User talk:Bobthefish2/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Bobthefish2! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Akerans (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Nomination of DNA Codon Table for deletion[edit]

A discussion has begun about whether the article DNA Codon Table, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DNA Codon Table until a concensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Tagishsimon (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings[edit]

Hi Bob,

Sorry to see your first article was nominated for deletion, which is nothing to feel bad about – literally the majority of new articles do end up deleted. I've noticed many of Wikipedia's articles on molecular biology have room for improvement, so I think you'll find plenty to do here. I've left a couple of comments at Talk:Genetic code that might interest you. You might be interested in joining WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology if you haven't already.

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

順風相送[edit]

This is easy. The edit which disturbed your inline citation note was simply wrong here; and my error is corrected here. I am glad for the opportunity to explain. The edit summary notes will help to clarify.

Perhaps I should have posted a note on your talk page as soon as I noticed this error? --Tenmei (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's fine. Lately, some editors have been relentlessly sabotaging the contents I added/changed in that page. As a result, I mistook this as just another instance of vandalism. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Senkaku Islands dispute, you may be blocked from editing. (diff) ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about your baseless warnings. Please refrain from sending me another message. Thanks. Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have posted comments to the page User_talk:San9663 in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Also, be civil. We do not permit personal attacks in any language. Thank you.  Chzz  ►  05:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word 蘿蔔頭 means "Turnip head" a derogatory term for Japanese people.Google translation ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See this and this. Oda Mari (talk) 09:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Oda Mari (talk) 07:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from your previous behaviour, I find it difficult to take your advice seriously. I filed a complaint and notified others who suffered from the same issue. It was a request for an admin judgement and not a consensus. If a community discussion is to take place, it will be on a separate page.
Also, if you are so against partisanship, then you wouldn't be engaging in that as well. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a strong case against phoenix666 based on him tendentious editing (WP:TE). STSC (talk) 09:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it appears that the admin I asked doesn't want to deal with edit-wars. So I guess we may have to find a different means of filing this complaint. Bobthefish2 (talk) 11:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I knew phoenix666 would revert my edit, and he fell into my trap so that the administrators would notice how evil he is. STSC (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's not evil... just incredibly stubborn and unrelenting. Even though the admins think he hasn't done enough to deserve a ban, I do hope this will serve as a warning for certain editors. At the same time, the lack of condemnation of his actions from traditionally critical editors such as Oda Mari, Qwyxian, and John Smith does imply objectivity may only go so far among the pro-Japanese bloc. However, this doesn't mean the rest of us should not exercise objectivity in our edits and opinions (i.e. don't post personal essay, blog posts, etc as references). Otherwise, you will find yourself losing the moral high ground. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're too kind on them; I know how this organised gang of fanatics operates but I just don't have the time and energy to combat those bullies. As to Kiyoshi's quote, he was a very well-known Japanese historian and his finding on Diaoyutai is certainly not a personal essay or blog post; I'm actually starting an article about him. STSC (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Kiyoshi is a good source, then that's very good.
As for those guys, they have been known to do similar things in the past. The best way of dealing with them is to make sure they are the only ones doing the things you accuse them of doing. However, it seems they aren't as active anymore after the page was locked, which is good. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Bobthefish2. You have new messages at Qwyrxian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Senkaku Islands dispute. Thank you. —Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bobthefish2. You have new messages at Qwyrxian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kiyoshi Inoue[edit]

Please give some thought to my responses to the edits of STSC and San9663 at Talk:Senkaku Islands#Kiyoshi Inoue. I hope you construe my comments as thoughtful, practical, and forward-looking. --Tenmei (talk) 07:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should post a 'diff' link next time, as I had to guess which were your additions. It may help if some Japanese users rent a copy of the book from a local library to see if it make sense at all. Bobthefish2 (talk) 09:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tolstoy[edit]

In part, this is a follow-up to the problems you are helping to resolve at Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute.

I wonder if you have previously stumbled across this 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. -- Leo Tolstoy, 1994

For me, this concept has resonance in a variety of Wikipedia settings. These sentences were introduced to me by someone interested in Metonymy and WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion ≠ WP:Straw poll. Although I still haven't resolved what I think about the context, I do come back again and again to Tolstoy's words.

Perhaps these words might be usefully stored in the back of your mind? --Tenmei (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is nothing grand to ponder about - Open-mindedness is a norm of the Western world. Bobthefish2 (talk) 09:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:[edit]

What on earth are you talking about? I haven't even touched an armpit hair of User:Tenmei. The link you posted was in regards to User:HighSpeed-X, and User:HighSpeed-X only. If you actually paid attention to what I wrote, the **** ********* was spamming my interwiki talkpages. And yes, I still am pretty mad about it. And I have a right to be upset when an arrogant **** keeps spamming my Chinese, Japanese and Russian Wikipedia user talkpages, even after repeatedly telling them to back the **** off. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replied in your talk page. Throwing a rage at him accomplishes nothing. If he is that determined to be a pest, then a few angry comments wouldn't stop him. Bobthefish2 (talk) 13:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so its not okay to criticize people for spouting ethnic hatred?[edit]

you seem to approve of User:Arilang1234's anti manchu edits, and personal attacks on living people, which break wikipedia policy regarding racism and etiquette, you don't seem to comprehend what exactly Arilang1234 has added to the Boxer Rebellion article

I'd advise to look at earlier threats at ANI in which Arilang1234 was warned for his vandalism on the Boxer Rebellion articleagain he was reported for his "bizarre" and "incoherent" edits
Quoted directly from User:Arilang1234- " when it comes to the subject of history, we need to be more firm towards lies and cheats. Do you follow internet news Benj? There is this guy by the name of 阎#年, he is 72 yrs old yet was slapped in the face in public! Because he shamelessly advocate Manchus rule on CCTV. If I happen to be there, I personally will throw some rotten eggs on his face.
"Old Chinese communist education history text books blamed the western power on everything, is just like putting the horse behind the cart. Yes, western powers were evil, we all know that, but what about Manchus, have anyone really really have a closer examination and analysis on Manchus, WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IN THE PAST 300 YEARS? Why didn't they adopt modern western weapons(or at least buy them, if they cannot manufacture them), Why did they stick to bows and arrows when fast loading rifles(Wincester) could be bought in international markets, instead they spend massive amounts of silver bars on garden building. My conclusion is the Manchus deserved every battle field defeats they got in the 2 opium wars"Дунгане (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Arilang1234 use wikipedia to advance ethnic hatred against non han chinese races- accusing them of being savage and "Barbarian".

[1] [2] [3]

Also, Arilang displays extremely hateful and uncivil language toward manchus in his sandbox intro
lets take a look at Arilang1234's earliest edits on wikipedia- quote directly from what Arilang added to the article in 2008- "The Boxers were complete salvages and barbarians,were stupid to the extreme." he and some hired Mongols fought off a group of barbaric attacking Boxers with wooden sticks - Manchu tribal rulers chose to remain ignorant and barbaric
In addition, Arilang1234 has frequently insulted dead people because of their ethnicity, calling Qianlong Emperor a outdated,backward barbaric chieftain, just because he was a Manchu.
Arilang thinks its okay to say barbaric Manchus, which is clear racism against Manchus.
Arilang also thinks wikipedia is a platform to accuse Manchus specifically of perputrating atrocities.
arilang seems to think that since the title only contains the words "boxer rebellion", that the article should only be about Boxers, and that massive sections should be deleted because they don't contain the word "boxer".Дунгане (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not said anything that resembled an endorsement of User:Arilang's edits. In fact, I've read only a small part of your disputes with him. However, this doesn't affect the validity of my opinions because they were directed at specific instances of complaints, which numerous editors (including myself) have dismissed as unnecessary.
Since you insist that your complaints are valid, I took some time to evaluate some of the issues you've brought up.
User:Arilang1234 use wikipedia to advance ethnic hatred against non han chinese races- accusing them of being savage and "Barbarian".
The issue dealing with 阎崇年 is much more complicated. He published a book with very controversial views about the Manchus and the Hans. Since you don't seem to be familiar with Chinese history, I'd recommend you to read up on what 阎崇年 said and the relevant background information about the Qing and Ming dynasties. Suffice to say, the Han and all other racial minorities (including the Hui) suffered greatly under Qing rule. It was also a time when cultural identities of non-Manchus were strictly suppressed. Since the mismanagement and brutality of the Manchus was a direct reason for China to suffer a century-long period of bloodshed and poverty, it is not necessarily ridiculous to harbour a great deal of resentment towards 阎崇年's opinions.
'In addition, Arilang1234 has frequently insulted dead people because of their ethnicity, calling Qianlong Emperor a outdated,backward barbaric chieftain, just because he was a Manchu.'
The original quote did not link Qianlong's short-comings with his racial identity. I agree that Qianlong and many of the Qing emperors are intellectually-backward rulers. But so were/are Mao or George Bush. This has nothing to do with race.
'Arilang thinks its okay to say barbaric Manchus, which is clear racism against Manchus.'
The comment is somewhat lacking in tact, but it is also not invalid. The Manchus had committed large scale massacres when they conquered China. Would you call someone a racist if a Jew tells you "the barbaric German nazi's were evil people who committed massacres on us"?
My verdict on the complaints I spent time to evaluate is that they are ignorant and ignorable. Please refrain from making these childish allegations in the future. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have created an article, Miao Rebellions (Ming Dynasty). which is sourced extensively, and documents how the Ming dynasty commited mass genocide and castration of the Miao, Yao, and Bo peoples, but i do not see Miao editors coming onto wiki and calling us barbaric.Дунгане (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So? If they come in and say the "Han Chinese" had committed barbaric atrocities against the Miao, Yao, and Bo people during Ming dynasty, I don't think there's a problem with that. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Senkaku Islands[edit]

Hi Bobthefish2, thank you for your message. I support your endeavours and I still believe that the article should reside at the English name, with the Japanese and Chinese names prominently listed at the start. I do not have the time these days to be committed to the process like I would have a couple of years ago, however I will give my input where I can. All the best with your efforts. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have briefly skimmed User:Qwyrxian/Senkaku name RfC draft and also your page. My first thought is that the name "Pinnacle Islands" should not be represented only as an archaic term with an imprecise meaning. It is this, but in addition it is also emerging as a neutral term with a precise definition (being equivalent to Senkaku/Diaoyu) in contemporary academic literature. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have mixed feelings about Pinnacle Islands. While others have cited the Liancourt Rocks as a precedent, I am not familiar with the edit history of that page and I am not sure if I want to get into that mess. My inclination is to have the name changed to Senkaku/Diaoyu or Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. While it is not recommended by Wikipedia guidelines, I believe this case is unique enough to make it a suitable alternative as opposed to simply favouring one name over another. Bobthefish2 (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the guideline only says it is less preferred, the reason is mainly people start to argue about ordering. But there are solutions, e.g. if the title is 1-2, the in content can be 2-1, etc. Or one can again rely on google scholar search.San9663 (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's exactly what I think. What some people refuse to acknowledge is that having a title as 1-2 or 2-1 is better than simply having 1 or 2 as title even though none are perfect solutions. Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice of you to defend vandals[edit]

Complaints of Binesi by Дунгане
  • 6. 208.64.63.176 claimed that "Corrected to match information given in citation. Corrected capitalization" yet none of the refences supplied, [4] [5] [6] say that the Kansu braves engaged in pillaging and looting, only that they had attacked the legations

Also copyvio committed by Binesi[edit]

This user Binesi does not appear to understand copyright rules on wiki. In this edit he copied directly from the book "Dragon lady: the life and legend of the last empress of China"

It is clear that User:Binesi does not understand what close paraphrasing is, even when they don't look exactly alike, its still copyvio, see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing

First, we cannot copy any content that has been previously published outside of Wikipedia unless we can prove that this content is public domain or we can verify that has been licensed compatibly for our use. (See copyright policy and our site's Terms of Use. It doesn't matter if the content does not bear a copyright notice; under the U.S. law that governs Wikipedia, content is automatically protected by copyright. You are allowed to use brief excerpts of non-free content, but only if you clearly mark these by quotation marks or block quotations and only if you use them for good reason. Some reasons can be found at the non-free content guidelines.

