User talk:Perudotes

Welcome!
Hello, Perudotes, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Reference errors on 14 June
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Crimes against humanity page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=666941844 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F666941844%7CCrimes against humanity%5D%5D Ask for help])

Scarborough Shoal
I have no idea why you are so adverse to using the term Permanent Court of Arbitration, whether they organized it or they registered it, but it is widely reported that it issued the ruling in multiple news agencies. You can phrased it in other ways if you like, but please don't remove an organization that is widely reported to have issued the ruling. Hzh (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't care what is 'widely reported'. It is also widely reported that a 'UN Tribunal' issued the award, or that the ITLOS did so. They are all equally wrong, as the link to the press release by the Permanent Court of Arbitration itself clearly shows. It is clear from your response that you do not fathom what you are writing about. The PCA itself does not have judges, it does not rule and it does not award. It is merely a place which provides administrative support. The arbitration tribunal was already constituted before the PCA was asked to take up registry duties. It is independant from it and does not take orders from it. Saying that the tribunal was 'organized' by the PCA is just plain ignorant of how the international arbitration settlement works. Regards, Perudotes (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no idea then why you chose not to reword it, given that the ruling was issued through the Permanent Court of Arbitration, and it is the avenue of communication between different parties. Hzh (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Because a) it detracts from the main message, which is that a arbitrational tribunal dulely constituted under Annex VII of UNCLOS issued an award (not a ruling) on a point of law; b) the role of the PCA in 'issuing' the award is akin to a billboard: just a placeholder. We're not mentioning with any other judgment in which newspapers, through which press agents, and by whatever other means it reached the general public, we shouldn't do it now; c) the involvement of the PCA does not give the award any form of extra legitimacy, neither does the fact that the arbitrators were allowed to use the PCA's restroom to relieve themselves; d) in essence, and summarizing my past points, it is just plain filler and useless trivia to write that 'the arbitration tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention of the Laws of the Sea under the aspices of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which performed administrative duties and acted as registry, issued an award ...' et cetera et cetera. It is more to the point, shorter, and intelligible to just write 'the arbitration tribunal awarded ...'. No information is lost in that sentence, it is short, to the point and correct. Unlike your previous attempts. Regards, Perudotes (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please, editors edit according to sources, and I edit according to reliable news sources such as the BBC. You may say they are ignorant, and no doubt you see yourself as superior in this matter, but if you are truly well-informed, then it is your duty to write that set things clearly on role played by different organization such as Permanent Court of Arbitration, rather than see yourself as too clever for the need to inform the readers of the article on a case that is widely reported to come from the Permanent Court of Arbitration and left them wondering who does what. Hzh (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, ad hominem there thou art! And how have we missed thee. Your reliable sources are talking rubbish and you know it. How else do you ignore: two press releases by the PCA and the arbitral award itself to write that I'm wrong. I guess the tribunal and the PCA themselves feel 'superior' too for disagreeing with your 'reliable sources', don't they?
 * Or perhaps your sources are simply wrong.
 * As an encyclopedia we have a duty not to write garbage that is demonstrable wrong, even if 'reliable sources' say it isn't.Of course, we could write a section on the tripe these reliable sources write, in order to include said tripe in the encyclopedia. A section 'tripe written by not-so-reliable sources' would sound fitting, don't you agree? And unlike your clever straw man I am not against including the role of the PCA. Just not in the blatantly false and ignorant way you did. Ideally, the role of the PCA and the creation of the arbitration is mentioned in an introduction about the procedural history. Not whenever we feel like giving the award and extra air of legitimacy. I included this position in my recent revisions on Nine-dash line‎ and Spratly Islands, and I will take it that this should satisfy your need to mention ad infinitam the role that the PCA provided. I also take it you will not put blatently false information in the article again, based upon rubbish sources that understand as much about international arbitration as you do. Regards, Perudotes (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you missed the fact that you are the one who wrote "ignorant" first. I'm merely asking you to write (which I hope you can in a succinct manner, given your claim of superior knowledge) that can help people understand the issue given the press coverage. You actually simply removed the PCA in a number of edits, so I have no idea why you think I would wonder why. You may complain about accuracy of sources that are normally considered reputable, but please don't complain about editors who edit in good faith based on those sources. If you think only expert like you are fit to edit particular Wikipedia article, then feel free to inform at the relevant Wiki project talk pages. Hzh (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you missed the fact that something is only an argumentam ad hominem if you use it as an argument. My use of the word 'ignorant' was clearly not such, and thus does not qualify. Hence, I call out your ignoratio elenchi. Neither do I complain about editors who edit in good faith; I do, however, complain about editors who stick their fingers in their ears and scream LA-LA-LA-LAA when being rebutted. After all, I clearly provided proof of the folly of your sources in my first edit summary (the link was ). Instead of reading it, you come here and spoil this page with your semantics and talk about 'usually reputable sources'. As if a newspaper was ever considered a reliable source for legal terms of art, judgment summaries and related matters.In case you did think this was the case, let me console you: they're not. In case you don't grasp it by now: the role the PCA played in the proceedings is minimal, almost non-existant. As such it doesn't warrant any more inclusion than as a side note. I've included this as:


