User talk:Dwy

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Dwy! I'm Celestianpower. I noticed that you were new and/or have yet to receive any messages so I just thought I'd pop in to say "hello". Hello. Wikipedia can be a little intimidating at first, since it's so big but we won't bite so Be Bold and get what you know down in microchips! If you do make a mistake, that's fine, we'll assume good faith and just correct you: it'll take a few seconds maximum! Here, however, are a few links to get you started:

There are lots of policies and guidelines to get to grips with but they all make your life easier and your stay more fun in the long run. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or add {{helpme}} to your userpage - someone will come very, very quickly to your aid. Please be sure to sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, along with a link to your user page. This way, others know when you left a message and how to find you. It's easier than having to type out your name, right? ;)

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. We can use all the help we can get! Have a great time, all the best, sayonara and good luck! --Celestianpower ^talk 17:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tsushima Island

Apparently, I notice strange behaviour and sensitivity on some topics among you Japanese users, (but never mind, I don't want to elaborate, small matter)...

I realised that you have removed the 対馬島 from the article. Previously, you noticed the edit that I have added "Tsushima Island (対馬島), better known as Tsushima (対馬島)...".

I added 対馬島 is merely to rhyme with the english equivalent of Tsushima Island, and I know that the Japanese government and people simply call Tsushima rather than Tsushima Island, in which if I'm not mistaken, is the official name which Japan itself uses for adminstrative purposes. Had I denied this fact (which is totally absurd to do so), I wouldn't even added "better known as Tsushima". The main purpose of my edit is to reinforce facts, that's all, not to spur controversies.

If you have strong objections otherwise, please state so in my talk page. I would very much like to hear about it soon. Thanks! Mr Tan 07:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dwy, please see my reply on Tsushima Island. It is a rather tricky problem on 対馬島/対馬 and Tsushima/Tsu/Tsushima Island, though. And please leave a note/reply on my talk page after your response. I greatly appreciate that. Thanks. Mr Tan 07:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to fun, fun, fun

I happened into the Tsushima Island article, and noticed your posts on the talk. Personally, the article was rather mature back last August when I last looked at it. It is now full of (?), (??), and (???) which are not proper wikiediting that I've ever seen. But I digress. My point to you is that you need to puruse the Talk archieves if you're going to edit in an article that has become the personal prize pet of some editor or editors, and take a long look back at the history- say to early last June. If after doing those two things, you want to involve yourself be on guard. I see you are new as an editor, so you may want to look at a few other things I'll get back to you on.
Oh, the Tsushima (no Island or Islands appended) was one of the compromise proposals back in July—August when debating the name change/move article proposal. Notice the template on the name at the top of the talk page. That's now a dead horse. Reading the 2nd archive onwards to current business is well advised. If you want a feel for just how silly some editwars can get, start with the first archive. You can get the picture starting with just #2.
Feel free to poke around my user page and lift things for your own references. You may be interested in the community contributions section, in particular. Then, too there are a lot of good links and tools and links to tools and neat pages for to study techniques. FrankB 16:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Helping Hand or More

I just left this yesterday for another newbie, so if something isn't quite edited now into context, forgive me, as there is other complications for him.

