User talk:Radar33/Archives/01

You
When's the next time I can propose another merge or even a deletion? It is obvious those articles are the same. Period. And it seems nobody wants to participate. I asked you to participate and you didn't. B-Machine (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You can follow the instructions I left in the closing statement and ask at the Administrator's Noticeboard. – AJLtalk 07:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Pro-Wikipedia
In part, I am writing to you because of your constructive comments here in May. Please help me think through a strategy to combat the contrived appearance of an WP:edit war. I propose to use 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: The edit summary of Lvhis is an example of Framing (social science). IMO, 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 edits are not
 * 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))


 * 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" .... 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) 18:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ummm... What are you trying to ask me here? I haven't said anything about anyone's pro- or anti-Wikipedia positions. What are you trying to get me to say? – AJLtalk 09:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There was no rhetorical subterfuge, no trick. Questions are identified by the question mark at the end of the sentence:
 * Do you understand the meaning of the logical fallacy in a "false dilemma"?
 * What is best for the long-term prospects of our collaborative editing project?
 * What do you think?
 * The other sentences in my diff establish an illustrative context. My intentions are unavailing if you are unable or unwilling to parse issues of framing and the logical fallacy in a "false dilemma". --Tenmei (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, how about providing your definition of "Pro-Wikipedia", because I don't know what you think it is? – AJLtalk 09:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I will invest no more in this thread. --Tenmei (talk) 06:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Etiquette
Hi AJL, Regarding the post on my talk page, I'm sorry if I have caused you any offence, that wasn't my intention. If your interested in the history, you can see Talk:Galling where the initial discussion relating to the appropriateness of the reference was made (I became involved through a third opinion), Harald's talk page from User talk:Haraldwallin onwards, User talk:TransporterMan and User talk:TransporterMan, User talk:Tournesol and User talk:GameOn and User talk:GameOn. Apologies if I have missed anything.

From my point of view, Harald is a very persistent user with an extreme case of WP:IDHT who refuses to accept that his university thesis can't be used as a reference per WP:Identifying reliable sources. This was the only substantive issue in my third opinion although it appears that two years ago, when the reference was first added by Harald himself, there was some debate as to whether he was the true owner of the work - it was sorted out over OTRS by the sounds of things. In his response to my third opinion, Harald was aggressive and accusatory and refused to listen to what anyone else had said and this marked the tenor of his communications from then on. The issue began to escalate and everyone gradually began to refuse to speak to Harald on account of his tone, we tried to get a translater in to speak to Harald in his native tounge and Harald just continued to accuse bad faith, conspiracies, lying, bullying etc. I hope you can appreciate that I wasn't best pleased to find Harald continuing to pursue this issue when I logged in to check my messages the other day.

Thank you for your diligence in trying to help the situation with Harald on my talk page and for trying to obtain community input on my behaivour on WP:AN, I'm sure you've done so with the best of intentions and I won't hold it against you. Be advised that I don't really have any intention of editing in the forseeable future (not because of this, I haven't had any interest in editing over the past month).

All the best, Bob House 884 (talk) 10:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I'll leave it at that. – AJLtalk 02:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * For the record the correct discussion at my talk page (mostly in swedish) is User talk:GameOn where I've gone over the entire "case" and shown Harald that noone has acted incorrectly against him. GameOn (talk) 10:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And as far as I can tell Harald assumes we are all in a conspiracy against him, explaining things to him doesn't help, it only makes him find something else to blame, for instance that the wikimedia servers doesn't store data in order etc. But feel free to help him if you want, personally I see a block on Harald as the only way anyone can actually improve wikipedia in this case since it seems that Harald only wants to particiapiate here with the facts he has found and discussions about what he feels has happened earlier. I understand Bob House 884s reaction, although it was over the line. GameOn (talk) 10:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 10:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

RfC/Tenmei
Thank you for your participation in Requests for comment/Tenmei, especially for your endorsement of a comment by Beeblebrox here. You may recall reading,
 * I find the "evidence of trying to resolve the dispute" unimpressive. Especially in which this RFCU is held over Tenmei's head as a threat. These goal of an RFCU is to come to a mutually agreeable voluntary solution to an unresolved problem. It is not a court and Tenmei is not on trial. RFCU is generally the last stop before ArbCom, if this effort fails to arrive at a solution I seriously doubt ArbCom would accept a case.

As it turned out, 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) 14:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)