenmei (talk) 08:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Please have a look:User talk:Midnightblueowl, and this kind of WP:Disruptive editing has to be stopped before more damage is caused by him.  Arilang  talk  22:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible consensus forming on Remin Ribao sentence at Senkaku Islands dispute
With the input of some previously uninvolved editors, we've developed a compromise wording on the Remin Ribao article sentence at Senkaku Islands dispute. As one of the prior discussants in this issue, I'd appreciate your input in the very last section on talk as to whether you could accept the compromise we've cobbled together. The short argument is that 4 of us (including 2 uninvolved editors) that the article will be better if we clearly attribute that interpretation of the Remin Ribao article, in the sentence, ""The Japanese government and U.S. researchers have claimed that a 1953 article in The People's Daily, a daily newspaper which is the organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), stated that the Senkaku Islands were a part of the Rykuyu Islands, and that this further implied that the Senkaku Islands were a part of Japanese territory" (keeping all of the current sources). I sincerely hope that you might be persuaded to accept this as a compromise that clearly includes the sentence, all of the sources, and doesn't state that the translation may be false, while also clearly indicating the that the translation is an act of interpretation. I'd love to hear your input.  Qwyrxian (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Civility
I started a draft for WP:Wikiquette alerts#User:Bobthefish2. This overview was an attempt to mirror Qwyrxian's approach to the problem Bobthefish2 presents. As you can see, I did try; but the result is awkward.
 * The contributions history of Bobthefish2 shows that this is a single-purpose account created last September. Bobthefish2 only contributes to Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute. These articles are highly controversial. In Bobthefish2's fourth talk page edit here, he mentions a perceived non-neutral POV "tone":
 * "I glanced through this page and I realize that there is a subtle pro-Japanese tone ...."


 * This initial comment becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy during subsequent months. Without collaborative editing experience in less controversy-laden articles, Bobthefish2 lacks the perspective others will have developed across a range of ordinary, non-controversial articles. In this context, it seems noteworthy that John Smith&#39;s only wants help in persuading Bobthefish2 to give up deliberately provocative edits. I endorse John Smith&#39;s modest goals: Yes, "Bob needs to be told that he needs to stop prodding away at editors he doesn't agree with."

I see that Magog the Ogre and Fainites have added short comments. IMO, anything else from me could diminish the potential effect of their words. Looking forward: I noticed that Fainites used the word "baiting"? This wiki-term is precisely on point. --Tenmei (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I had not overlooked or forgotten the diffs here and here which Oda Mari highlighted in the Wikiquette thread here. However, I didn't understand them as merely "uncivil." IMO, they were effective baiting tactics; and I am still struggling to figure out how you or I could have responded to mitigate the harm.  We swallowed the bait.  We fell into the trap without realizing it was a trap. IMO, your response was moderate, thoughtful, pragmatic.  You highlighted projected plans to contrive an appearance of edit warring so that  Senkaku Islands dispute would be locked.  Also, you encouraged Bobthefish2 to stop in a sentence which included the word "hope."  I endorsed your approach, especially the word "hope" ....  However, our conventional, unremarkable response produced a counter-intuitive result:
 * Instead, our diffs were re-framed as accusatory. I wondered: How did this happen?  What could you or I have done to avert this perverse response?
 * Instead, we were portrayed as conspiring against Bobthefish2
 * Instead, Qwyrxian defended Bobthefish2 as if he had been victimized or attacked.
 * Instead, you and I were somehow cast in roles as instigators or trouble-makers; and  Qwyrxian reasoned that we were wrongly confrontational because Bobthefish2 had not edited the article in the past day.
 * The explicit short diffs you and I posted were ignored; and only Bobthefish2's aggrieved "spin" was believed. It would have been pointless to try to clarify. I still don't understand how this played out as it did. Shortly thereafter, the article was locked.  In sum, the baiting tactic was successful; and Bobthefish2 did orchestrate the result he wanted. For all of us, these edits have a real life context.  On television, we all watched horses and camels galloping into crowds in Egypt. This initial provocation and  violent street clashes were intended to exacerbate the situation so that pro-Mubarik forces would have an excuse to clear the streets of Cairo and Alexandria.  Several news commentators explained that this mirrored a strategy which had been successful in Egypt for 30 years. The contours of a pattern which unfolded on television and a pattern emerging in our small article were not dissimilar.
 * I hope these shared thoughts will help create a better perspective when something like this happens again in the future -- not with Bobthefish2 nor perhaps in this article. Do you see what I mean? In the Wikiquette thread, Qwyrxian is characteristically generous.  The "uncivil" edits of Bobthefish2 are construed as being a unwanted mistake which followed from misunderstanding that Wikipedia is not a battleground. We can only hope that Qwyrxian got it just about right; but we will never know. In any case, the fact remains that Bobthefish2 did employ a low-cost, high-yield tactic which has been seen before in our wiki-venues.  We have every reason to anticipate encountering it again. I am writing this because, in retrospect, I regret that I simply didn't know how to be more supportive, more constructive, more effective in a timely fashion.  I will strive to do better in the future. --Tenmei (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Baiting
I apologize for failing to do enough to oppose harassment in the form of baiting.