You'll be watched closely for a couple of months as a newbie, (or Anom., but not as much as the Anoms are watched.) You can go to them by entering your IP in the search window just as you can cut and paste (CnP) 'user:Mel_Etitis' or 'user_talk:Mel_Etitis' there, which will take you to his user pages.
When wikified as links the equivelents are: user:Mel_Etitis / user talk:Mel_Etitis. (He's a good admin to know for all that he's 'a bloody Brit'! <G>) I should note editing someone's user page is a big no-no (to save), but Talks are considered part of wikiDocumentation, and are held in common for all. So to keep something to you alone, put it in your user:page or user sub pages. But not User Talk. For example, I'm going to cut this out and create a user subpage called welcome by generating this link User:fabartus/Welcome_message, which will show up here as a redlink (empty article title) as far as the wiki search engine in concerned. Once I preview, I'll click the redlink and paste in the contents. So you'll see a bluelink to new article AFTER I save this edit therein. (See! Told you it'd be blue!) <G>
or a similar link— Unwikfied: Gets to my talk page. These are the three of the four ways of getting around in Wiki and/or in using links, so edit this section and study the differences. (And now you know how to create a new page from scratch as well.)
The fourth is by direct URL: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:24.61.229.179&redirect=no an explicit cite here, and a link to my IP (note the &redirect=no, a form should you want to edit it and delete the redirect (Don't!, now you know one way to edit such); the point is the IP and User:BlahBlahBlah are entirely interchangable, assuming the IP isn't an institutional gateway like a library firewall—then it could mean hundreds of users.
User_talk:24.61.229.179 gets you to the other more indirectly... you're on my talk, but with a bluelink indicating you went through the redirect up near the article title. By clicking on the blue link, you will go to the page redirecting you here. So you can edit that away too (Don't!).
My user page has a lot of good stuff on it. It's part of the wikiCulture that people expect you to steal things from user and Talk pages, so open up one edit window where you want to put it, and the edit window where the source is, and copy away using CnP from window to window... back out or jump to a new URL in the source window edit, and no harm done. It's also pretty much invisible and untraceable. I've a group of interesting user pages (now dated, I suspect some have changed) that use various WikiMetaLanguage effects and lists. Poke around, and browse 90%:10% editing, the ten will be much more productive that way all the sooner and can become 99%+ soon enough. If you're into sci-fi I'm working virtually alone on a ten plus article series of articles (sadly neglected) talk: 1632 series will get you to most current planned links about a section or two down.
I'm around often right now, and glad to help. If I'm not actively on Wiki, the best and fastest way to get me is generally by an email... I tend to long careful edits. A whole chain of short edits just messes up the history pages, which are a very useful tool. By that link, you can see that you can preview an edit, then follow links in the generated copy downstream to check them. That's how I get into such chains of edits. It does require a lot of using of BACKSPACE to get back to the most recently previewed changes... especially if you get five or six articles downstream with nested edits and (usually multiple) preview looks along the way! I don't recommend it, but don't often take my own advice either! <G>
You can see from this edit, how to place numbered points in a document
1. Here's the next level of numbered indents. Wiki works with browser text size scaling, so when making an edit around images and such, check the wrapping and placement of such by zooming in an out while viewing the effects on the whole. Sometimes you can fill up a lot of otherwise whitespace by correctly placing the image within the text, and/or by changing its thumbnail size (px).
2. Which is useful, depending on the context and subject matter. Some boilerplate templates (e.g. Battle of... articles, say Battle of Tsushima) crowd things aside, and you have to play around to see how well you can make them look. Nagasaki, Nagasaki is illustrative, or was some months ago. It had an obnoxious amount of whitespace when I started editing it(1). See if you can find that back in the history (hint: search on fabartus in the history tab).
And one can return to the main flow thusly. (And the above shows one method of entering a footnote as well. (we're progressing!)
So make yourself at home. It's a really important good habit to puruse a Talk page, and the article history page before editing a matured article. I have some links to catalog type pages where articles are immature. But this is Wiki, one edits where one's interests take them.
Some good places to start getting a feel for the culture (And it is a community with it's own rules and expectations of and on members) are these (mainly talk pages). The one we discussed above is a particularly educational series of pages. Have a couple of spare hours before reading!
1. WP:VP - The village Pump is the community center BB of sorts
2. WP:AfD - The Articles for deletion debate pages. These are also excellent for meeting up and comers and established Admins that you can ask for help. My page has link to all the Admins somewhere under useful links.
3. WP:RFC - Request for Comments
4. WP:JIMBO - Jimmy Wales own talk page. A lot of folks congregate and it serves to give you an idea of hot topics. Follow some of them to their own talks, as they are mostly very senior or very presumptuous. Check their contributions to see which.
One last steer:
1. If you follow the category at the bottom of my user pages, you should get to a list with some poking around entitled 'Wikipedians Welcome Committee' or such like.
2. (You can cheat and start at CAT:CAT and work your way back down if you can't find a way up— it is there, however. These two exercises will give you an excellent peek into the category system and empower you to get around inside wiki all the better)
3. That link should give you a list of editors and admins that have volunteered to help new editors such as yourself. Another avenue would be to look at the categories at the bottom of the first user who left you the welcome message. These three ways should get you to the same list of admins. I should copy a link to that myself for my user page!
Suggest you set up a Bookmark/Favorites folder (Term depends on which browser you're using) that is alphabetically near the top, to hold only useful wikipedia links. e.g. Mine is called 'aWiki', so it floats (above) alphabetically over top of most all other folder names. Helps when want to put things in fast, or find them fast.
Look at the page history now to see the comparative edits. tab back and forward, and see the changes. Note that my signed edit ends in the status line with my signature but no time. ~~~ is signed in the status window, the four '~' version is used in talk pages which are like delayed time chat rooms.
Tables and tablelike resources:
1. Access some of the measurements and units articles like US customary units for tables examples.
2. Try history of Battles articles for examples of the later like Battle of Trafalgar (See the construct: {{Infobox Military Conflict ... }} in the edit window.