 * Any person with half a brain will understand after that, that wherever the words 'tribunal' 'arbitration tribunal' et cetera are written, that this refers to the 'arbitration tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention of the Laws of the Sea under the aspices of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which performed administrative duties and acted as registry'. And that any source which writes about the 'UN Tribunal' 'Tribunal of the laws of the sea' or 'Permanent Court of Arbitration' refers to the same. Regards, Perudotes (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood my point, or perhaps you don't see "you do not fathom what you are writing about ... ignorant.." as ad hominem, it is still an attack on a person that has no relevance to what I was saying, which is that you should edit in a way that can best explain the issue to the readers. But whatever the case, people edit according to sources, if sources are wrong, you can explain, but not directing the discussion at the person, and you don't call them ignorant, it is considered uncivil (which if you don't know, is considered an offence in Wikipedia). I have no interest in whether you are the expert of all experts (experts are ten a penny in Wikipedia), but in Wikipedia, you are expected to adhere to certain mode of behaviour. I get a sense that you are keen to show off how much you know, instead of understanding what I said. Hzh (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not misunderstand your point, in fact if I read your argument in which you argue that I misunderstood your argument, than it is clear to my that you are trying to argue that the word 'ignorant' that I used was an argument of mine used with 'no relevance to what you were saying' because it was an 'attack on a person'. When, in fact, it was a logical conclusion to an argument that preceded it, namely that you do not fathom what you are talking about, because: the PCA does not have judges (fact) and hence does not issue a ruling (fact). Because you argue both those things ("please don't remove an organization that is widely reported to have issued the ruling"), and because that point is blatantly wrong you are quite clearly ignorant of the matter (fact). That is not 'an attack' but the logical conclusion of the preceding argument. Neither is it an attack, because the term 'ignorant' thus used is not a pejorative (neither, Webster Dictionary, Cambridge Dictionary nor the OED mark it as such). Clearly, you are ignorant of the meaning of the word ignorant, and only assume that it means "Ill-mannered, crude." (slang) when in fact that is not its main meaning. Q.E.D. I did not misunderstood your point, and your pitiful attempt at a tu quoque fell miles short.
 * It is also obvious that you keep on hiding behind your hogwash sources. From my first edit I clearly stated my sources. After your petty attempts at personal insults I once again repeated my sources, which are: the tribunal's award, the PCA press release from 12 July 2016 and the PCA press release from 27 augustus 2013 . Instead, you keep rambling on how butthurt you are because I refuted your sources with my own. Instead of checking them, however, you decide to ignore them time and again. It hurts me to say, but such a level of hypocrisy is unbearable.
 * You have been proven wrong time and again, the honourable thing would be to admit you were wrong or to read them and come with a real counterargument. Else just get out of here. Regards, Perudotes (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you apparently still don't understand. It is ad hominem to direct the discussion on a person's understanding when I was contacting you to discuss on how to edit it. You apparently think that what you know is somehow superior and that is all that matters, when that is not why I wrote to you. Wikipedia is not meant for you, it is meant for readers, therefore you write in a way that best explain to the readers the issue. Also for your information, read up WP:UNCIVIL. Hzh (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Pardon me? You clearly asked me an implicit question in your first post here ("I have no idea why you are so adverse to using the term Permanent Court of Arbitration" i.e. 'why do I have no idea why you are so adverse' ... et cetera). I argued clearly and concisely why you had no idea: because you are ignorant of the matter. I fail to see how that is an ad hominem or a change in the direction of the discussion, which you in fact introduced with your own interlude. It is an answer that you yourself could've come up with if only you had read the sources I gave you. Instead of doing that you kept on muttering about your reliable sources (quod non).
 * Neither did you illicit a response on 'how to edit it' by adressing me personally in a reproachable manner and not by identifying the underlying issue at hand. A good way to get a response on 'how to edit it' would be. 'Hi X! I noticed you reverted my edit on page Y. However, I have read in source A1, A2, B, C1, C2 the exact opposit of what you are trying yo argue. Of course, I have read the source you provided, and I can see there is some merit in what you're saying. Hence, I wanted to discus' et cetera. So perhaps—just perhaps—you should keep your smugly moralistic preaching to yourself. Regards, Perudotes (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, let me try again in the simplest way to see if I can make you understand. If all the media reports say the sky is green, and you countered by saying that the sky is demonstrably blue through spectral analysis in scientific journal, when someone edits saying the "sky is green" (giving all the media sources), it would be more helpful to the readers to change the edit to "the sky is blue, but commonly mistakenly described as green" rather than just changing "green" to "blue".  The point here is that all the media reports I've read said the ruling came from Permanent Court of Arbitration, you may judge them ignorant, but that isn't the point. The point is about communicating to the reader, which you want to turn into about your supposed superior knowledge and everyone else's ignorance.  Wikipedia is not about you, but your ability to communicate to the readers what you know. Hzh (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's retrace our steps. My first edit on the page of Scarborough Shoal was this one. The edit summary reads as follows:


