User:Tenmei/Sandbox-O

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Himorogi in Japan are most commonly seen at construction sites, where they stand for a while before actual work begins. The zigzag-shaped paper streamer hanging from the boundary ropes are called shide (紙垂).

Alternate

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Coren#Candidate statement; [1]

HYPOTHESIS: WP:V + WP:RS present a way to distinguish between "pro-Wikipedia" contributors/contributions and others.

FACT A: Problems in the development of Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute are representative of a range of related issues which are poisoning the kind of collaborative editing which makes our Wikipedia possible.

PREMISE: Mediation pretends that this fact is not demonstrated and not relevant; and instead, the mediation process begins by postulating the opposite.

COROLLARY: Academic integrity is not a priority, not the ultimate goal of collaboration nor mediation.

FACT B: There are real-world factions that vie for control over articles, turning them into polemical battlegrounds where surface civility is used to cover bias, tendentiousness, harassment, etc.

PREMISE: Mediation pretends that this fact is neither demonstrable nor relevant; and instead, the mediation process begins by postulating the opposite.

COROLLARY: All disputes are between individuals only; and they are best resolved by ascribing the crux of controversy to factors unrelated to content.

FACT C: There are long-term toxic warriors who engage in a kind of "polite disruption", using our policies and rules of civility as weapons.

PREMISE: Mediation pretends that acknowledging this fact is unhelpful; and instead, the mediation process begins by postulating the opposite.

COROLLARY: This mediation pretends that long-term warriors are not toxic, but vested.

1. Unlike "simple" incivility, the damage caused by editors misquoting, plagiarizing and editorializing destroys the credibility of our encyclopedia.

• Increased transparency in the arbitration process, the Arbitrators must explain their decisions in better detail beyond a simple "aye/nay" and expose their reasoning and justification. It is important that the community understands why the Committee rules as it does, not just receive seemingly arbitrary edicts from "on high".

The Diaoyu/Senkaku dispute is not the only maritime territorial dispute that either China or Japan has with their neighboring countries. The possible negative domino effect of the dispute is what China and Japan attempt to avoid. The real importance of the islands lies in the dispute’s implications for the wider context of the two countries’ approaches to maritime and island disputes, as well as in the way in which those issues can be used by domestic political groups to further their own objectives. This overlapping interest, however, has made finding an acceptable solution to sovereignty controversy more challenging. -- http://www.cewp.fudan.edu.cn/attachments/article/68/Pan%20Zhongqi,%20Sino-Japanese%20Dispute%20over%20the%20DiaoyuSenkaku%20Islands%20The%20Pending%20Controversy.pdf

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions ... proposal in table format

You can always check the previous threads to see what others say. Again, I don't really care. Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Responding to the question Qwyrxian presents in the last sentence of the diff above:

• Question: What logical reason is there for the Chinese names to come first?
• Answer: In October 2010, Winstonlighter explained ,
  "I'm concerned about this because by chronography,
  Chinese names and records will go ahead of the Japanese ones." I can only wonder if this is the crux of Winstonlighter's argument? In this context, it must be noted that chronography redirects to our article on chronology, which suggests a distinction without a difference? According to Winstonlighter, "the changes on name ordering have been reverted by adminstrators, me and many others in the past whole year" prior to October 2010 when an explicit talk page thread asking for consensus on Name ordering was created.

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Compare threads which considered the subject of "name ordering", e.g.,

• Archive 4: here, here, here and here
• Archive 6: here
• Archive 7: here, here, here and here

Expanding, supporting and emphasizing the core point Qwyrxian presents in the diff above: Yes, the name of this article — Senkaku Islands — is the result of consensus supported by policy and redundantly repeated, exhaustive research applying a variant-Bayesian inference and analysis of Google search results, etc. ... and extended discussion

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Compare threads which considered the subject of "article name", e.g.,

• Archive 1: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here
• Archive 2: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, hre, and here
• Archive 3: here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here
• Archive 4: here and here,
• Archive 5: here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here
• Archive 6: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here,
• Archive 7: here

In other words, a mere straw poll conducted among a few active editors who demonstrate intensity of preference is not consensus and polling is not a substitute for discussion. The edit history of this talk page is a compelling record, including many threads which address "name ordering" and "article name" and the relationship between them. --Tenmei (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipeia:Requests for comment/Tenmei

  Qwyrxian's so-called "compromise" is impossible when mere straw man contrivances created with zero-WP:V and zero-WP:RS are presented as if they were fair restatements of the Japanese position (supported by WP:V + WP:RS). In the process of revisiting the definition of the word "compromise", I found a timely quote: "All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Any compromise on mere fundamentals is a surrender. For it is all give and no take. — Mohandas Gandhi

G. Any complaints about me in this context are red herrings, even when there are many ways in which I could arguably improve the effectiveness of my contributions and participation.

• Qwyrxian, edit count/pie chart
  
• Nick-D, edit count/pie chart
  

What all four have in common is this: Bad faith]