Otherwise, all content that you place on Wikipedia must be written completely in your own words. You cannot follow too closely on other sources for fear of creative a derivative work. While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism"..Дунгане (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


It appears that Binesi did not even read references when he deleted content look at his comment- [7] These were the edits in which he removed referenced information- [8] [9] These were the references- [10] [11] Дунгане (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

binesi and similar accounts[edit]

Binesi has displayed extreme similarity to a user who was inserting Anti Chinese POV on Second Sino Japanese War Articles, and got blocked indefinitely after i filed a sockpuppet investigation on him. This guy went around with various account names with the word "Pheonix" in them.

these two accounts were Reconquista1492 and ScorchingPheonix

ScorchingPheonix inserted pro Japanese POV many times on the Senkaku Islands article, which you are now dealing with.

His language is nearly exactly the same as Binesi's, he goaded and provoked me in the same way, saying to the effect- "I don't want to edit war with you" "i don't want to be enemies, Дунгане but your chinese education is inferior to western education" "I'm sorry that you see it this way but your view sucks"

Mr. Phoenix- Also, Дунгане, let's not get into any edit wars here. I would like us to both respect our positions, even if they differ. I think it would be interesting if somebody with a Western education can discuss differences in historiography with somebody with a Chinese education. Let's take the time to hear each others' opinions and provide criticisms. I just want you to realize that what you may have been taught in Taiwan can be significantly different from what is taught in the US. Notice that I haven't used any Japanese sources, so not everything you disagree with is Japanese propaganda.

Please don't start an edit war, and provide reliable sources so that we can compare the two.

alk about the Suiyuan and Ningxia campaign, a seemingly insignificant campaign that I believe you've blown way out of proportion to create the image that the campaign was a tie. Nice independent research, though! Maybe someday you can change how history is written and write your own book and argue that the Winter Offensive was a tie (笑)

(Note: 笑 means a form of snickering, an extremely insulting gesture by phoenix which was directed at me)

Mr. Binesi Yes, I know you will also not understand what I just wrote. I'm wasting my time. Take care Дунгане. I'm tired of trying to empathize with you. Please have the Boxer article fixed up yourself over the next few days. I have no interest in edit wars. You will find that I can also play the rules and procedures game with you. Picking apart every paragraph in that article and comparing it to the Wikipedia rules and standards would become an article in itself.

I'm not against you and I am quite willing to both try to understand your point of view and help you improve your articles to reflect a neutral point of view. Your viewpoint is as valid as anyone else and my only goal is to try to find the neutral ground so we can get the articles you have contributed to out of contention. If you find any errors that I have made, I only ask you help me fix them or at least point them out specifically without turning to diatribes and personal attacks.

By the way Дунгане, I'm not your enemy and you don't need to spend so much effort denouncing me. I am only here to try to help bring this article out of contention and fix the numerous errors that plague it. If, as you hinted you did these edits to fix a distorted anti-Chinese viewpoint that originally existed than I applaud your efforts. However I think you have gone a bit too far and focused too much and we need to bring this back to the middle and reflect each viewpoint as valid. The last editor can be the left, and you can be the right - and I will try to be the middle. Binesi (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You continue to make serious accusations against me which I continue to shoot down and then you come back with minor accusations. I see you are really on a mission. I have an alternate idea - let's try to cooperate - what do you think about this? Maybe you can make constructive criticisms on issues you feel are important and I will continue to edit areas in this article which are poorly presented and overly colored? How's that? Or would you like to make the changes yourself and "we" can all come back and revisit this in a few day? Binesi (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel this way Дунгане. I really am. However, honestly - I've stopped taking your personal attacks seriously and now find this whole thing to be more amusing than concerning. I don't mean this to belittle you, but I am not going to reply to your claims here as I already have on the Boxer Rebellion talk page and I don't want to clutter up your personal space (as I don't want you to clutter mine). But please, do give it a rest with the slander. It reads as transparently as your attempts at slanting Wikipedia articles do. It's more juvenile than effective. Дунгане (talk) 07:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I glance through a few of your allegations towards Binesi. You should note that some of his edits are not in line with ScorchingPhoenix's pro-Japanese views. Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
honestly, i don't think SchorchingPhoenix is Japanese. I just think he has an Anti China POV rather than a pro Japan POV, and he may have different opinions in different situations, for example, he might favor Japan over China in one case, and Europeans over Japan in another case. People have multiple views and POV, not nesesarily favoring one.
And it is precisely his lack of interest in actually fixing the Boxer Rebellion article now which is disturbing, he seems more preoccupied in getting ready to argue with me on talk pages, Biseni might by phoenix coming back for revenge, by WP:BAIT (baiting me into insulting him and then getting me banned for doing so. He has already said he would stay off the article for a few days. It doesn't add up since the very "first" encounter he had with me was over the boxer article itself, and he suddenly isn't interested in it anymore?Дунгане (talk) 08:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that you've always been insulting people in the Boxer Rebellion page. Last time I checked, you insulted Arilang over numerous small and stupid things. I've also shown in a thread above that at least some of your allegations towards other people are incorrect and ignorable. While I don't have the time to look through your flood of complaints, I've invited Binesi over to explain himself. I'll wait for what he says. Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you are even paying attention to the difference between Binesi and Arilang1234. Arilang claimed that chinese wikipedia was controlled by pro CCP users who censored articles, and therefore it was unreliable, while Binesi claimed that the chinese wikipedia article was neutral. Arilang1234 is largely driven by an agenda against the CCP and Manchus, while Binesi has POV against Chinese in General.
OK, scratch what I just said on my talk page - I made some time so we can get this wrapped up as I realize everyone's time is valuable. Amusing claim about my being anti-Chinese. If he only knew me. Anyway - you requested three so I will just take the first three as they are all the same. The references are already linked and I'll just do quotes and Дунгане can point out if he feels I quote wrong. Also I think I have discussed most of these both on the article talk page, my talk page, his talk page and the administrative complaint board if more information is needed. I also want to point again as I illustrated on the complaint page that Дунгане uses as his alias the name of the people he glorifies and defends in this article. I am guessing that this personal connection is the motive at play, but doesn't excuse the behavior.
1. I changed "Muslim braves" to "Kansu Braves" as that is what their name was. "Muslim braves" has a very general meaning that seems to make the article about Islam. I also changed "wipe out" to "remove all" and a few similar grammar adjustments to make this read more like an encyclopedia. I think it can all be viewed easily enough. This was the first day I was editing Wikipedia so I did not know who wrote the original. I noticed something about "chin1976" so I mistakenly believed he was the writer. It's a red herring anyway.
2. In the linked East Asia: A Cultural, Social, and Political History it says "Japanese soldiers watched with amazement as Western troops ran amok for three days in a an orgy of looting, rape, and murder." It does not say that Japanese did not commit rape. What they did during and in between periods of amazement is not covered so I removed the unsupported assumption.
3. I think this is a language issue. Luella Miner remarks "that for all the Boxer atrocities there had been no incident of Chinese rape". She is already talking about the Boxers here, which are Chinese. Qualifying rape with "Chinese" in this sentence highly suggests she is referring to no incidents of Boxers raping other Chinese. However in this article Дунгане wants to attach this claim to refer to foreigners not being raped. A cursory check on Google shows numerous claims of Western women being raped in publication so this appears to be well supported (if I think such claims are necessary in the article I will source them). I deleted the unsubstantiated claim.
Hopefully this is what you needed? Binesi (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, also - to clarify my intentions. It was my hope to spend chunks of time over the weeks to go through the article bit by bit and clean up referenced information. I didn't get very far before I noticed everything I try to add to the article - everything - gets undone out of hand. It seems whoever was twisting was on to the fact I was neutralizing each one. So now I get to participate in Wikipedia even more directly. My usual hobby is complaining to journalists that do it ;-) Binesi (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Binesi has just dug himself into a deeper hole, one of the references, right next to where it said there was no Japanese rape in the article, said "He criticised the behaviour of the relief forces: all except the Japanese indulged in pillage and rape"
this was the edit in which he removed the part about japanese forces. The reference i mentioned above was right next to it.
everything gets undone, because it is not the responsibility of the editor who undos the edits to look over every single one, and to see if there were good edits mixed in with vandalism. If you, Mr. Binesi, have a problem, and like to make grammar changes in between vandalising the article, you should make the grammar changes first so I only have to revert them up to the constructive edits.
on the article Ninghai Army i added numerous instances of muslim forces killing Tibetans. I have not been partisan in any way regarding the alleged connection between my username and my edits.Дунгане (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, let's try to understand Дунгане. So what I see is that you ignore that you commit serious misrepresentations of source like item 3 (and all others I have pointed out earlier) while you will remain unproductively belligerent and even quote a different publication, "China now", when I was referring to "East Asia: A Cultural, Social, and Political History" in item 2? What you just linked talks about fires breaking out all over the city. Will you please link what to you are referring about? If you want to link a reference, do it properly so we can all check it. That could save everyone a lot of time and prevent your edits from being deleted for being unreferenced. That's on you.
It really is disappointing to find that this is the kind of editor that wants to contribute to Wikipedia. I mean.. seriously - the people who write articles here are only interested in them because they have a personal POV they want to push? That makes me really sad, and I hope this is not indicative of the community at large. After years of using Wikipedia I finally look beyond the cover to see the ugly truth. Maybe it is because I usually only read science related articles? Is history what attracts this element?
You know why I would offer edits here? Because I know my POV isn't compromised. That is my personal integrity. I don't believe in revisionism, although I recognize that reality is subjective. History is an unpopular subject and this article is barely read. There is nothing to gain in corrupting it. You want to pretend you didn't make many serious misrepresentations of source? You should go back in our conversation history and my edits and answer each claim that you have ignored. You should go back in the article and recheck every source and correct each mistake. You seem so steeped in paranoia and conspiracy theories about incarnations of personal tormentors and people hating Chinese or Dungan and whatever else you invent that you will continue to just fight blindly instead of fixing the article and giving up on personal POV crusades. There is nothing to win here and I am sure you have more important things in your real life to focus on. If you are proud of being a Dungan than just be a good person and people will see it.
I really wish I had more time to do heavy researching on an article like this but I have a life and responsibilities. Sniffing out bias and propaganda is fast and easy so I will leave the reading of 400 page 200 year old journals to the unemployed history majors that have more time for it. I would rather expose the bad behavior that wasn't being addressed and encourage the community at large to pay more close attention to your edits (which it appears I have accomplished). I don't care if people use my edits as long as something is being done in the right direction.
I have far less interest in the Senkaku Islands article because when I read it, it appears fairly balanced in presentation. I don't see a deliberate hijacking of it - probably because there is enough eyes on it. It would be out of character for me to offer anything on it even if after I read it I did form an opinion. As long as it's all clear and unbiased I'm happy to learn something new. Binesi (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These things do happen in Wikipedia. I am pretty new myself and I've already encountered my share of bad editors and closet anti-WP:NPOV (pro-Japanese) crusaders. As for Senkaku Islands, most of the controversial stuff are moved to Senkaku Islands dispute, which is where the pro-Japanese slant is found. So yes, there are big fights going on in that topic as well. It's just that we don't have spams of relentless complaints like this. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You either think we are blind or very stupid. Anyone can see "China Now" was the referenced used to support the fact that only the western forces in the 8 nation allianced looted and raped. It was right next to the sentence "All of the foreign troops, except the Japanese, raped women which you removed.
China Now CLEALRY STATES THAT: "Despite what he himself had suffered in the Rising, Hart refused to share in the West's demands for revenge. He criticised the behaviour of the relief forces: all except the Japanese indulged in pillage and rape,
Sir Robert Hart, 1st Baronet was a BRITISH man, not a Chinese or Japanese.
Clicking on the "China Now", the the link i showed above, links directly to the link i already provided
I invite everyone to investigate Binesi's contributions to see what claims he made about me twisting POV on sources, and to look at the sources themselves. If anyone actually checks it out, i tihnk they will find the majority of his comments to me consist of whining and insults, not once can he mention a specific twist of this alleged "POV twisting", while I, myself have posted dozens of links and quotes from him here and on ANI pointing toward HIS POV twisting of references.Дунгане (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Binesi on #1 because the edit is reasonable and he did greatly improve the English usage in that paragraph.
I can't say much about #2 because Google doesn't let me access the book. Please show me how to. At the same time, I am highly suspicious of China Now's account. I would be more convinced if there are more English sources that support the same claim...
I agree with Binesi on #3 because:
(a) This is the personal account of Luella Miner whose opinion and observations may not be reflective of the whole issue.
(b) As Binesi pointed out, the source said "no evidence of Chinese rape by Boxers", which is quite different to what Дунган wrote.
Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bob, did you look at the author of "China Now"? the "Society for Anglo-Chinese Understanding (London, England)" is listed as the author. It is an english source.
The Guardian, a British newspaper, had an article written about the Boxer rebellion, in the ninth paragraph of the article, it says "When it lifted the siege on August 14, it proceeded to loot, kill and rape with as much ferocity as the Boxers had shown (with the difference that the Boxers looted and killed, but did not rape)." Дунгане (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I can't load the book from that link.
If the Guardian article did say the Boxers did not rape (which I highly doubt), then you should've cited that article to Binesi. The original reference you used was problematic and he was right to make that change. Bobthefish2 (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you understand the concept of google books is to provide excerpts, not give you the entire book which would defeat the purpose of bookstores- it clearly says on the link i gave you - "1 page matching He criticised the behaviour of the relief forces: all except the Japanese indulged in pillage and rape in this book"
when it says "1 page matching", it means that the following quote is found on that page in the book. They don't allow you to see the entire page deliberately.
you appeared to not even have looked at the guardian article, the part about rape is the ninth paragraph, and the author was british, not chinese.Дунгане (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arilang1234[edit]