 * The same link was used as a source in my my second edit at 15:49, which was 7 minutes before you reproached me on my talk page. Now that link looks like something that is remotely legit, does it not? In fact a quick google search reveals that this is in fact the official site of the PCA. Hence, it might be remotely of value to our underlying endeavour. Now lets fully scrutinize the source that I provided from a somewhat reliable authority on our issue. Third page, under the heading 'Background to the Permanent Court of Arbitration' (who would've guessed) the text goes as follows:


 * Logic dictates that the tribunal must've had an existence independant of the PCA in order to appoint the PCA. Note, also, that no mention is made that the PCA will issue the award. It will simply provide registry services as directed by the tribunal. Even the frontpage of the website of the PCA reads "The PCA provides administrative support in international arbitrations". The very first sentence of the link also provides that "A unanimous Award has been issued today by the Tribunal". I wonder how all that can be? Don't you? No you don't because you couldn't care to read to link provided, because you had the best sources in the world. Who needs common sense if you got reliable sources some faintly relevant googled up links, right?
 * So you can cry all you want about what a poor misunderstood person you are. Fact is your sources are tripe and they (I quote: "reliable news sources such as the BBC") are nowhere near the level of 'spectral analysis in scientific journal' that you make them out to be. In fact, your sources are probably the first results of your Google query. So even before you came in here trampling like a buffoon, you had already been given very reliable, superior and reputable sources that showed the folly of your ways. But, you decided to disregard them and even not to read them. Instead you come in here, pestering me with some hallucinations of grandeur of how you got ten reliable sources that state the sky is blue and some scientific journals you never consulted. Your sources are wrong as far as they say the PCA issued the award, get over it. Regards Perudotes (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Addendum: the same holds true for the actual award itself. Evidence that the PCA did not issue the award and are in fact seperate entities, are abundant: p. 3, p. 11, p. 12, p. 471, p. 473. Nowhere is it even hinted at that the PCA issued the award or had anything to do with the tribunal besides offering registry services and administrative support.
 * You have ceased making sense, you just keep repeating yourself and nothing you said is relevant to or reflects what I said. Either you are deliberately ignoring my point, or you are incapable of having a logical conversation. Either way this conversation is at a dead end, and cannot proceed any longer.  Hzh (talk) 22:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Save it for someone who cares. Regards, Perudotes (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

118.200.220.195

 * Do you also speak Common User:118.200.220.195? Else, your total lack of mastery over the English language will pose a significant barrier in the communication between the two of us. Regards, Perudotes (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)