Lastly, once you've seen this, open a second browser to it, and puruse the finished version in one, and the edit window version in the other. Some good 'starter' tricks herein if I do say so myself! This should be enough to get you going and fill up lots of WikiTime with educational direct browsing! Good Hunting!
And Enjoy! FrankB 17:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Babel boxes

Dwy --

Just looking over your posts on various Talk pages, it looks to me like your English ability is well above Level 1 (beginner). Perhaps you meant to set it at Level 4 (near-native)? Just curious, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 19:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just popped in

... to say Hi! How's it going? Been a while since I welcomed you above and haven't heard from you. See you've kept with it too! Great! Best regards on behalf of WP:WC // FrankB 15:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Really nice to know I’m still being watched (as a newbie) by someone I can turn to when I need help.--Dwy 11:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting help translating a small bit of Japanese text

Hello Dwy, I was wondering if you could help translate the Japanese text in this diagram so that it could be used to build the key for this version. Any help would be appreciated! Kaldari (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I embarked on a quick web research in preparation for the requested work and came across this. This page appears to have been on the web since 2005, and I now doubt that the diagram is the original work of User:Tosaka. Isn’t there any license/copyright issue here?--Dwy (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, this is too difficult a task for me so let me just refer you to a website I found. I hope this will help.--Dwy (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's useful. I'm not sure about the license/copyright issue. The diagram might even be too simple to be copyrightable (At least the original version). Kaldari (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the diagram is probably too simple to be copyright.

I was actually curious about two words in the diagrams, 切境 and 切元, which, as my Internet research revealed, were never used in any other documents explaining about Japanese knives. I made inquiry to the company running the website posting the above mentioned article], and got a reply that they were simply typological errors -- the correct words are 刃境 and 刃元. To me, it appears most likely that the wrong words were blindly copied from the original diagram to the one in Commons. Anyway, I think we should correct File:Houchow_J.PNG.

In addtion, I also noticed that the arrow for 切境（or 刃境 if I use the correct word）points to slightly different position in the original] and the copy. Since 刃境 (hazakai) means the boundery line between high-carbon steel (yakiba) and soft iron (ji) forged together, the inner line as shown in the original seems correct position to point to. Maybe this should also be corrected in File:Houchow_J.PNG and File:Houchow_J.svg. --Dwy (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info! Kaldari (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Politically-motivated disruption on Talk:Yamanoue no Okura

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that this war still continues. Could you explain what is the problem? [1] I can provide sources from Japan's national library. --Juzumaru (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Juzumaruさんは現行版の「孝昭天皇の後裔＋渡来人説」記述にあまり違和感をお持ちでないようですが、私としては色々気に食わないところがあり、以下のような主張をしています。

欠史八代の天皇は実在が疑われており、「孝昭天皇の後裔といわれる」というのはいわば「伝承」であって、学者たちが「山上氏は（実際に）孝昭天皇の子孫である」と主張しているわけではない。誰が（何が）「孝昭天皇の後裔」と言っているのかをはっきり記述しないと、読者の誤解を招くおそれがある。「孝昭天皇の後裔」が新撰姓氏録にもとづく「伝承」であることを明記すべきである。
渡来人説をめぐってホットな論争が繰り広げられたわけだが、その構図は「国文学者が渡来人説を唱え、歴史学者がこれを否定した」というものであった。これを「孝昭天皇後裔説vs渡来人説」の論争だったように記述するのは（ミーラー強斗武さんなんかは本当にそういう図式の論争だったと思っているようですが）間違い。渡来人説に言及するなら、同時に「歴史学者には支持されていない」も併記して、学者間の論争を正しく描写すべきである。
Hijiri 88さんが15冊の百科事典の記述を分析しているが、それを見ても「帰化人・渡来人」とだけ言っていて「百済」とはっきり言っているものは少ない。また「柿本人麻呂と同祖」に言及しているのはたった1冊。一方で、新撰姓氏録や渡来人説に対する反対論の存在に言及する百科事典もそれなりにあるのに、それらへの言及は編集除去されてしまった。一体どういう基準で情報を取捨選択しているのか、どう考えても理解できない。ちゃんとした出典がある情報は全部記載すればいいじゃないか。