Complaints on Arilang1234 and Binesi by Дунгане
I urge you to take the time to read this message thoroughly, because it was not just me who had major disputes with Arilang1234, other Cantonese editors harshly criticized his edits, many of which were not only insulting manchus, but also insulting chinese.
My impression is that you aren't taking into account that Arilang1234 was insulting me, #1, first claiming I can't speak Chinese properly, then suddenly making a 360 degree flip flop, and claiming that i couldn't speak english right and that chinese was my native language. He claimed i spoke "pidgin english", and "Chinglish", yet anyone taking a look at his earliest edits to the article in which he called Boxers "salvages", and said they were "Stupid to the extreme", will notice the irony in the situation.
Finally, take a look at this deletion discussion for an article Arilang created- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences between Huaxia and barbarians. Arilang1234 was harsh criticized by User:HongQiGong, who is cantonese, like you, and Arilang. Arilang's comments on that page consisted mostly of insults towards the manchu and mongol ethnic groups.
On Arilang's talk page, over here, Arilang insulted Chinese achievements, claiming that Chinese never invented anything worthwhile and that all civilization was due to the western world. And no, he did not just insult manchus, he said all chinese dynasties and people prior to Qing were failures and essentially pathetic.
User:Benjwong, a cantonese editor, criticized Arilang1234's edits to the Boxer article here- Talk:Boxer Rebellion/Archive 2
when another chinese edito critizied the anti China POV arilang inserted into the article, Arilang1234 immeditely jumped and cried "Communist propaganda"
On the other hand, i have displayed a neutral POV, using non chinese sources, and i harshly criticzed the used of communist sources before i had a dispute with arilang.
Generally, when an editor like Arilang1234 posts over 100 times that my edits consist of CCP "textbook propaganda", when not a single communist source was used, i tend to get pissed off. Not only that, Arilang1234 decided he himself was an academic expert and a reliable source, and asserted that there are "two versions of the Boxer rebellion" ( he essentially said that version 1, that the Boxers were anti imperialist heros, was communist propaganda, even though no where in the article did i say that the Boxers were heros, and version 2, that "Boxers were bandits, killers, rioters and arsonists."]
Yet every single source of mine was a non chinese source.Дунгане (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lets get on the right footing and try to understand the origin of this conflict[edit]

We may have started off the wrong foot here, as you came into the middle of the edit conflict rather than the beginning. Its understandable that you may have thought I was insulting Arilang, its difficult to go through Arilang1234's massive edit history to see what was really going on. For example, on the Yuan Weishi article, he added massive paragraphs criticizing Chinese Boxers for being "Savage" and "stupid", while he wrote nothing on european crimes in China. an Admin User:Nlu has deemed that most of Arilang's additions to that article were unsalvagble trash and he removed them

In Arilang1234's talk page, Arilang calls Chinese civilization backward and stupid, and says all european civilization is superior. as i pointed out above, multiple cantonese users berated him and warned him about his edits, namely adding massive amounts of texts on how chinese boxer "savages" murdered europeans, and how manchus and mongols were all "savage barbaric tribal people".

Since you seem to be defending the Chinese POV on senkaku islands, i'm personally shocked to see you defending Arilang who is a major fan of bashing chinese civilization, and has been critized by other chinese and cantonese editors.

User:HongQiGong, and User:Benjwong, both cantonese, warned arilang about his edits.

also i have evidence, in two short paragraphs this time so you can read them quickly, about Binesi claiming false accusations against me.

I'm at a loss to explain why Binesi wrote insulting messages on the talk page accusing me of doing things which did not even happen. Binesi claimed that i accused him of legal threats, and that i claimed the word slander was a legal threat If anyone goes to see for themselves, i have posted no such claim. Binesi insults me, claiming i am copying other people's language- "I see your pattern of copying the language of others. Congratulations for repeating the term "ad hominem". If you continue to copy and learn maybe you could even understand my posts and stop being so defensive. I hope you have come to understand the real meaning of slander too while you are at it. You no longer accuse me of it, but you continue to commit it." Yet, I used the word ad hominem weeks before Binesi came onto the article, and before anyone else used the word, on the talk page of Boxer rebellion hereДунгане (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will assume that I got the wrong impression just from reading the talk page at the wrong time. However, since I have not followed the Boxer Rebellion page closely, it's very difficult for me to judge who's right and who's not. This is why I've asked Binesi to reply above. It also means little to me if you say Arilang has been criticized by some Chinese editors - I get criticized by Japanese editors regularly as well and that doesn't mean I am wrong.
Even though I am a Chinese, I don't blindly defend every aspect of Chinese history or the Chinese culture. The boxer rebellion is one of the things I find shameful, since it achieved nothing but further humiliation. I also agree with Arilang that China has a very primitive side and is still miles behind the Western countries in many ways. On the other hand, I also like many things about China and do sincerely wish it well.
Lastly, since you have an ANI going with Binesi, I think it will be best to continue this discussion over there. Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The content dispute is separate from Binesi's personal insults. What Arilang1234 and editors like Binesi have been saying is that chinese forces were primitive and did not modernize, and never defeated european forces.
The article Seymour Expedition is fully sourced, one of the sources "China in Convulsion Volum 2", contains eyewitness accounts from europeans in the Boxer Rebellion, and they testify that chinese forces used modern guns and defeated them numerous times.
numerous historians note that the Empress Dowager Cixi and Ronglu, the Manchu commander in chief of all the Chinese imperial forces, issued orders for the protection of the foreigners, and Ronglu did his best to make sure chinese forces failed to destroy the legations and foreign armies. Only Prince Tuan and Dong Fuxiang hated the foreigners, Dong was commander of the Muslim Kansu braves, and they were the ones pressing the attack, but Ronglu denied them artillery, and refused to let them finish off the foreign armies. The sources for that is [12]
Chinese forces defeated an italian charge
the Empress Dowager even ordered ceasefires, and sent gifts of food and supplies to the foreigners, when chinese forces were on the verge of defeating them [13]
European forces were held in check by chinese forces- [14]
Also, it was noted that the military success against the Seymour expedition by chinese forces destroyed a common Western proposition that they could defeated China easily and occupy it with no resistance-[15]
in addition, it was the chinese court itself which removed the Kansu braves from their guard positions against the foreigners, in order to let the Allied armies with their machine guns into the legations.
Ronglu even gave fake orders to General Nie Shicheng, ordering Nie to protect the foreigners and the railroad and attack the Boxers, while in reality when the government learned of the invasion, the real orders were to stop hunting down the Boxers,(the troops were being brutal to the population in their crushing of the Boxers), and attack the foreign army.
Given that i have well sourced references, Arilang1234 has not actually challenged this account, what he and Binesi are focused on is generally getting negative descriptions of the chinese forces into the article, like Arilang1234 edited the article to say that the Boxers were bandit mobs of arsonists, and Binesi is obsessed with editing the article to say the the Kansu braves were looters. Binesi removed facts that make chinese forces look better in comparison to western forces, such as that there were no cases of chinese Boxers raping womenДунгане (talk) 07:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will look at his response in the ANI. Bobthefish2 (talk) 10:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Americanised Canadian[edit]