I responded to Bobthefish2's new gambit here at Senkaku Islands dispute by posting this: WP:AGF is drained of meaning by WP:POKING WP:BAITING -- see context here + here which justifies zero tolerance.

This makes me sad. I didn't understand.--Tenmei (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Bobthefish2's diffs here and here at WP:Neutral point of view#Long running dispute on Senkaku Islands dispute is seem like a variant of WP:Baiting. IMO, the best course is to stop responding to it . Characteristically, Bobthefish2's opinions are bolstered by neither research nor citations. Regardless of what you write -- or what you don't write, a talk page thread is unlikely to develop constructively. -- Tenmei 02:02, 27 February 2011 --Tenmei (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: tag
Pleas see my note newly left in the talk page of that article. Thanks. --Lvhis (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Table

 * Table deleted from Foreign Relations of Japan

Please review the table I have re-created here at Counterargument. In the coming weeks, perhaps we can locate and upload additional images which verify this counter-argument to irredentism in a way that words alone can not convey. Tenmei 23:36, 24 February 2011
 * Do you have suggestions about improving specific cells in this matrix?
 * Are you willing to make suggestions about how the information in the table can be more effectively explained for those who are unfamiliar with this subject ?
 * I have uploaded File:Atlas 1960 Senkaku.jpg and it is added to this table. -- Tenmei 02:18, 25 February 2011 --Tenmei (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

RFC/U on Tenmei
As an editor who has interacted with User:Tenmei on the Senkaku Islands pages, I would like to inform you that I have filed a Request for comment on user conduct of Tenmei. You may read that RFC/U at Requests for comment/Tenmei, and are welcome to comment on it as explained at Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance2 once it has been certified. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Bridge used by everyone


John Smith's -- Have you encountered this Nikkei (日系人) poet?
 * With new hope.
 * We build new lives.
 * Why complain when it rains?
 * This is what it means to be free.
 * -- Lawson Inada

When you try to be a bridge to the future, it's not easy or simple; but it is a good investment. --Tenmei (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Email
Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 Chinese protests
So how do you propose changing it then? Use the ROC and PRC official names? It can't stay "Taiwan" and "China", because that is not NPOV. De facto two governments of China. We need to find a common ground, it's no big deal in the end.-- Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 19:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Nah, it's not really a big deal. I didn't say Taiwan was part of the PRC in any way or form though, and I know the ROC doesn't recognise the PRC either. Your rationale is good though. Thanks, -- Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 19:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Myeah. Saw your edit and summary about the protest status. Soon, it will become clear that nothing is going to happen because the screws have been turned so tight inside the PRC. The Tsunami might one day happen, though my guess is that it won't be now or six months time, but is that enough to keep the status indicated in the article as 'ongoing' indefinitely? The dissidents will lose face if they formally called off their thang, so it's just going to turn in to a joke, but funny thing is that it isn't funny (haha). -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear John Smith, I have noticed that you have spent some time helping with the article "2011 Chinese protests". Therefore I would like to inform you about two votes going on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2011_Chinese_protests http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/China's_2011_crackdown_on_dissidents#China.27s_2011_crackdown_on_dissidents
 * "Vote for renaming article to "Chinese Jasmine Revolution"" at the bottom of the page
 * AfD for the article

Thank you very much for your valued opinion! Best, Waikiki lwt (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested
Formal mediation of the dispute relating to Senkaku Islands has been requested. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. For an explanation of what formal mediation is, see Mediation Committee/Policy. Please now review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then, in the "party agreement" section, indicate whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page.

Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 04:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Boxer Lede
I agree with your comments on this and other matters. I have a draft lede which I will go ahead with unless you think better. Maybe first post a link to my draft sandbox? (I;d have to figure out how to do that!)

