User:Tenmei/zandbak/Honshu

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
This is a Wikimedia Commons user page.

If you find this page on any site other than Wikimedia Commons, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikimedia Commons itself. The original page is located at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tenmei/zandbak/Honshu.


azərbaycanca | български | বাংলা | čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Nederlands | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | shqip | slovenščina | svenska | ไทย | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Wikimedia Commons

{{dubious}}[edit]

I found the use of this template by Nick early on in the dispute somewhat amusing. One can not dispute a citation with the editor who had added it, though one can take the claims up with the original editor of the cited material. The template use states in part

This template is not for flagging items that an editor simply thinks might be incorrect or unsourced (this is what {{fact}} is for). It is for tagging statements that are subject to ongoing dispute among editors, e.g. due to conflicting sources or doubts about sources' reliability.

At the time the "dispute" was but two reverts old, and there were no other sources in the article other than your own--User:Mrg___ 13:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

related aspects of the Wikipedia project: WP:V and WP:Consensus.[edit]

It seems to me that many editors, while not having a problem with writing, have a problem with reading. The problem is not restricted to me or you putting together logical constructs that seek to reason-out the issues at hand within various articles and how they relate to the general Wikipedia framework. While I have been told I am verbose and that "too long, didn't read" takes over, which explains some appalling discontinuity in some article sections I have encountered, it also applies to shorter text such as this

You will note that these are in two sections

Article standards

  • Neutral point of view
  • *Verifiability*
  • No original research
  • Biographies of living persons

Working with others

  • Civility
  • No personal attacks
  • No legal threats
  • *Consensus*
  • Dispute resolution

Here is the funny thing, Article standards are NO WHERE mentioned on the /Wikipedia:Consensus. Simply put, people have no idea what they are talking about when they insist that anything is decided by consensus in Wikipedia. Consensus is part of the process how editors work together, not how Article standards are truncated for the sake of group opinion on any given subject regardless of facts. And this is the reason I get into trouble with Civility. When I see people over-riding article standards with a behaviour modification process using administrative "tools" to get their opinion into the articles, I become quite distracted.

I will see what I was doing in mid July and get back to you--User:Mrg___ 22:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, yes. You've caused a number of disparate threads to come together with this observation. In terms of payback, this perceptive observation could be your intellectual reward for the time and thought invested in the Wikipedia project. This comment solves no problems, addresses no issues; but it reveals that you've been able to ascribe a sophisticated construct from the available data. I had noticed this in a vague, inchoate manner; but I had not myself been able to move beyond that inital data-gathering phase towards more scholarly synthesis and analysis.
Now I begin to appreciate how and why your targeted interventions were so consistent across the range. I see ... precisely selected edits for maximum effect? --User:T___ 01:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how it was construed to be lying, but I think this may have been the post referred to by User:BillCJ--User:Mrg___ 05:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties - included[edit]

It seem because I am brought into that AN/I, I am not an involved party, so maybe I will find out why I am called "disruptive" also--User:Mrg___ 03:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Junk food and single-edged swords[edit]

Yes, that is how the original reply to you was to conclude, alas I decided to cut it short.

In essence I study conflicts not necessarily for the obvious reasons, but as a reflection on societies the engage in them. How conflicts are conducted is also illustrative of the social culture, and the individuals who subject themselves to its influences.

As it happens, Wikipedia has developed a sub-culture among other virtual cultures, and how it manages conflicts is illustrative of it. Conflicts are a necessary evil of social expansion, usually linked to some productive or consumptive processes. In Wikipedia, far from espousing being ostentatiously egalitarian, it has become a technocracy, that is it is no longer important what such a society produces, or what the inputs into the process are, but that the process is maintained regardless. Anyone who seeks to highlight this are ostracised as "......." (insert your favourite wikiword) for meddling with the process. And yet, the output is intended for consumption by the wider and far more real society that would use this information unquestioningly to form insight and opinion on the subjects of articles.

That is why I devote time to trying to ensure that articles are correctly named. If one can not pose the question what it is the article is intended to be about, and frame it succinctly in the title, what is the point of seeking to capture the essence of the subject in the content of the piece?