It depends in Canada, as there two types of Canadians - Americanised Canadian and a British Canadian - I am from Victoria and I am British Canadian - I see more influence from the UK than I do America - the differences between Victoria and Seattle or any other American city is QUITE notable...Bobthefish2 you must live on the American border/city for you to say that or from Ontario...so speak for your region!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SAMK71 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am from Ontario. How'd you define the difference between Americanized Canadians and Anglicized Canadians? I agree that Canadian cities generally have a different feel than American cities, but then they are also quite different to British cities.
I'd retract my generalization for Canadians in Quebec, since I often forget they are Canadians due to their irrational desire to cede from the confederation. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Americanised Canadians love Americans and live American culture and would make Canada an annex of America and haven't served Canada nor travelled extensively outside of Canada (the US doesn't count). To illustrate, A/C will say that we are the same as Americans and that there isn't any difference between the two nations. This couldn't be further from the truth! We have different spelling, government structure, different infrastructure, different history, different sayings, a monarchy, different views of environmental conservation, attitudes toward social issues, healthier living habits, we sing "God Save the Queen" and "Oh Canada", milieu, and medical care structure. We even use different date format in our federal and provincial governments and are a metric country. We're polite and cordial and tend to blend in when we abroad. A true Canadian loves the Queen, spells the Cdn way, turns their back on American culture to preserve the Cdn one, and has a more outward looking attitude toward social issues. A true Canadian is proud of the fact that hockey is our national sport and that going to Tim's to get a double/double at 10 am coffee break is the norm. A true Canadian KNOWS that America is a VERY different country and that when they are in the US they KNOW they are in a different country. A true Canadian KNOWS that we have one of the best trained, albeit underfunded, militaries in the world!! A true Canadian will take a Brit immigrating to Canada over an American one and will see England as our mothership. That is a true Canadian. All Americanised Canadians can just move to America as far as I am concerned!! I think NAFTA has to die a death and we need to have the EFTA to hurry up and take place. I would love to see our long, shared border closed. When is America going to build that 'fence' to keep us out...err...them out of Canada?? Ahem...SAMK71 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I forgot to mention - they use Z vice S for "ized" in respective words ie. Anglicized and Americanized and say ZEEE vice ZED. SAMK71 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Let me guess... you are one of those "patriotic Canadians". I said differences between Canada and America are not as significant as one would want to believe, but that doesn't mean differences do not exist. While there are slight variations in spellings and slangs, citizens from both countries basically speak the same language. At the same time, we and our American neighbours have very similar living styles, schooling systems, and choice of goods and services (by the way, Tim Hortons is now owned by an American company). In those same areas, we are quite different to the British.
On the other hand, if we compare say... Hong Kong to the rest of China - Now, there's a great deal of difference in almost every single aspect.
By the way, patriotism is kind of a minority belief in Canada (well... maybe not in Alberta). While a lot of us like our country, many of us don't really give a crap about the Queen or the national anthem. Cultural decentralization is a large part of what Canada different to the U.S., which you did not seem to realize. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You live in Ontario...southern Ontario near either Detroit, Buffalo, or Sault Ste Marie. That's okay...you can have your beliefs and think that you're speaking for all of Canada, but it's not reality. I've lived coast to coast in our country...you've lived in Ontario near the American border probably all your life and never really left to travel to see what is Canadian...and that is what you're deriving what is Canadian?? Canada is a very British country with some American influences - that's it, that's all. Our schooling system is so far advanced compared to the US and we are actually, if you did your research, is derived from the British system!!!! Any time I go to the UK, I see the similarities between Canada and the UK - you've probably have never been nor are British decent like I am...Maybe you should go live in the US if you love them so much! Erm...Canadians for the most part do love the Queen!!! So what if TH is owned by Americans?? It has been sustained as a Cdn entity - just HBC (which is now home), Club Monaco etc...if you don't love Canada, insist on putting my country down and want American way of life, please move to the US!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SAMK71 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I live in the largest city in Canada and have traveled to other Canadian cities in the past. The only stark differences I see are from the Maritimes and Quebec. But of course... since I have not been to the rural and barely inhabited regions of the west, I suppose your form of nationalism might be prominent there. In fact, I see more Americanism in you than any other Canadian I've known, since cultural narcissism and inability to reflect on one's culture are quite monopolized by right-winged Americans in this continent.
By the way. I hope you remember that the latest surveys about the monarchy showed unprecedented amount of apathy from we Canadians - Most of us don't care as much about the "Head of State" anymore especially after she passes on and is succeeded by her scandalous son in the future.

Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean to say traveLLed?? I don't speak or read American, just wanted to make sure that is what you meant!!?? SAMK71 (talk)

Do you come from one of those small towns in the prairies? Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside the box Elephant in the room[edit]

Collapsed -- unhelpful at this time, perhaps useful in future?
Thus far, the focal points of disagreement in the Senkaku Islands dispute have been somewhat narrowly confined. The serial threads have been concerned with differing versions of history in the East China Sea.

For me, the justification for an uncompromising, non-Wikipedian, aggressive or confrontational strategy is nicely summarized here:

"Historic rights" or titles of some or another kind will acquire enhanced, rather than diminished, importance as a result of the narrowing of the 'physical' rather than the 'legal' sources of right. It is important to remember that, although historical claims were not successful in the Gulf of Maine case, the identification of a 'status quo' or 'modus vivendi' line in Tunisia-Libya was of decisive importance in confirming the equitableness of the first stage of delimitation. States will scrupulously avoid, more than ever, any appearance of acquiescence where acquiescence is not intended; prudent coordination can be expected between petroleum and mining ministries and the legal advisers of foreign ministries." — Highet, Keith. (1989). "Whatever became of natural prolongation," in Rights to Oceanic Resources: Deciding and Drawing Maritime Boundaries, (Dorinda G. Dallmeyer et al., editors), pp. 97, p. 97, at Google Books.

Please consider two related sentences at Strait of Juan de Fuca#Boundary dispute.

Please consider this Canadian paradigm and paradox. It suggests an outside the box perspective which may assist us in further discussions about the Senkaku Islands dispute. When the questions about the article name are settled, a substantial range of issues will remain unresolved.

Is it arguably useful to compare and contrast our best guesses about prospective negotiations between China and Japan with negotiations about a maritime boundary dispute between the US and Canada?

Would it be helpful for this diff -- or some edited version of this diff -- to be posted at Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute and/or Talk:Spratly Islands dispute and/or Talk:Liancourt Rocks? --Tenmei (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps one paragraph from above needs to be revised and supplemented.
For me, the justification perceived rationale for an uncompromising, non-Wikipedian, aggressive or confrontational strategy is nicely summarized here:
{{quote|"Historic rights" or titles of some or another kind ...}}
This kind of perceived justification affects the development of many articles. It becomes an unstated factor in editing and in discussion threads. A meaningful step in a process of countering the effects of this kind of elephant in the room is to state it explicitly.
I wonder if it bears repeating that when the questions about the name of our Senkaku Islands article are settled, a substantial range of issues will remain unresolved. --Tenmei (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Methodology[edit]

Bobthefish2 -- You may have thought I overlooked a brief, obscure comment you wrote:

"You should be careful about supporting one's "questions about methodology" when he has yet to make any actual arguments to support such allegations."

I construed this sentence as being addressed to me and about San9663 because I used the word "methodology" in the immediately preceding diff. I wrote,

"Yes, I do not dispute that San9663's research was constructive, persuasive, appropriate; but there was also another significant factor which was given inadequate attention in the context of questions about methodology."

I don't fully understand this sentence. Perhaps it is unnecessary to dwell on it?

Could it be that you perceived a complaint where none was intended? Let's remove this from the list of things which might affect collaborative editing in the future.

The word "methodology" has nothing to do with anyone's individual searches. As far as I can tell, each search has been transparent. Rather, in the context of my sentence above, the methodology issue has to do with the Google search engine in general. Our common interests are united in parsing Google's relationship to Wikipedia's core principles and policies. Please see Wikipedia:Search engine test and my comments at Talk:Senkaku Islands today (here →here →here). --Tenmei (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that I've missed some details, but my impression was that there were complaints about "flaws" of the search methodologies where no background was provided. This is not to say search engine outputs are perfect, as I've already pointed out some of the short-comings of this approach in the past. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three lines indicate the express POV of Japan, the PRC and the ROC ... and "feasible region" is the intersection of disparate data sets which are undisputed in our article about the Senkaku Islands?
Bobthefish2 -- Does the graphic at the right represent something about the goal towards which our collaborative editing of Senkaku Islands is trending? Is this potentially helpful?

Does this graphic representation help to describe our objectives?

Please see Candidate solution? Just a thought? --Tenmei (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poisson Binomial Distribution[edit]

You said ...

"I recently have come across the "Poisson Binomial Distribution", which turns out to be something that greatly helps with a statistical problem I am currently dealing with. I know for a fact that a number of statistics textbooks do not have this distribution listed and Google does not really return hits that describe this distribution. When I showed the distribution to a few colleagues in the Math Department, they claimed they've never seen this distribution before as well (and they are pretty smart individuals). Since I am not a statistician myself, I don't exactly know how well-known this distribution is. Given that a paper about it was published in 1993 by Wang, I'd presume there would've been 17 years for statisticians to absorb this distribution into the fold. Do you think you can tell me how often this distribution is used in practice and whether or not it is accepted by the statistics community? If it is relatively obscure, then I might have to spend a bit of time to check over the math just to make sure I am not using something that's wrong (although on the surface, the pdf and mean equations look reasonable)."