I long ago suggested that the article should be renamed "Boxer Uprising," which is based on better scholarship and also is in line with what the Chinese call it. The discussion is buried someplace on the talk page archives. But this may be too big a leap! Any ideas? ch (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Glaring errors in Jung Chang's claims in Mao:The Unknown Story
I'm not immidietly adding to the article on either the book, Jung, or mao himself, but I want to address several glaring falsehoods in the story.

Chang and Halliday falsely claim that Chiang Kai-shek allowed the Communists to escape on the Long March, allegedly because he wanted his son Chiang Ching-kuo who was being held hostage by Stalin back. This is contradicted by Chiang Kai-shek himself, who wrote in his diary, "It is not worth is to sacrifice the interest of the country for the sake of my son." Chiang even refused to negotiate for a prisoner swap, of his son in exchange of the Chinese Communist Party leader. Again in 1937 he stated about his son- "I would rather have no offspring than sacrifice our nation's interests." Chiang had absolutely no intention of stopping the war against the Communists.

In addition, chiang Kaishek urged the Ma warlords of northwest China to hammer away at the communists, including allowing the governor of qinghai to stay since he wiped out an entire communist army

It was reported that Chang and Halliday were "appallingly dishonest", and that Chiang Kai-shek never, ever let the Communists escape, contrary to Chang and Halliday's false claims. In addition, the alleged "source" Chang and Halliday claimed they met could not be found, on the contrary, a person who witnessed the battle, Li Guixiu confirmed that the battle had happened, contradicting Chang and Halliday.

6
And I'm not doing this from a communist perspective. Jung's claims can be construed as an insult to President Chiang Kai-shek, by falsely contradicting what Chiang himself proudly wrote in his diary about serving his country by making sacrifices, and saying that he had in effect no resolve. In addition, Chiang didn't just write it down, he refused out loud to swap his son for a jailed communist leader.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

credentials of authors

 * Credentials for mister Leonhard


 * the boredom is killing me, I can't wait for Halliday and Chang to display their phds in Chinese history or political science, while you continue to cite their book as reliable.


 * The website is an edu website. It would not lie on Leonhard's credentials, unlike Chang and Halliday.


 * Edu- ".edu, a higher education Internet top-level domain"


 * Robert R. Leonhard, Ph.D.


 * also from the same link on page 5- "LTC(R) Robert R. Leonhard, Ph.D., is on the Principal Professional Staff of The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory and a member of the Strategic Assessments Office of the National Security Analysis Department. He retired from a 24-year career in the Army after serving as an infantry officer and war planner and is a veteran of Operation Desert Storm. Dr. Leonhard is the author of The Art of Maneuver: Maneuver-Warfare Theory and AirLand Battle (1991), Fighting by Minutes: Time and the Art of War (1994), The Principles of War for the Information Age (1998), and The Evolution of Strategy in the Global War on Terrorism (2005), as well as numerous articles and essays on national security issues."


 * Leonhard is very well qualified in military affairs. Chang and Halliday are not qualified in Chinese history. Your citation of their book on numerous articles despite the fact that they hae no degree in the subject area, or experience, and attack on Dr. Leonhard, who has a PHD and was a military officer in America in addition to working for the American government, calls for all of Chang and Halliday's work to be branded as competely unreliable if Dr. Leonhard is someone to be ignored.


 * you have a pattern of personal attacks on authors whos views you don't agree with-"nobodies", I certainly hope you are not attempting to insult Dr. Leonhard with these obnoxious words- "On a separate note, who is Robert Leonhard, and why should we care what he has to say?", especially given the fact that you inserted the work of a completely uncredentialed author with no phd or degree, published by a "Christian vanity press".ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted
This message is to inform you that a request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Senkaku Islands, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. Mediation of this dispute will begin within two weeks (once a mediator has been assigned to the case), so please the case page to your watchlist.