It could be that I do suffer from Confirmation bias, but I can not say because in each case information available had been centred on limited sources which is not may usual approach. I do in fact try to follow a self-imposed rule that no article I create is to be authored without consulting at least three references on the subject, so I do strive to avoid "tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoids information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs". There is of course the obligatory Tolstoy 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."[1]

That I failed to convince people in something, does not discourage me because numbers in the pursuit of insight rarely matter. The correct conclusions of enquiry, no matter how well diluted in preconceptions, will, like the oil in water, always rise to the top eventually--User:Mrg___ 04:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The 1st English edition of The Kingdom of God Is Within You, 1894
I take your point ...; but it appears to me that you argue a number of specific propositions only in a series of select venues chosen by someone else. Instead, would it not be at least equally effective, and plausibly more effective to contemplate a strategic, coordinated campaign across a broader spectrum. On one hand, you appear to have adopted Gandhi's point-of-view -- that "even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth." You do also recognize that Gandhi's formulation is too simplistic -- not incorrect, and yet a bit misleading precisely for the same reasons that the words sound so compelling.
In contrast, you invite me to ponder the Tolstoy formulation, and you encourage me to acknowledge that it is very much on-point in the context of Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. Indeed, you appear to argue, this crisp quotation is more useful precisely because it captures a more complicated set of applictions. Without disagreeing or changing the subject, what I'm suggesting here is that you've overlooked a complementary tactical opportunity in the long twilight struggle ....
Consider this: YOU presented a very clear and compelling quote from Tolstoy. For you it was familiar -- obvious. For me it was unfamiliar -- unknown. I could (and did) verify the accuracy of your citation by checking Google books. One could have checked out Wikisource, and I did. It simply didn't occur to me that this polemic would have it's own article in Wikipedia, but I did eventually find that page as well. However, what you seem to have taken to have been a very well-known quotation was not yet incorporated into Wikiquotes. Although I did add it to the Tolstoy page, there seems to be an obvious error in that I did not cross-reference the quotation elsewhere within Wikiquotes.
I'm noting that you seem to be making a coherent argument only in those instances which provide opposition. Why not broaden your conception of the contested arena? As a constructive suggestion, I invite you to focus on repeating and refining your reasoning in the corollary sites after a dispute in one place will have reached an impasse. Expressed differently, you could have made a scrupulously neutral contribution in advance of a dispute by attending to the corollaries as I have done in terms of this one quotation from Tolstoy. The question becomes, why not?
I am suggesting that if you're going to go to all the trouble it takes to ruffle feathers, you might as well use the focused analysis which accompanies a specific dispute as a utilitarian research tool which highlights aspects of a subject in ways you may not have previously understood.
As you know, User:ND___ has a specific point-of-view which is arguably neutral. Consistent with that point of view and presumed neutrality, anyone can find his username in the edit histories of Hyūga class helicopter destroyer, Dokdo class amphibious assault ship, and Jane's Fighting Ships -- but not Global Security.org. One could as easily ask why or why not?
At this point, for me, the overview devolves once again to the related topics which first brought User:Mrg___ to my attention -- the crucial relationship between WP:Verifiability and WP:Consensus, which is not the same as WP:Straw polls. --User:T___ 20:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I need to invest a little time in chasing down this quotation: "Einstein said, "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them"? --User:T___ 21:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I have very limited time to solve Wikipedia problems. Even less so from today. What other editors who outvoted me in the previous discussions don't realise is that by doing so they directly affected the flow of my contributions, which I measure in producing solid, i.e. referenced and cited articles, nothing else. Everything outside of that is peripheral. I know I contribute in those terms more than the average editor. I contacted several ArbCom Committee members; only one replied. I sought advice from long time respected editor and administrator, and was told nothing will change. I don't have the time to invest in the Village Pump to shift wikitorpidity.