There may be some confusion here. The prime source I have uses "Poisson Binomial Distribution" for a different distribution than that set out in Poisson binomial distribution. However, it does have that distribution under the name "Poissonian binomial sampling", but does say that has been known also under that "Poisson Binomial Distribution" and as the "binomial distribution of Poisson". References go back to Poisson in 1837. My source is: Johnson NL; Kotz, S.; Kemp, A.W.(1993) Univariate Discrete Distributions, 2nd edition. Wiley ISBN 0-471-54897-9 (page138 for "Poissonian binomial sampling"). I think that perhaps this hasn't been generally counted as a "distribution" because it has so many parameters, but it has certainly been studied. Melcombe (talk) 10:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It appears that this distribution does have a relatively long history (which it well-deserves given its fundamental nature). I am not sure if this distribution is dismissed due to its abundance of parameters, since any multivariate distribution can potentially have many parameters (such as the multinomial distribution for a biased 20-sided dice). Bobthefish2 (talk) 10:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Senkaku islands[edit]

Please compare tables at

Also, please take note of Talk:Senkaku Islands#Qwyrxian's comment --Tenmei (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't agree with such changes. See thread. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diaoyutai[edit]

I'd be just too busy to engage in any edit war because I'll be travelling. My arm is still not yet fully recovered from the accident but that's life! Thanks for asking. STSC (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's good. I was afraid you'd be baited into an edit-war. By the way, it appears that User:John Smith's and User:Tenmei are stalking our conversation and now accusing us of plotting an edit-war. For our interest, I guess we really should consider asking an admin to lock the page so that we wouldn't have certain idiots going wild in the two Diaoyu pages. After all, policing a Chinese-Japanese dispute page with a 1:7 Chinese-Japanese editor ratio is very hard especially when some appear to be die-hard right-winged nationalists. Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011[edit]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Senkaku Islands dispute has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Calling other editors idiots is not civil. And stop talking about other editors. Please talk about article contents. Oda Mari (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My dear Japanese editor, I'd advise you to properly read English before issuing warning. The edit summary said: "(→Arguments from Japan: Deleted a fraudulant claim + references regarding Remin Ribao article, as agreed with Oda Mari and others in Nov 2010.)". To my knowledge, there's no personal attack involved nor do I see any "idiot" labels being tagged onto anyone specifically.
I will expect a reply from you for further elaboration. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop edit-warring[edit]

Bob, your behaviour is becoming disruptive. You keep edit-warring and it appears that you're doing this to try to keep getting the pages locked. If you persist I'm going to take this to the admin's thread. Just because you're not reverting 4 times in 24 hours doesn't mean you can't have sanctions passed on you. John Smith's (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do take this to the admin and we'll see who's edit-warring? By the way, at least use the proper template. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness, despite Bob's comment to STSC, neither he nor STSC have edited the article since that time. While the tone of his comment was probably out of line, I can certainly understand the frustration; heck, I even find the comments of some of the editors on what (Bob perceives as) "our side" to be frustrating. It's a difficult environment to work in when even changes of 2 or 3 words are argued over ad nauseum. So even though the comment was inappropriate, since Bob hasn't edited Senkaku Islands since that point, I don't think it's right to level charges of Edit Warring against him. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cartoon europe 1914.jpg[edit]

Two issues are present:

  1. If you can prove that it's a free image, then reupload it. I deleted it because it was marked as permitted for use only on Wikipedia, and we don't permit such images. If you have proof, when you reupload it, please mark it with the appropriate free license tag.
  2. Technical restrictions prevent us from displaying any image that's not on the Wikimedia servers: there's no possible way to get the image to display by using such techniques as hyperlinks or <img src> tags.

Hope this helps; if not, leave me another question. Nyttend (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question. Nyttend (talk) 05:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now I see what you mean. Everything on Wikipedia, aside from a few exceptions (for which your image didn't qualify), must be available for anyone to use for any purpose: not just non-commercially, and not just Wikipedia users. Therefore, every image that's not one of the exceptions must be available for anyone to download, modify, copy, sell, etc. as much as they want. If we permitted images that were only allowed for use on Wikipedia, people wouldn't be able to make copies legally. Nyttend (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd. I'm sorry, but I don't know what to do to resolve the situation — I suggest that you post a request for help at the help desk. Please be aware that the tag you'd like to use will still result in the image's deletion after a few days. If the owner is willing to grant explicit permission to use the image under a free license, it will work best to get that permission via email and then to follow the instructions laid out at OTRS. Nyttend (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm just sleepy, but I can't understand your meaning: it's past 1AM for me, and I need to get to sleep in time to be awake for church in the morning. Please accept my apology for not understanding you. Your best option is to go to the help desk, where there are people in different time zones who will be awake enough to give you a useful answer. Nyttend (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rolls eyes*. I basically said: Suppose someone claims he has obtained permission from an author to use the image or that he actually owned the image itself, how can any of you Wikipedia bureaucrats even verify that? Honour system? Anyway, have fun with church. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remin Ribao[edit]

Quick question; I tried to read the archive section on the Remin Ribao article, but I totally can't follow it, because there's a mix between talking about the old Ribao article whose translation is in doubt, and the newer article about the protests. I totally believe that you believe that the article was mistranslated by the Japanese press, and I further believe that your belief may be correct (ugh, I feel like I'm starting to sound like another editor...). Anyway, my question is, I see both you and San9663 asserting that the translation is error, and I trust that your or xyr translation ability is accurate, but I'm wondering if there is a reliable source that says explicitly that the original article was mistranslated? Or at least questions the translation? If there was, I think there should be a way to work something into the article. Something like "RR published an article, which Japanese sources claimed meant "this",(refrefref) but which other Chinese sources said actually meant "this"(refrefref)." Without such a source, it seems hard for us to say "Reliable sources say this, but they mistranslated RR." That last part sounds like OR.

And, I know that even if I ask, no one has to listen, but I'd like to hear Bobthefish2's answer before hearing others (that's why I brought the question here, rather than the article talk page). I'm trying to understand this, and it's difficult for me since I read neither Japanese nor Chinese, and I'm trying to figure out what we know for sure as compare to what we can source for sure. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is more unambiguous than you think, Qwyrxian.
The article mentioned the islands as part of the Ryukyu Islands and not the Okinawa Prefecture. Furthermore, it railed against Japanese-U.S. conspiracy of taking over the Ryukyu Islands. This is directly a contradiction to the references put up by User:Phoenix7777 and User:Oda Mari.
I doubt there is any reliable sources that refute the fraudulent translations because these are obscure arguments that are generally disregarded. You might think it is only proper to have such sources cited, but think of the amount of abuses an editor can make if he decides to add b.s. reported in Fox News (which almost nobody would care to pay attention to). Besides, I believe WP:SYN is allowed when it comes to deciding what content to add/change/remove.
Anyhow, the translation by the Japanese articles is totally wrong (with no room for ambiguity too!) and nobody objected when I settled the matter with User:Oda Mari (whom, interestingly enough, reneged on the agreement). We can always propose an RfC on what the article truly meant, but it's a waste of time. For the time being, I am content to simply get the admins involved. With some luck, I might either get the pages locked (which will make POV pushing much harder) or get certain users banned from the page (which is a better solution... since very few of them actually did anything constructive).
I haven't forgotten about this; I'm still thinking...my intuition tells me that there's a possible compromise here, but it's eluding me at the exact moment, and when I try to pin it down other details pop up...but I really think there might be a way to phrase this that still meets WP:V and WP:OR but gets at the possible error.
Regarding the admins, we can wait and see what Elen has to say; it seems like Magog thinks our best bet is some form of WP:DR. I certainly respect Elen tremendously, and would be happy to work with her. I haven't commented on your request to her yet, as I realized it might be better to let you have some space there to work. I do, though, appreciate your kind appraisal. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the necessity of a compromise. The translation was wrong and it's simple as that. If Fox news translated the Koran and mistakenly said "Muhammad wants to rape all Jewish babies in the world" (I actually wouldn't be surprised if Fox news did that), should we then add a section in the Koran that says "alleged pedophilic tendencies of Muhammad" with a reference to the hypothetical Fox article?
To me, the filibuster I am experiencing from User:Tenmei, User:Oda Mari, and User:John Smith's is a clear case of deliberate sabotage of accurate information. After all, this issue was discussed multiple times since October, 2010 and the fraudulent nature of the information acknowledged by User:Oda Mari and not objected by User:Tenmei and User:John Smith's (who were both very active).
Also notice the lack of convincing counter-arguments coming from any of the opposing parties. Try contrasting this by the amount of rage and dedication certain editors showed in the past when I posted a line about swastika-wearing protesters. If I am to pursue the same tactics, I could've used your exact arguments to keep those information. But instead, I acted like a responsible editor and retracted the content after being convinced of the potential inaccuracy of the source.
You have to ask yourself: Suppose we can't even get issues that are this unambiguous resolved, how can we even deal with issues that are more controversial? I think, at this point, we are way past the point of being able to assume good faith from the rest. After all, it appears that even you have some significant misgivings towards the contributions of the others. Is it really worth it to waste so much of our time trying to get say... User:Tenmei or User:John Smith's in line (as opposed to making all this ridiculous edits that you are complaining bout even now)? Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it's not the same as the situation you describe with Fox, because it's not just one source. Here, we have a wide variety of sources, including both the government of Japan, Japanese news papers, and, most importantly, an English book published by a university press, saying that the translation is that way, and all we have is your word (and San9663, if I recall correctly) saying the translation is wrong and was always wrong. You can see why that's a problem, right? Yes, it's certainly possible that it's a widely propagated error, but we can't just take the word of two editors here that it's wrong. If we started to do that, we'd never be able to successfully use any non-English sources, on any article, because any "native" editor could challenge the translation. (...pause...on my way to work will add more later...) Qwyrxian (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(continuing) You say this this is "unambiguous", but, as far as I know, that is entirely based on your assertion and the assertion of another speaker of Chinese--no sources, no "official" translation, etc. It is unfortunate that those do not exist. My first thought at a compromise was to say "The Japanese government claims that the Chinese newspaper...said..." Unfortunately, that doesn't work, because of the University of Hawaii Press book. I still feel like there may be a wording to assert that it is merely a claim, not a verified original wording. Imagine the following situation: let's say you were writing about another article, and you happened to introduce a Chinese source, and you provided the translation for that. In general, we would accept your translation, unless there was a challenge. If there was a challenge, it could get difficult to sort out. Here, if we imagine that your translation was first, and then we found "reliable sources" with a different translation, in general, we would give precedence to those other sources. I know this is muddled, but I'm hoping that if I get my muddled thinking onto "paper" either you or I can sort out a coherent rationality behind the intuitive approach. I know that one thing I want to do is go back and look at the thread again, more carefully, as I'm curious to see how the other editors responded to this issue (if I can sort that out from the other claims). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The most correct way of doing is to open up an RfC and ask for the input of well-respected Chinese editors. However, this is overkill for such a small issue.
One thing you forgot to account for is that we had already agreed that the translation was wrong. User:Oda Mari himself accepted that "Okinawa" was not mentioned with "Senkaku Islands" in the article. Since that was the basis of the claims of all these references he and User:Phoenix7777 put up, it is only WP:COMMONSENSE that they'd all be removed.
You don't really need to look for input from other editors. If they believe they have such a strong case, they'd have replied eons ago (and yes, they stalk my activities regularly enough to know we are talking about this). As I said, there are a bunch of POV-pushers among us, but for some strange reason, you don't see this at all. Bobthefish2 (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The input of well-respected Chinese editors wouldn't solve the problem. The end result would still be the word of WP editors versus what is claimed in reliable sources. I so wish we didn't have the University of Hawaii Press book, because that's the one giving me a headache. See, if it were all Japanese government sources, the solution would be easy: we change the sentence to read "The Japanese government has claimed that an article in...meant...." In other words, since this is the dispute page, and the Japanese section, there's nothing terribly wrong with leaving in a reliably sourced claim about the Japanese government's position; I did the same thing with several different points when I re-wrote Sea of Japan naming dispute. That article, on purpose, includes clearly contradictory claims between Japan and South Korea, because, not surprisingly, the two governments/sides hold contradictory positions. Since our goal is to document the dispute (not document the "facts" of ownership), it's useful to include claims held by one side, even if those claims are themselves inaccurate. The problem is that one source is outside of the easily categorizable "Japanese government". It would look really weird to say "The Japanese government and a Hawaiian researcher claimed that...."
I see a few ways out. One, I wonder if anyone has that book, or can access it. That particular section of the book has a citation, but not all of the citation pages are available in the free Google preview. If we could show that the section is based upon a Japanese government translation, then I'd have no problem with the first wording. Another way out would be to gain editor consensus that this point of view is undue; to do that, we'd need to show that it has been rejected as patently false by at least one reliable source. Note that this source could be in Chinese. A third way would be to get a consensus to remove it based on pure compromise; i.e., we all recognize that those are reliable sources, but we simply agree to remove them because we "know" it's wrong. This last solution is arguably the worst, because it is inherently unstable, and could easily lead to the claim being re-added later, compelling a re-analysis of consensus.
Lastly, it doesn't really matter that the editors are POV-pushers, as long as the article itself is NPOV. To be blunt, I think that's the problem you have, right now, yourself. I know you feel beseiged, and set upon, and mistreated. I know that the arguments often become tendentious. But it is inevitable that people have a point of view (as a post-modernist, I actually believe that not having a point of view is literally impossible). And you can't just reject the changes they want because they have a POV. You can't say "Well, we ignore WP:V and WP:RS, in this case, because people are just 'taking advantage' of those policies to push their point of view." I know you somehow see yourself as trying to achieve neutrality, but, being honest, I really don't see you that way at all. I see you as trying to make the article better, the same as (some) other editors, but I definitely perceive some of your positions and some of your incivility as working against article improvement.