 * For an explanation of what is involved in formal mediation, see Mediation Committee/Policy
 * For a guide to accepted cases, see Requests for mediation/Guide

The entirety of the above two pages (the MedCom policy and the guide to formal mediation) are also important reading for editors who are new to formal mediation. If you have any questions, please post them onto the case talk page, or contact the MedCom mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK  [&bull; ] 15:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC) (Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Ridiculous -- yes
At Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute#"Simply being of the opinion", I repeat your words as if they were my own: It's ridiculous to keep proposing name changes until people come up with the "right" answer. Last October, your arrow hit the mark. I get it. Repeating the invitations which are explicit here and here, I asked Qwyrxian to consider addressing issues and questions in the diffs posted by you and by Phoenix7777. Continuing failure to engage directly and meaningfully is not good. --Tenmei (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

internet archaeology
Hello, You were one of the editors who still edits here that had a fair amount of interaction with Giovanni33. I would appreciate it if you would take a moment to look at a sock puppet investigation on a new editor by the name of BernieW650 Formally User_talk:67.169.68.203 when you get a chance to see if you see any similarities. It would appear that he edits from the same location on the same topics with the same pov. Thanks for your time.V7-sport (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi again
Please have a look:Qing Dynasty Royal Decree on events leading to the signing of Boxer Protocol and your comment is highly appreciated.  Arilang  talk  04:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Please have a look:1900 National Upheaval 庚子國變記 (李希聖), your comments are to be appreciated.  Arilang  talk  13:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Pro-Wikipedia
I propose a strategy to combat the contrived appearance of an WP:edit war by using words like this in all future edit summaries at Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute:
 * This is a "PRO-WIKIPEDIA" edit. This edit is explained in detail and in advance on talk page

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

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

Lvhis sets up a misleading pro vs con schema.

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


 * pro-Japan nor anti-Japan


 * pro-PRC nor anti-PRC


 * pro-ROC nor anti-ROC

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

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

What do you think? --Tenmei (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Impropriety
At Requests for adminship/Qwyrxian, please give some thought to a re-framing analysis -- see here. --Tenmei (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands dispute
I am withdrawing from active participation in this subject. Is it possible that my contributions are somehow "feeding" conflict? One way to test the hypothesis is by simply stepping back for a while. --Tenmei (talk)

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

Thanks, Qwyrxian (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

The deletion of the mediation threads was unexpected. For me, the surprise was also untimely. I asked Feezo to restore the missing diffs. There was no response. I asked for Nihonjoe's help. He suggested here that I may need to ask an arbitrator to do this. Elen of the Road explained here that it is standard practice when a failed mediation results in an arbcom case for the mediators to delete the files - it's part of MEDCOM's ground rules for mediation that it cannot subsequently be used as evidence against any of the parties.
 * (Deletion log); 21:29 . . Feezo (talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands" (For the Mediation Committee, due to arbitration case)

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

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

The fact of the matter is that your very few diffs were useful and constructive and I do not see any good reason for us to throw them away like smelly garbage. --Tenmei (talk) 05:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See Mediation_Committee/Policy - the mediation pages will be made available again after the RFAR closes. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification of arbitration case opened
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Evidence. Please add your evidence by, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom workshop question
Please give some thought to an open-ended question here? --Tenmei (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Liza Dalby
Quite honestly I don't understand this dispute that you started on the talkpage and I'm not interested in being involved with it. When I wrote "every source I've read", I meant just that - I read about ten sources. That doesn't mean I've read every single source that exists - but when ten sources tell us something, regardless of whether we want to hear that or not, the point has been adequately and quite well verified. When editors who are actually writing pages are being badgered, then it's bordering on a battleground mentality, and that's not something I want to be involved with. I've requested the DYK nom be pulled. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:RfArb/Senkaku
According to Elen of the roads, "A useful thing that the parties can do is help Arbcom with ... what it is that [WP:RfArb/Senkaku is all about...."] It would help me -- and perhaps it would be perceived as helpful by others -- if you were willing to give your answer to Elen's question. A summary re-statement of what you think this case is all about would appear reasonable here in the context of an analysis of the evidence you presented. --Tenmei (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The time for presenting or resummarising the case has long passed. Please read what Newyorkbrad, one of the drafting arbitrators, says four days ago. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievious factual errors (making sure ot note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please consider my comments about you here. --Tenmei (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC/Tenmei
Thank you again for your participation in Requests for comment/Tenmei, especially your comment here.

As you know, the RfC was cited as part of an ArbCom findings of fact which explicitly endorsed the complaints of Qwyrxian here and Bobthefish2 here.


 * Tenmei and disputes
 * Although Tenmei was counseled on this issue during the prior case, his manner and style of communications during disputes has not improved. Whether intentional or not, Tenmei's involvement in the current dispute has frustrated involved and uninvolved editors alike, amplifying and prolonging the dispute resolution process.(Requests for comment/Tenmei (see views by HXL49 and Taemyr); Evidence section "Tenmei", provided by Qwyrxian; )

As remedies, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Proposed decision included:
 * Tenmei advised
 * Tenmei is advised that his unusual style of communication has not been conducive to resolving this dispute. Accordingly, Tenmei is urged to develop a different style of communication, which is more similar to that used by experienced Wikipedia editors. Until this happens, Tenmei is advised not to engage in topics which are the subject of a dispute.