My enjoyment here comes from the articles, and not trying to point to people their own policies and how they are blatantly negating them, and common sense. One should not place a barrier before the blind, but if the blind choose to ignore the warning, it is a choice made freely. I did not create the problems. I try to work within the existing sets of policies, guidelines and conventions, but I am first and foremost an editor; my concern is with data, not bureaucracy. I see intrusion of the later into the realm of the former as a form of violence. I know very much about weapons and warfare. Where a quick and complete success can not be gained, one has to consolidate the position, renew one's resources, rethink strategy...or ask if a further effort will gain more than the resources one is prepared to expand.
I will support any initiative you may deem worth while because I see that you are now understanding the crux of the matters at hand. However, I can not be the initiator of these strategies. Wikipedia is just an outlet of relaxation for me, or was intended to be, and not a significant and essential occupation in daily life though I had tried to contribute significantly to it, sometimes making unnecessary sacrifices for sake of doing something which I now see to be overly idealistic and ill conceived.
Let me be blunt, the idea of Wikipedia was, to produce a reliable online reference work. It has failed at that, and produced an online sub-culture. This is plain to see from the ratio of reference quality articles vs total articles available. I can spend 24/7 for a year adding the {{unreferenced}} tag to articles, and not cover the lot.
People who edit articles are editors. "Wikipedians" are clearly not just that. For some it has become a refuge in life from their inability to have a life outside of the virtual environment. They are no longer office workers, Americans, trades people, Indians, students, but "Wikipedians". They see this belonging as a value in itself, and will defend it, because it has become for them far more than it will, I suspect, be for either of us. It is why Christianity was banned in Japan, and why Communism was fought in the Russian Empire. The pursuit of ideals foreign to the society which take on a social order of itself to seek and change society. Consider the implications this has in the medical science. Life is growth, but when that growth seeks to overwhelm life, what is one to do with it?
Fortunately sharp instruments are not limited to either scalpels or Japanese swords :) The pen is mightier, for it can be as sharp as the tongue that wields it ;-) I may pursue that strategy because at least I will be paid for the effort, so will be appreciated for it--User:Mrg___ 00:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
PS. You may find this an interesting read to understand how Wikipedia changes--User:Mrg___ 00:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Your words sound like an enigmatic valedictory. I will need time to think about this -- indeed, I need time to think through what I myself have written here. The substance of these musings are food for thought. At the same time, I want to reiterate how it was only accidental chance which brought you came to my attention at all. This is a good point to re-post the beginning of the thread I started on your talk page:
I'm contacting you because of one small excerpt from a larger thread:
Strong oppose - This is a joke right? You want someone dismissed as a coordinator because they disagreed with your position on an article's name????????????????????????? Heeheeheehee! Thanks for the laugh - I need it! And thought maybe he had done something really bad, like support me in a dispute on whether a Japanese DDH was an aircraft carrier or not. Whewwww! - BillCJ (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
BillCJ, no, I am not asking to dismiss Nick because he disagrees with the historical name of the article, but the way he is going about achieving this, by using a straw poll to change it to a fictitious name unsupported by references which is completely contrary to Wikipedia policy and community consensus on straw polls.--Mrg___ 03:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC) [emphasis added by T___, 11 August]]
I wonder what you made of BillCJ's odd observation? I would have thought you found it obscure or otherwise inexplicable? No matter -- I can explain. I'm the one he was angry with in this sentence, not you ... or at least, I'm the one who had the temerity to add a one-sentence edit to Hyūga class helicopter destroyer and he didn't like it. In scanning the page where I found this trivial exchange, it was the "DDH" which caught my attention.
I stumbled into your further response only as a secondary matter.
Allow me to be somewhat enigmatic as well: My response to that accident which brought us together has produced unexpected and felicitous consequences, not least of which was an unanticipated lens for re-examining the likes of Kume Kunitake or Tsuda Sōkichi. Without explaining in more detail, just accept that I don't really intend to be quite so flattering ..., but the fact-of-the-matter is that your non-standard, under-valued point-of-view did suggest different lines of inquiry than I'd previously thought were relevant in coming to grips with such disparate topics as Tsuji Zennosuke or Wikipedia's consensus reality.--User:T___ 05:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
What a delicious article! However I note the tag "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards." - standards determined by consensus :)--User:Mrg___ 06:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You, Chapter III
  2. Tolstoy, Leo. (1894). The Kingdom of God is Within You (translator, Constance Garnett), p. 70.
  3. Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You: [1]
  4. Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You: [2]