This is a Wikipediauser page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Enkyo2/Sandbox-L.
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).
One never notices what has been done; one can only see what remains to be done. -- Marie Curie
De Heer van Tanba is Kutsuki Masatsuna (1750-1802) of, voluit, Kutsuki Oki no kami Minamoto no Masatsuna, een goede vriend van Opperhoofd Isaac Titsingh (1745-1812) aan wie deze zijn vertaling van de Annalen van Japan opdroeg, overigens zonder te weten dat deze inmiddels overleden was (cf. C.R. Boxer, Jan Compagnie in Japan 1600-1817. The Hague 1950, Appendix IV; F. Lequin, The private correspondence of Isaac Titsingh, I. [Japonica neerlandica, IV] Amsterdam 1990, Brief 201, pp. 459ff.). Overigens werd mij eerst na het uitspreken van deze rede duidelijk dat een bewerking van de catalogus van de collectie van de Heer van Tanba in voorbereiding is.
Jōō (承応), alternatively read as Shōō, was a Japanese era name (年号,, nengō,, lit. "year name") after Keian and before Meireki. This period spanned the years from 1652 through 1655. The reigning emperors were Go-Komyo-tennō (後光明天皇) and Go-Sai-tennō (後西天皇)
At the Belgian border crossing, huge nunbers of rabbits appear one day and declare that they are political refugees. "The Gestapo wants to arrest all giraffes as enemies of the state." -- "But your're not giraffes!" -- "We know that, but try explaining that to the Gestapo!" Erik Larson, In the Garden of the Beasts, p. 386 n.57, citing Evans, Richard J. The Third Reich in Power 1933-1939, New York: Penguin 2005.
The ambit of lines: represnts" • Blue = ArbCom's view of a "good" wiki-article • Red = Content which remains undisputed • Green = Content which is disputed .
More awareness of a growing issue that is poisoning the very essence of collaborative editing that makes Wikipedia possible: real-world factions that vie for control over articles, turning them into polemical battlegrounds where surface civility is used to cover bias, tendentiousness and even harassment. ArbCom needs to take a strong stance against that sort of "polite disruption" and those who use our rules of civility as weapons, recognize that long-term warriors are toxic, not vested, and investigate beyond surface behavior issues.
Less timidity in addressing issues related to contents (POV warring, tag teams, academic dishonesty). While it is appropriate that the Committee never rules on contents, it should be more active at curtailing content disputes. Academic integrity should become a priority; 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".
4) Since prior to the start of the case, the involved parties have raised allegations of impropriety pertaining to each other in multiple forums all across Wikipedia. [2] While participation in the case is welcome in the form of providing evidence and commenting on the ruling, excessive and repetitive remarks both on the case pages and in other venues was unproductive for dispute resolution.
xx) Since prior to the start of the case, the involved parties have raised allegations of impropriety pertaining to each other in multiple forums all across Wikipedia. [14] While participation in the case is welcome in the form of providing evidence and commenting on the ruling, excessive and repetitive remarks both on the case pages and in other venues was unproductive for dispute resolution. [15], [16], [17], soliciting for uninvolved user to provide evidence.
We can add loads more diffs to document the bad blood between the involved parties. I'm not opposed to putting more in the various Fof. The point is that the discord needs to end when the case closes. This means everyone needs to disengage from each other. You (Caspian blue) have a tendency to talk about users in a way that fans the flames. It is something that needs to stop going forward. Walk away and let other people deal with an issue. Life is too short to get annoyed over content disputes. Really :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 23:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Question Perhaps you may want to see/remind/or add these as evidences in the section.
On reviewing your contributions, I don't think it will take you long. You're clearly rather intelligent, and I think all that's needed are tweaks, different habits of speech, and different tools for responding rather than anything major.
I have now begun to read the background to this matter. I am dismayed because a lot of it seems to be about things far beyond my expertise. I'm sorry to say that I have little knowledge of China, Korea, and Japan, and I am very aware it would be easy for me to give offence by accident. If I do, I did not mean to.
I want to say a few things about ArbCom, and then a few things about English.
Arbcom
Wikipedia's "dispute resolution" system doesn't resolve content disputes. That's not what it's for. It deals only with matters of conduct. Wikipedia does not have a system for resolving content disputes. This is the central fact about ArbCom.
Where an editor is in a content dispute, they will sometimes try to find ways to turn it into a conduct dispute, because once bad conduct on the other side's part has been shown, they will be sanctioned — and the content dispute is won by default. There are Wikipedians who are very good at using this system to their benefit.
It follows that when you are in a content dispute, it is essential to avoid giving the other side a chance to make it into a conduct dispute. This calls for extremely careful use of language, and I am pleased to see you have acted quite correctly by asking someone about it.
I want to say that personally, I am unwilling to edit any page concerned with an ArbCom dispute. I do not participate there. I have never done so and I hope I never will.
Clear English
1) Use short words.
2) Use short sentences. Not necessarily all the time; it is okay to use long sentences as well, provided there are also short ones. Aim to make your average sentence no more than ten or twelve words long.
3) Use short paragraphs. Three or four sentences per paragraph should be the average.
4) Avoid qualifiers. This may seem strange, but English is often clearer when you do not use adjectives or adverbs. Instead, use more powerful verbs.
Example:
"It was raining heavily" --> "Rain slashed down". To most native English speakers, the second sentence seems stronger, clearer and more vivid.
5) Give examples, as I just did.
6) In a potential dispute situation, never use the second person if there is another option.
Examples:
"You're wrong" --> bad
"I disagree" --> good
7) If you must use the second person, use the first person as well.
"You shouldn't do that" --> bad
"I think it would be better if you did this" --> good
8) Flag everything even remotely contentious as your opinion, rather than as fact. Give reasons why it's your opinion.
"That's wrong" --> bad
"I think that's wrong because..." --> good
I hope this helps you, and I wish you the best of luck with your dispute.—S MarshallTalk/Cont 00:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the bonsai tree!
There's a lot about Wikipedia that's beyond everyone's grasp. I'm certain that even Jimbo Wales would be baffled by many of the things that happen here.
I'm going to take one particular section of your answer and break it down.
"I find it persuasive that Yaan focused attention, in part, on the intimate relationship between the credibility of authors and the verifiability of their work. In the context of our dispute, Teeninvestor's lack of information about the authors, Li Bo (historian) (李波) and Zheng Yin (historian) (郑颖), is inconclusive. In the absence of credible information about the authors or the publisher, Inner Mongolia People's Publishing House (内蒙古人民出版社), the fact that Teeninvestor's citations conform to a recognizable formatting style is not relevant. What is relevant is the search to verify or confirm the credibility of the published text which is said to inform specific sentences at Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. Compliance with WP:CITE doesn't in itself convert 5000 years of Chinese history (中华五千年) ipso facto into anything other than a citation.
I might have tried to convey the same ideas like this:
"Yaan speaks of the relationship between an author's credibility and his verifiability, and I find that persuasive. I think Teeninvestor knows little about Li Bo and Zheng Yin. I don't think we have credible information about the authors or publisher, so I think the formatting style of Teeninvestor's citations is irrelevant. What matters is whether the source is credible. It is my position that this source is not credible. 5000 years of Chinese history is clearly cited in the correct format, but that does not make it a reliable source.
(diff) "A case about editing conflicts on Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. Passing remedies include restricting and placing mediation on Tenmei, and general admonitions to behave."
(diff) "A case about editing conflicts on Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. The final decision provided for restrictions and a mentorshop for Tenmei and general admonitions to all users involved in the dispute. It also urged a review of content issues on the article by previously uninvolved editors."