Mediation[edit]

The more I think about it, the more I think we need to enter mediation. I think that mediation will help for a variety of reasons. For one, a mediator can reign in somebody who tries to win arguments by overwhelming force, overlinking, and abstruse arguments. A mediator can help us stay very close to policy, and stop wandering off into personal attacks. A mediator can help us get to the core of problems, rather than flirting around the edges. A mediator can say "Sorry, but that simply isn't clear. Please explain again." A mediator can say "Well, that's an interesting argument, but that has nothing to do with how Wikipedia works." You've rejected mediation because you say there's just a bunch of POV pushers and it won't get anywhere (I'm paraphrasing, feel free to correct me if I misunderstood you). But that's exactly what mediation is for—to get people who aren't capable of working together well by themselves to work together better by imposing the formal framework of mediation and guide of a mediator. Your goal of just trying to topic/article ban people is highly likely to fail(as an ANI watcher, I sincerely don't think you're going to be able to produce enough evidence to justify a topic ban, and some of it is going to boomerang back at you).

Just to be fair though, I do want to clarify one of my own "POV" issues—I will not enter mediation regarding the name of the articles. I was wiling to before, but after going to a university library and finding every single almanac (both US and European) I could find with Senkaku as the primary (and usually only) name, the issue to me is done. To me, you attempting to argue that again now would be extreme POV pushing on your part. I fully expect that, if the real world ownership issue is not "solved", that within a decade we'll see a shift to almost always using both names in English sources, but we must follow the shift, not lead it. So I will happily enter mediation (either voluntary or formal) about our general problems, the tables in the article, the choice of evidence, sources, wording, bad talk page behavior, etc., etc., but I will not support discussion of the name of the article unless compelled to do so by formal mediation practices (and, if forced to, will come down very forcefully that the naming issue has already been solved by policy, guidelines, and consensus, and that raising it again is unacceptable POV-pushing and forum-shopping). Other than that one issue, I think mediation can accomplish a lot, and that your desire to essentially skip that step and proceed directly to sanctioning is not really the right path for dispute resolution. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that'd make me hesitate on requesting a ban would be the amount of work involved. Since I am quite busy in real life at the moment, I'd probably not be able to get back on that for at least a while.
I believe you've taken the translation issue in a wrong direction. You have to realize that no one has questioned San9963 or my assertions on the problem. Of all the editors, only you raised any doubts about trusting San or me. I hope you understand that the others reversed my deletions not out of the doubts you harboured (otherwise, they would've been expressed long ago). There's a huge difference in terms of intent.
Lastly, the issue with the naming is not something I have energy to get into (as you can see, I already have other things to deal with, wiki-wise). But suffice to say, the evidence you presented can easily shot-down by any respectable statistician. You are welcomed to dismiss my well-founded skepticism, but I don't think you'd have much luck convincing a linguist of your efforts in approximating the true relative distributions of two bigrams by simply sampling from a single narrow source and without regards to the genres involved. Personally, I don't have the naming issue high on my agenda (since the RfC was a complete waste of time). I might raise it again if there's someone else around to share the workload with (yeah, someone on my side, as you and I would put it). Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I looked at the University of Hawaii Press article (which you claimed to be the "most reliable sources among the ones listed", I realized I actually have forgotten what kind of rubbish these people were writing! Anyway, here's the quote:
To make matters worse, when on January 8, 1953, Remin Ribao [People's Daily], the official propaganda organ for the Communist Party criticized the occupation of the Ryukyu Islands or (Okinawa Prefecture) by the United States, it stated that the Ryukyu Islands are located northeast of our Taiwan Islands... including Senkaku Shoto". According to this statement, the PRC recognized Diaoyu (J: Senkaku Islands) were a part of the Liuqiu Islands (Okinawa Prefecture). In other words, the Diaoyu Islands belonged neither to Taiwan nor to mainland China, but to Japan.
I hope you, just by reading this, realize this is totally wrong, because the "Okinawa Prefecture" is not the same as the Ryukyu/Liuqiu Islands and that the Japanese Okinawa Prefecture did not exist on the year of 1953. Since this fallacy is committed in English, I believe you don't need to know Chinese to see that. And in case you don't know, I've talked about this very same issue a few times in previous discussions, so it's not like the others wouldn't know anything about it. Bobthefish2 (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, apparently I've unintentionally gone ahead and done what you thought was best in the first place--I've gotten the article locked. Dear me. Well, once I work up the effort, I'm going to ask for mediation. Do you have a preference for MEDCAB or MEDCOM? Personally, I would like to try MEDCAB first (if nothing else, I think it works faster). My stated goal will be something along the lines of improving overall practice--that we have a number of users who don't communicate well, that even small wording issues take on epic proportions, that ultimately we need help to work collaboratively across POV lines. I am happy to file the request myself; I'm also happy to collaborate with you on the wording. I will probably begin writing it up later today (I'd prefer to handle my more "mundane" wikiwork first).
P.S. Also, I guess I should ask--will you enter formal mediation? Generally speaking, all or most relevant individuals have to agree in order to get mediation. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am quite delighted that an admin locked the article, as that saved me a lot of time and I genuinely believe that's for the best. You shouldn't punish yourself over this because the instigator in this case is User:Phoenix7777.
I am willing to participate in this WP:Mediation you are calling for, although again, I doubt it'd be that useful in the end. First of all, you need everyone involved in the recent disputes to take part. And more importantly, everyone should have a genuine desire to improve the quality of the article (POV-pushing doesn't count). I'd have to say it is quite remarkable that you continue to assume good faith on the parts of other editors, especially for User:John Smith's and User:Phoenix7777. Anyhow, good luck with the mediation (my prediction is that it will be a contest of slippery tongues). Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your question about arbitration[edit]

Here, you write:

I'd say I should explore the option of WP:Arbitration and advise the ban of certain obstructive individuals who somehow had developed an unfortunate fetish for opposing appropriate editorial processes. Do you happen to have the capacity of educating me on how to go through such a process? Your experience as a lawyer of Wikipedia policies is likely second to none.

Luckily for you, I happened to read this, and I have precisely this capacity. Even more luckily, I can educate you concisely: Read this.

In the same place, you also write:

But unfortunately, I don't see a need to restrict myself from commenting about other editors. After all, my conduct is considered acceptable within the bounds of Wikipedia policies.

Do remember, though, that comments about other editors are rarely of interest to anyone other than the writer. The editor who unrestrictedly comments on others risks coming off as a terrible bore. -- Hoary (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That entire comment to User:Oda Mari was sarcasm. I had no intent of asking for his advice. Bobthefish2 (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And just to add, the "unrestricted comments on others" was really an off-hand remark I made in a conversation with another editor. The specifics was such that, without pointing fingers, I used the term "idiots". Bobthefish2 (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Bobthefish2. You have new messages at Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

diaoyu[edit]

Hi bob, i haven't followed the article for a while and it seems that john smith still persistently keep changing the name ordering by ignoring the extensive discussion in the talk page since nov 2010? perhaps it's time to raise a consensus on this issue. --Winstonlighter (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, playing with name-ordering is about the least that he's done. If my memory serves, he also removed Chinese name usages, reliable sources, and did his best to keep fraudulent information on the pages.
It would be quite nice if there's some way to somehow be rid of his meddling, but that'd be a lot of work especially when I am pretty much the only one who feels like doing some quality control on the existing editors of the article.
On the other hand, I wouldn't consider our British friend to be the biggest drag in the article. At least he quietly disappears from a discussion when shown the error of his ways, much unlike his more persistent Japanese comrades.
Anyhow, let me know if you want to report him. I might be able to lend you some help. Bobthefish2 (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please, for the love of all that is good with Wikipedia, do not raise the name issue again, either of you. The issue is dead. I would go so far as to argue that raising the issue again now is disruptive editing, because consensus has come down so strongly, in so many different ways and situations, that it is clear that the name is correct as written now. It's the name other encyclopedias use, it's the name all of the almanacs use, and its at least equally common in news articles and scholarly articles. Yes, WP:Consensus can change, but I would say that without new evidence, it's time to put it to rest. There are so many other issues that deserve our attention on those articles that its simply inappropriate to go at that point further. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't care about the name-ordering issue, as I've said in the past. I only said I might lend him some help if he wanted to deal with our British friend (presumably if there's a strong case). Bobthefish2 (talk) 11:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh...my humblest apologies. when I read " persistently keep changing the name ordering" I thought that it said " persistently keep changing the name." That, plus the title of this thread, made me think Winstonlighter was proposing to rename the article itself. That's why I overreacted...it would make me seriously crazy if that issue was being raised again. The name ordering is a more subtle issue...I'll try to attend to it on the talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The naming issue is a different ball game. I am not pursuing at the moment because I am lazy and pre-occupied with other stuff, but it doesn't mean I agree. But for the near future, we can leave it alone unless someone else has the will, time, and evidence to raise it again. Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So where should I take this?[edit]