 * Tenmei banned for one year

In retrospect, I would have preferred you did something different in the RfC. It would have helped me if you and others had argued forcefully that the complainers needed to help me by addressing the direct questions I posted as an initial response:
 * A. In specific, what could I have done differently at any specific point?


 * B. In specific, what should I have avoided at any specific point?


 * C. In specific, how could I have parsed perceived options differently at any specific point?


 * D. In specific, what unidentified options were overlooked at any specific point?


 * E. In specific, what worked? What didn't? Why?


 * F. In specific, what illustrated good judgment? bad judgment?

I explain this now because I hope it will influence your thinking in the future. --Tenmei (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

User removing Epoch Times references
Thanks for messaging User:TryingToSee about this, I was just on my way there. I noticed that this happened before the user started removing ET references&mdash;that user added something referenced to Epoch Times and then someone else removes it. So it looks like the user is doing all of this to make a POINT. For that reason, I wonder if it would be best to just undo all of these edits? rʨ anaɢ (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Julia Gillard, RoyalExcalibur and my Talk page
WTF? HiLo48 (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

AN/I mention
Our Republic of China IP has mentioned you at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive742. Nothing important though, but I thought notification would be appropriate for the sake of notification. CMD (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Senkaku
Make sure you don't engage with people wanting to talk about the name. While a new user would certainly be forgiven for not knowing about the restrictions (it's not actually posted anywhere there), any of us "old hands" could certainly be called into question for breaking NuclearWarfare declaration of peace. Of course, I dread the turn of the year, when it turns on full flood again. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Mao's Wiki Page
Hi, I am a college student writing a research paper on China's takeover of Tibet, so I came to Mao's page for some information but I don't see anything about Tibet on his page. I looked through the history of his page and noticed that you are one of the top contributors of his page. Why do you think that no one has written or mentioned anything about Tibet? Would you consider adding something about Tibet on his page? I know that there are people who reject Tibet as its own country but don't you think there should be at least something about Tibet? Thank you for your time.--Madeintibet59 (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

GAR
--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Million Award
The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers and all best, -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Bribery to become Pope Julius II
On 26 February 2012 in this edit you requested citations for the use of bribery by Giuliano della Rovere to become Pope Julius II. Citations have now been provided in that article. As far as authority goes, the one from the Catholic Encyclopedia received a Nihil Obstat on 1 October 1910, from Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor, and the Imprimatur of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York. --Bejnar (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:PRCmap-senkakuislands.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:PRCmap-senkakuislands.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you
―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland The 10,000 Challenge and WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 04:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Geisha of Gion.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Geisha of Gion.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Atlas Hydrographic


The article Atlas Hydrographic has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of 'This article meets criteria A and B because...' and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've no objection to this, please go ahead and redirect it and merge anything you think may be relevant. Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Japan
Greetings! I'm not sure if you are very active or busy, but Japan is about to be put through FAR due to cleanup needs. You are one of the best editors in the Japan project from what I can see, and believe you would be very helpful. You can see the Japan talk page here. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Re:Onna-musha
I apologize for my gruff tone, but you must appreciate that it is frustrating to open an RM, advertise it in all the right places, be uniformly ignored for several weeks, have the RM relisted, then have it closed as unopposed, only to then be forced to come back and defend the RM on a near-monthly basis. For these and a number of other reasons that I would rather not elaborate on, the whole matter somewhat brings to mind a series of unfortunate incidents in Wikipedia's past; said incidents are not, or may not be, your fault or even have anything to do with you, but before you decided to comment on the page you might have considered the context in which you were posting and how your comment would likely be read. You seem to now be saying that you do not oppose the change of title or support moving the page again to the inappropriate title female samurai (inappropriate because the article is about women warriors, not female members of the samurai class), but this was not apparent in your original comment, and indeed its placement and wording very much implied otherwise.

Anyway, as long as the issue is resolved for now, I would be happy not to discuss this matter any more. If you have any questions regarding other matters of Japanese language, literature, or history, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Happy editing!

Kind regards, Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:JapanEducationalScores2003
Template:JapanEducationalScores2003 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 08:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)