私としては普通に議論しているつもりなんですけど、相手の方が「政治的な意図が明白！！」とか訳の分からんことを言って騒いでいるのが現状。とりあえずは、相手の言っていることがまともな議論じゃないので、それほど心配することもないし、資料を調べて出していただいても、あまり役に立たないかと。--Dwy (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

思った通り、わけのわからない絡み方をしてくる人が相手なので、Juzumaruさんは黙って見ていてくれた方がよさそうです。--Dwy (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ENGLISHPLEASE, I'm posting a translation of Dwy's comments above. It was translated and posted by User:Hijiri88 on User:Sturmgewehr88's talk page. 223.25.160.43 (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC) (No, this is not one of Hijiri88's logged-out edits. I'm completely uninvolved in this "Yamanoue" debate, and have had no interaction with any of the discussants.)[reply]

Juzumaru, it seems you don't particularly mind the article stating "descended from Emperor Kōshō + the foreign origin theory", but it doesn't sit well with me personally, and so I am arguing the following points.
The historical existence of the eight legendary emperors is itself questionable, and "said to be descendant of Emperor Kōshō" is essentially a tradition, with scholars not actually arguing that "the Yamanoue clan were (really) descendants of Emperor Kōshō". Unless we specifically state who (or what) says "descended from Emperor Kōshō", there is a risk that the reader will draw the wrong conclusion. We need to make it clear that "descended from Emperor Kōshō" is a tradition based on Shinsen Shōjiroku.

The foreign origin theory was the subject of a heated debate, but the fact is that "scholars of Japanese literature propped up the foreign origin theory, and historians rejected it". To write as though it was a debate between "descended from Emperor Kōshō" and "foreign origin theory" (something people like User:Sturmgewehr88 honestly seem to believe) is just wrong. If we're going to cite the foreign origin theory then we also need to balance that with "this theory is not supported by historians" and give an accurate summary of the debate between scholars.

Hijiri88 analyzed the articles in 15 encyclopedias. Of these fifteen, the majority just say "kikajin / toraijin" (immigrant), and only a few specifically mention Baekje. There was only one that mentions "common ancestry with Kakinomoto no Hitomaro". On the other hand, even though a substantial number of encyclopedias made specifc mention of Shinsen Shojiroku and scholars' arguments against foreign origin theory, all such information has been removed. No matter how hard I try, I can't understand the criteria they applied in deciding what to keep and what to throw away. Shouldn't we just be adding everything that has a decent source behind it?

I think I'm just having a normal discussion, but my opponents is being agitated with his unintelligible accusations like "It's obvious you have a political agenda!!" Since his accusations have no substance, there's really nothing to worry about, and I don't think you digging up documents for me will help all that much. --Dwy (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Just as I thought, my opponents have an incomprehensible way of attacking me, so it's probably better that you just be quiet and keep watch from the sidelines. --Dwy (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

— originally written by User:Dwy in Japanese and translated into English by User:Hijiri88. (User talk:Sturmgewehr88#More "secret code that those other idiots can't read" from Dwy, diff), with some correction by User:Dwy (diff)

Thank you, 223.25.160.43. Although I am not too sure whether this inaccurate translation by my opponent is useful to anyone, I appreciate your concern.--Dwy (talk) 10:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I may be very late doing this, but probably "better late than never" so I made some correction to the translation by Hijiri88.--Dwy (talk) 09:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 182.249.241.40 (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ヰキプロジェクト琉球

はいさい, Dwy! I've noticed that you've contributed to the subject of Ryukyu. I invite you to join WikiProject Ryūkyū, AKA the Ryukyu task force, a collaborative effort to expand and deepen coverage of subjects pertaining to Ryukyuan geography, history, and culture. Here are a few links to pages to start you off:

See the main project page
Sign the participants page
See the To Do List
If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the talk page

I hope you'll take interest and decide to be a part of this project. めんそーれ! ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help asking you: do you really want me in the project, who you believe is "uncooperative and most definitely not WP:HERE"?