Threatening people who do not agree with you with disciplinary action not only is counterproductive, it doesn't bode well for your own continued presence at the article. Remember, there is now and always will be disagreement at those pages. It is not the case that every instance of disagreement is malformed or inappropriate. If you are unable to discuss the issues there without continually resorting to assumptions of bad faith, then perhaps you should either walk away from the article or away from the project. If people behave badly, then take the disciplinary actions you think necessary. But don't disrupt attempts at consensus building by implying that all disagreement is a violation of our behavioral guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my post more carefully, you'd realize that this is not what I wrote. I believe I was referring to some very specific types of disagreement... namely those of an absurdly obstructive nature. An example of this would be some very stubborn display of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and circularity. With that said, I wouldn't call that a threat on the general concept of disagreement, as you portrayed it as.
On the other hand, I am way beyond the point of assuming good faith on some editors. You are welcomed to dispute the rationality of my position, but I feel it is well-justified (and also somewhat irrelevant to our current situation). Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should I go to WP:WQA? Straight to an RFCU? Your recent behavior on Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute is reprehensible. You, not others, are obstructing a collaborative editing process. You have repeatedly insulted other editors, claiming that their arguments are absurd or illogical and that they are being obstructionists. People ask politely for summaries, and you insult them; you could have simply declined to provide them. Your actions seem deliberately intended to provoke anger and/or disrupt a consensus forming process. Maybe you've just run out of patience after being "out-numbered" for so long. Maybe you don't handle tendentious editing well. I don't know. But if you cannot edit collaboratively, you cannot edit. It's that simple. I don't know if I have the energy or inclination right now to pursue action against your disruptive editing; I'll think on it throughout the day. At best, consider this a final warning for repeated violations of WP:CIVIL and failure to edit collaboratively. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how my attitude is out of line considering to the posts I was responding to.
In fact, if you would like to accuse me of WP:CIVIL, I'd advise you to provide a few examples. To start you off, I will show you how you were wrong in saying how
People ask politely for summaries, and (I) insult them
In this case, I presume you were referring to User:John Smith's request. My response was:
Basically, User:Nlu, User:Ohconfucius, User:Qwyrxian, and myself agreed that the content in dispute is inappropriate. User:Qwyrxian proposed a compromise where we change the text so that the Remin Ribao interpretation in question is explicitly attributed to the opinion of the Japanese government and individuals instead of being stated as fact. The three of us agreed to such a compromise. User:Tenmei is opposed to this and has gone circular with his complaints of WP:SYN violations. User:Phoenix7777 is also opposed because he thinks it doesn't improve WP:NPOV. User:Oda Mari said she will withhold her comment in protest to my lack of confidence in her good faith. Yes, that's basically it. Feel free to join in.
Then User:John Smith's replied with
...Oh, and bob, I don't like your continued cheap shots. I don't "block" your "attempts at correcting the situations". I'm happy to discuss suggestions on the talk page, as I'm doing now. I'd like to AGF with you, but it seems that you keep doing something to make me pause and think if that's possible.
I've got an idea, why don't you show your good faith by sincerely apologising to Oda Mari and pledge not to make any more comments like that? Then maybe we can get some more input.
Then I replied with
...I generally AGF on others as long as good reasoning is used (and regardless of their opinions relative to mine). In your case, your history of questionable editorial practices makes it hard for me to AGF. The fact that you made some slanderous accusations of my alleged edit-warring also presents some steep difficulties in terms of trusting your motivations behind all of this. However, if you truly are a reputable editor who wants to engage in collaborative editing with me, a good place for you to start is to behave like a good British gentleman and apologize for your ungallant intrusion. Then perhaps... I will reconsider my opinion of you.
In short, I did not flat out give a rude response to a polite request for summary. Instead, I simply provided a reminder to User:John Smith's of his own responsibility in our mutual mistrust when he suddenly decided to start complaining about my lack of AGF.
Now, as for the rest of your accusations, I will leave it to you find examples for. Personally, I don't see my behaviour as being out of line given the general attitude of those you are defending. If you are truly convinced that I am being obstructive in the process, you are welcomed to start a RFCU or ANI on me. But suppose you do take this route, I'd advise you to be very careful in reading/gathering your evidence, since I highly doubt you fully know what you are talking about. However, I concede that I can be use a slightly friendlier tone even in response to unproductive arguments. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, I've decided to raise a discussion on your editing behaviour rather than expect Qwyrxian to do it. You can give some feedback at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. John Smith's (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My dear John Smith's, you should at least alert User:Tenmei and User:Phoenix7777 if you are going to file a complaint about me. I am sure they have much to complain about me as well. Anyhow, I wish you good luck. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


As much as your "endorsement" on Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute amused me (i mean, it really honestly made me laugh), it's the kind of thing we're trying to say on WQA you shouldn't do. On contentious articles, jokey playfulness just makes editing harder. I know it seems like this is a good means of give and take, that by being pointy or sarcastic or funny it makes the discussion go easier just like in real life, because of the written medium, it usually just backfires. Plus, there are enough cultures where such behavior is seen as extremely disrespectful that staying more "neutral" in tone is just generally more conducive to collaboration. BTW, why don't you have email enabled? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While the WQA should be taken with some seriousness (in theory), I do not agree with how it was conducted. In the end, all three of the independent commentators seemed only interested in forcing an apology from me and refused to even check whether or not the accusations were correct. Perhaps my arrogant tone had an effect on turning people off, but it doesn't really matter in the end. I took the liberty of asking for a second opinion, so we'll see.
With that said, I do agree that having the temperament of a monk is ideal for WP:CIVIL, but since I am born with a different personality, the best I can do is to sand out the sharp edges to minimize the impact.
On a different mattter. So... I've deliberately taken a back seat on the PD matter for a while. Since you've been the driver of the matter, I wonder how productive those discussions had been? Do you think the editors you disagreed with were disagreeing with good faith?
Lastly, I am glad you are amused at the parody and I did not enable my email because I don't want to be spammed. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

stop This is your final warning stop making personal attacks, like you did WP:NPOVN in this series of edits, I will request that your account be blocked temporarily. Your continued insults make it impossible to carry on any kind of collaborative work, and thus a block will be in order to prevent disruption. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What personal attack? Let's see. I called myself an idiot and then made a suggestion on how to behave if someone does not have something intelligent to say. There were no assertions of others' intellectual insufficiencies other than mine.
If you look further up the thread, now here's a real personal attack on me that indicates some deficiency in me. Somehow, warnings are always reserved for me for some reason... very strange. Bobthefish2 (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You said "Next time, if you don't have anything intelligent to say, you should stay quiet and let the big boys do the talking." Implying 1) John Smith has nothing intelligent to say (further implying he's not intelligent); 2) implying John Smith is a child who has no right to speak in this conversation. How is that not a personal attack? Qwyrxian (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back to the earlier exchange, John Smith should not have implied that you have "no knowledge." Since this is the first time I've seen him make such an attack, and he's been being provoked by you essentially nonstop in that thread (your constant use of "my dear friend" and "my British friend", for example) I felt it was wrong but not block worthy. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"On intelligence". Your interpretation of that "he has no intelligence" is simply one of several possible interpretations. It can be a favoured meaning due to your life experience and perhaps your opinion on the John Smith's intelligence. Now, there can be other ways to interpret this. For example, it could be a kind-hearted suggestion to avoid someone from embarrassing himself. This applies especially well in the case of a scientific conference where one might advise his new colleague to "stay quiet and let the big guys do the talking if there is nothing intelligent to be raised". You can of course cry foul and boldly claim I didn't have such benign intentions, but then I will have to accuse you of assuming bad faith.
"On friend". "My friend", "my dear friend", etc, are standard ways of English etiquette. This is analogous to putting "your's truly" or "sincerely" at the end of a letter. Only some people necessarily attach affection to such ways of address.
"On attacks". I've certainly received my share of attacks from John Smith (and Tenmei). You might've selectively missed them because I didn't write an "WP:AGF != WP:POKE == WP:BAIT != Collaborative editing" over every comment I don't like. Or maybe you did genuinely miss them just as you were weeks behind me in realizing a few obvious problems with the page (apologies if that sounded arrogant). Regardless, I am afraid you may be becoming overly zealous and have started to treat this like grade school. If you find problem in something as trivial as "my friend", then chances are you'd find attitude problems in many respected editors in WP. Bobthefish2 (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olfactory System[edit]

HI Bob, re:Olfactory_system Clean up. How should I clean-up the "Nose to Brain list"? I have made the same type of easy-to-understand list for all the sensory systems but want to get one done properly before I add the rest to Wikipedia. Any sugestions as what to do? Leveni22Feb2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.139.96 (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some suggestions in your conversation with User:Qwyrxian in case you haven't read that. Suppose you did, I'd say there are a number of ways you can do this. One way I can think of is to have something like:
Information Flow From Nose to Brain
Some overview sentences
1. Step 1
Description
2. Step 2
Description
... and so on. And as I've said, providing a good flow chart would help. I'd also recommend making references to other neural pathways when relevant. But again, I can't help you much content-wise, since I've only had a 3rd year understanding of neurophysiology. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:[edit]

Thank you for the message. I added my new note on that article's talk page. The best way for now I think is to add that template, and I have done it.--Lvhis (talk) 05:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't know the template was removed. If my memory serves, I believe I've added it back in October 2010. However, I'd advise you to be careful about getting into an edit-war. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder. I am avoiding getting into an edit-war and blocked. The edit-war was not initiated by me, and itself serves a good reason for keeping that tag on. If you agree to keep this tag on, you can help. Maybe this article should be protected for a while to let everyone cool down.--Lvhis (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I was just like you when I first came five months ago. I sat back a little because I didn't consider that to be a high priority matter. At the same time, I wanted to allow you to have a taste of what people you are going to have to deal with if you want to press on (which is going to be a LOT of work). Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message yesterday. I don't mind if that page got locked, but do mind it was locked without that tag. Without that tag, the discussion is just like "closed door" discussion. I think this discussion needs to attract more users or readers, as an "open door" discussion as Wikipedia (the Free Encyclopedia) prefers. The second point is, we need to go step by step if everyone is really serous to want to solve this dispute. So the tag is the very first and essential step, which means at least all participants should admit there is dispute on the title. If we cannot go through this step, forget next step. Otherwise, as you mentioned, this discussion will go nowhere, and will go along a dead loop again and again. It just wastes time. It was far beyond my expectation that the NPOV tag itself can cause such problem. Anyway, if the page locked for ever, it will be out-of-date eventually, and get less and less credit.--Lvhis (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(1) It's not going to be locked forever. (2) About every regular editor in the page except for myself did not want the article to move (there's a good reason to suspect POV of course, since all live in Japan). If you want to get this going, the "we" in proposing a change is most likely just you and me. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, let us open the door open.--Lvhis (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it already did. At least the skirmishes have started. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not enough. And all of reasons they have used to object that tag are wrong. If even this one cannot go through in a fair manner, what would you or would we expect for next? Sorry for grammatical error in my above short note.--Lvhis (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your response indicates you have a fair degree of understanding of the editorial environment of this page, which is good. Ultimately, I suspect it may not be possible to convince some people regardless of the reasoning used. So, a higher-level dispute resolution is what should be aimed for. Asking for advice in Project China may be helpful in attracting attention and getting useful feedback. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A side note, too; WP:WRONGVERSION, which, while a humorous essay, points out that it doesn't really matter which side the article is locked into. The point behind locking isn't that the admins have chosen a side, but that they just need to stop the back and forth edit-warring. Admins generally only check to make sure there isn't BLP violating or vandalism edits on the page, then lock the most recent. Having said that, note that I am willing to support inclusion of the tag, if and only if you are willing to enter into discussions about why the title is POV, and what we can/should do to change that title that is compliant with guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the end, I don't consider the POV tag that important as it does not change the nature of the page or issue. However, it'd be interesting to see how far he can push the tag issue. I am actually surprised that User:Phoenix7777, User:John Smith's, and User:Oda Mari were willing to edit-war/tag-team over some scrap like this.
As for POV, I don't believe your last RfC settled it (and yes, I am just as bored of this phrase as you are). One thing that needs to be noted is that whether or not a name is POV vs. whether or not a name should be moved are two different matters. As far as I remember, a good number of answers were of the nature that resembled: "it's not worth the trouble". More importantly, the answer you seek last time had nothing to do with POV although POV was a reason for the question to be brought up.
Hope this settles your concern. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bobthefish2 - "editorial environment", including discussion environment, exactly, you got it. We need a healthier environment to move on. As for your plan you mentioned in my talk page, I would suggest be little bit more patient. I like to deal with this step by step. While, it is up to you anyhow. I appreciate your efforts.--Lvhis (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Qwyrxian - I knew that WP:WRONGVERSION and never think it's necessary to take any step about that. I just straightforwards took the way "Edit request" for {{edit protected}}. The development of your attitude towards the tag is positive. If said "I am willing to support inclusion of the tag" is sincere, you can post your such words in the section of the "Edit request" in that talk page. As for your concern, it is understandable but its negative side is that implied an assumption against WP:AGF again. Please review point 1 of my note on 20:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC) there and my initial request in that "Edit request", again. Hope such assumption will not come out for the 3rd time.--Lvhis (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU[edit]

Did you ever pull together any diffs for an RFC/U on User: Tenmei? I have an idea where I'll start looking, but if you had any, it would help. I've never even contemplated filing an RFCU before, so first I'm going to have to read up on how to do so. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I haven't thought of posting an WP:RFC/U on User:Tenmei. I also do not support such a motion, since it serves little in promoting our collaborative spirit. Instead, I suggest we should just let your RfC sort things out. In the end, it appears to me that User:Tenmei might have a point. As a result, I strongly suggest you to refrain from making preparations for this RFCU since I don't find it productive at all. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just a little unclear--a point about what? About the PD sentence? About the Foreign relations article? About me being a shill? Just looking for clarification. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent you an email along with a cautionary. Let's keep it at that. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears User:Tenmei is right after all - Filing an RFC/U is going to be detrimental to the overall process of collaborative editing. The problem I sense (which he might agree) is that RFC/U is merely a platform for advice and suggestions. Since his WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality is unlikely to be quenched, we actually need something with more enforcing power... So while I haven't pulled together any diff's for an RFC/U, I did in fact make some preparations for an ANI. Let me know if you would like to change your mind. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have, I think, completed the RfC/U draft for Tenmei. Do you have any other additions? Are you willing to certify it? If you are, are you capable of certifying it as an editor who has "tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed" (i.e., do you have diffs where you asked Tenmei to fix the problem but xe didn't do so)? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing quite a lot on WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND. I will try to take some time to write what I have in mind. Give me a couple of days (browsing through Tenmei's diff is pretty painful)? As for attempts to resolve disputes, just keyword search my name on User:Tenmei's talk page. You should be able to find at least a few. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For convenience sake, I will add things directly on your page. The elements I added will be indicated with small font. Once I've done my part, you can edit things as you see fit. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to bite the bullet and go through some of Tenmei's recent edits. After reading through them, I realized he's actually more rude than I imagined (likely because I generally skip his posts). I did the work in my subpage instead, so you will have to mine the information directly from there (double check for overlaps). I skipped your conversations with him in Talk:Foreign relations of Japan and Talk:Counterargument. A brief glance suggested he had already committed a few WP:CIVIL violations (namely loss of objectivity and such). Lastly, it's best to use this material after you addressed his tendentious editing as the diffs are most easy to understand if the readers are given sufficient background on Tenmei's "indefensible position" and his relentless defense of it. Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, after taking a look around, I'm not so sure that I can file the RFC/U. Looking at Tenmei's talk page, I don't see any instance where you explicitly tried to solve the problem and that solution failed. The closest is in the section User Talk:Tenmei#Stop, where you complain about his style of writing, which he rejects. That's a pretty minor example. In other words, it looks like I may be the only person who ever told Tenmei to change xyr behavior and that request was rejected. This makes me wonder if perhaps I'm taking the problem too personally, or misreading the situation, or something else.... Qwyrxian (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[16] - Invited him to resolve differences
[17] - Invited him to reply on the PD issue and put an end to this.
In both cases, he did not respond Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... and if you think are "taking the problem too personally, or misreading the situation, or something else"... I'd welcome similar doubts on all your civility policing. Personally, I don't doubt my position simply because most others don't agree. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, except that a whole bunch of uninvolved editors at WQA did share my concerns...however, that's neither here nor there. I think the 2 diffs you post above will be fine. You'll have to add them yourself after I post the RFCU. I would recommend not adding the post you just placed in his post a few hours ago, as it could be construed as you intentionally setting up a way to certify the RFC/U, since anyone who looks at the time signatures will know that it was posted after my concern was raised above. As a side note, it's possible that others have said similar things, just not on Tenmei's talk page, so they may be able to certify as well.
Also, I think I pulled over all of the things that were most fitting from the diffs on your subpage. I wanted to focus on issues other than civility, if only because I think the other points are much stronger, and are, ultimately, more of a problem with regards to being able to actually improve the encyclopedia.
Let me know if you're comfortable certifying it as written now. Once I move the draft over to mainspace, it must be certified by at least one other user within 48 hours or it is automatically deleted, so I want to be sure that it is certifiable before I put it up. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I ceased taking the WQA very seriously when I found out none of the parties were willing to scrutinize others involved (oh you might want to try RFCU, we don't do this). Not a very smart process, though I learned a few things.
Anyway, drop me a note when you have posted your thing. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's up. If you wish to certify the RFC/U, you will need to 1) Change section 1.4.2 to include your name in the section title, and provide a set of diffs (with or without explanation) of the times you attempted to resolve the dispute, and 2) Sign the second line in section 1.5 with four tildas. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention, it's at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei‎. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying terminology[edit]

I just wanted to clarify terminology for you a little. RfC actually refers to a very specific process which is not what we have been doing on the Neutral point of view Noticeboard. RfC, standing for "Request for Comment" refers to discussions that take place on article (or policy) talk pages, when an editor adds an RfC tag; this cross-lists the discussion on the RfC list, and then the eyes of new editors to the talk page and article in question. NPOVN, on the other hand, is one of a few noticeboards (others include ANI, RSN, NORN, etc.) that you can post on to get advice specifically related to the policy/guideline in question (or, in the case of ANI, get admin attention to an immediate problem needing admin intervention). Just letting you know so that you don't get confused or confuse others in the future. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries[edit]

Hi

I appreciate that things are getting heated in your discussions on the article talk and NPOVN board, and that the subject is a sensitive one.

I also understand that people can sometimes be annoying, but please try to refrain from using edit summaries like "idiot" - they really are a misuse of the summary and could also leave people thinking that you are perhaps less worthy of listening to, and so not pay full attention to your point of view.

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to myself actually, but I hit the submit button too quickly. Check the edit summary a few diff's later. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In which case I fully apologise :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
np Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which administrator[edit]

Which administrator should I post this on? and I was told to post it there by some one. Intoronto1125 (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can try User:Magog the Ogre. He's a fair admin, but make sure you keep your posts short. Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hm?[edit]

Sorry, wasn't sure if you saw my comment. What do you think of my more recent suggestions for wording? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to provide me with a diff, since you guys wrote a lot. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry. I had suggested:
  • using a word that implies more than "some" but fewer than "routinely," such as "many," "often," or "frequently"
  • shifting the sentence from the passive into the active, as we actually used to have it: rather than "CPCs have been found to...," use "Undercover investigations by journalists, congressional investigators, and pro-choice activists have found that CPCs..." in order to convey that this is what all our sources say, while hopefully removing the implication that some users see about CPCs that are not mentioned in any sources
-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Many," "often," or "frequently" all have quantities attached. So, they are not a better solution than "routinely".
I don't see a difference between the active and passive, but that's just me. Personally, I think the passive itself was already okay. The reason I disagreed originally was because pronoun being used: "They have been found... ". If you simply used a plural proper noun: "CPC's have been found... ", then I think it is fine.
By the way, if User:Qwyrxian was involved in this page before, then you can maybe ask for his opinion as well. Since he has a Master's in writing and rhetorics, he may be one of the more qualified people to give an educated suggestion on this. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that using "CPCs" in place of "They" would be good. Would the first clause then read "While they provide..." to avoid repetition? (And thanks for the recommendation re: Qwyrxian.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I looked at the entire paragraph, this is a bit more complicated. A recommendation I have, is:
"Their primary functions are to provide (...). While they provide (...), there are reports of CPC's disseminating false medical informatio (...).
I guess in this case, the active voice for this sentence can help the paragraph flow better. However, this is not an unique solution and I am sure others can come up with better. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the option (which also used to be the way it was) of just scrapping the contrastive sentence. "CPCs provide peer counseling related to abortion, pregnancy and childbirth, and may also provide pregnancy testing, STD screening, adoption referrals, religious counseling, financial assistance, prenatal services, child-rearing resources and other services. CPCs have been found to disseminate false medical information, usually but not exclusively about the health risks of abortion." It's infelicitous, but if it avoids a content problem, perhaps it is better. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do find that to be a repeat of the first sentence so it's definitely not needed. Once you worked out a solution, you should share it with Lionel and others. Hopefully, they will agree. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wikitiquette comment[edit]

[I left a comment on the noticeboard]--Screwball23 talk 23:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will look at it. Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. He didn't like my comment, didn't he? I guess I better respond. Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bobthefish2/Archive_1&oldid=1187075825"