Anyway, I've put the project pages on my watchlist to see if there is anything I want to help with. --Dwy (talk) 08:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the Yamanoue no Okura article, yes, I believe you weren't WP:HERE. But elsewhere I'm sure you can be a good faith editor, and yes I would like you to be a part of the project. Thanks for getting interested. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will be me wherever I go. You can’t expect me to be in any way different in your project.

You blamed me of being uncooperative, but I would like you to ask yourself how I could cooperate with you when your knowledge on the topic was limited, so was your access to reliable sources, and yet you were sure that you were right and I was wrong – so sure as to call me not WP:HERE. I think you were being a bit impertinent and uncivil.

I may possibly want to contribute to improving some of the Ryuku-related articles in the future, but I am not sure that I will ever want to cooperate with you if you will behave in the same manner as you did in relation to the Okura article. --Dwy (talk) 03:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking you to be different. And it wasn't about "you're wrong and I'm right". I honestly have no interest in the article other than that it's in good shape. I got a little hot-headed near the end of it since I wanted it to be done with, and I'm sorry if I insulted you, and I'm sorry Hijiri88 felt the compulsion to be competitive with you. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand. If it wasn’t about “you’re wrong and I’m right”, what do you mean by “Concerning the Yamanoue no Okura article, yes, I believe you weren't WP:HERE”?

If you say "you are not WP:HERE", I think it normally means "Go away, and don't come back!" I am, however, planning to come back to the Okura article some time in the near future to make some edits in line with what I was arguing (along with other edits to expand the article).

I understand that you thought I was being disruptive changing my positions arbitrarily, and I tried to explain that I had been consistent in my position described in my post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive831#User:Dwy. Have I succeeded in making you see my points? Or at least in making you see the possibility that I was in good faith trying to improve the article? --Dwy (talk) 09:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By saying WP:NOTHERE, I meant that I thought you were carrying on the argument for the sake of arguing, and mostly because you switched positions after we had come to somewhat of a (unsatisfactory) consensus. My main problem with your final wording of "Nakanishi said he may of come from Baekje, but historians don't believe this" is that the wording is in such a way that you might as well not even bother mentioning it. It would be better to say something like "... But some historians have challenged this". Anyway, I do see that you were trying to improve it. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't switch positions. As I pointed out at the very beginning,[2] the consensus was clearly "Kasuga/Awata clans + Toraijin theory", and Hijiri88 unilaterally changed it to "imperial descent theory + Toraijin theory". It was really unfortunate that you didn't see the difference between "Kasuga/Awata clans" and "imperial descent".

As for the wording to describe the historians objections, I am happy to discuss it with anyone. But I believe the wording must be based on reliable sources rather than the original analysis and interpretation of Wikipedians.

Anyway, I am glad that you have accepted that I was in good faith and thank you for that.--Dwy (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I see now. And what I meant about your wording is that you implied all historians don't believe It. And you're welcome. By the way, are you busy currently? You said "I may possibly want to contribute... In the future" and "I am, however, planning on coming back... In the near future"? ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to solicitor

Hello! You removed the bit in solicitor about the Japan case, the purported connection to judicial scriveners. Well, I'm certainly not going to put it back, but I do suggest that tactically it might be better to have a mention, a clear distinction, and a wikilink. The reason is that once this is completely gone, when the next twit comes along and puts a whole chunk in again, it is not so easy for editors to recognise, unless they happen to be aware of the problem. I think it might also help to try to improve the judicial scrivener article, but it's not easy -- this is not exactly a topic with lots of well-written articles in English, and it's wildly outside my field of expertise. Anyway, I'll watch for now... Imaginatorium (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Imainatorium . Thank you for your comment. I understand your concern.

I initially thought there is really nothing we should say in the article, but I had a second thought and added some information back to the "Japan" section. I would appreciate it if you could review and improve it in any way you think fit. --Dwy (talk) 07:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]