User talk:Lvhis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Page titles

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Guangzhou Peasant Movement Institute a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Peasant Movement Training Institute at Guangzhou. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

HI Russ, thank you for the help and letting me learn how to correctly move all pages of an article to where their new title is. Sorry for any inconvenience caused by my that incorrect "cut and paste move". Regards, --Lvhis (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Diaoyu Islands

Hi,

Since you appear interested in the naming issue, I will give you a few things to think about:

• The article was originally named under something else (Pinnacle Islands?). It was moved to Senkaku Islands some 4-6 years ago by someone through the reasoning of "Japanese controlling the islands". Even though, this reasoning later didn't turn out too correct, subsequent attempts at changing the name were met with failure mostly due to POV-pushing. I think this one here has some particularly evident POV-pushing. If you read carefully, it is as if some would just vote OPPOSE for any convenient reason (and in this case, the support reason was refuted a few threads later but subsequent calls for re-vote were again dismissed). Personally, I believe the original move should be undone simply because its reasoning did not hold. However, it was opposed because some decided that since the name stayed that long, it should stay.
• The degree of Japanese control is disputable, since Chinese vessels had made regular visits to the surrounding water without permission and the Chinese government openly disregarded warnings from Japan.
• A "Senkaku/Diaoyu" dual name was proposed but was met with considerable resistance. One of the primary objections was that people would fight over "Diaoyu/Senkaku" vs. "Senkaku/Diaoyu". Personally, I think it's a silly reason because even though there may still be a conflict, the overall degree of WP:NPOV violation would be lessened, but oh well. The other primary objection was that "Senkaku/Diaoyu" dual names were rarely used in practice. Again, I consider this to be silly (perhaps to the point of wiki-lawyering), because most literature would simply use mention both names (i.e. Senkaku Islands or Diaoyu Islands) instead of creating some eccentric linguistic construct like that.
• There is a lot of debate regarding the relative frequency between Diaoyu and Senkaku Island term usage. Editors from both sides of the opinion had come up with statistics favourable to their argument and my caution to you is that these data can easily be sampled and manipulated in anyway to portray any outcome if the term frequencies of both Diaoyu and Senkaku are close enough in practice. Another cautionary is date. Older documents tend to use "Diaoyu" less because of less publicity. Articles of the past 2 years tend to use both names approximately equally. There are arguments about some maps (i.e. National Geographic and CIA Factbook) using Senkaku Islands exclusively, however, most of the main stream media also use both names. Lastly, the Anglosphere is large and is not exclusive to the U.S. As a result, any data obtained from any sampling is only a crude approximation of the real frequencies (something a lot of people seem to not understand).

Other advice:

• Do not expect every editor's first objective is to WP:NPOV. My experience (and that of others before me) suggest this is an uphill battle regardless of how strong you think your position is.
• Be careful with what you say. Criticisms and lack of good faith assumption can potentially be twisted into some very gross WP violations through nifty use of rhetorics and wiki-lawyering. At least one editor in this page is a master of rhetorics. Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

POV tag

Hello. Before you add the tag again, can you please use the article talk page. I don't understand what it is you are hoping to achieve by having the tag there. As I am trying to explain, the tag is not a form of lodging an official protest. It is if you want to draw attention to a problem. You have drawn attention to it and we are discussing it, so there is no need for the tag.

Please read the article on NPOV disputes. You will see that it clearly states Tags should be added as a last resort. How is this the last resort? As I've mentioned, we're talking about the matter. There is nothing that will be achieved by having the tag.

If you want other views, you need to approach people on the various noticeboards on Wikipedia. Tagging the article won't get anyone who doesn't watch the page to come along. Regards, John Smith's (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. I've left what I hope is a helpful message on the article talk page. John Smith's (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for asking again, but I'm not following your reasoning for having the tag. If you could let me know what you're trying to achieve by having the tag, I might understand why the article needs it. John Smith's (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It was a long standing issue and the tag was there when I first joined the page (if my memory serves). The fact that someone sneaked in an edit to remove it at some point doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to be there.

Please don't start an edit-war over this. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Locking of Diaoyu page

You shouldn't be troubled by the locking of Senkaku Islands, since it has nothing to do with your objective in resolving the naming dispute. Even if the page is not locked, I highly doubt any of your edits would've gotten through. In the end, the far majority of action will take place in talk pages, RfC's, and other discussion media.

My experience also tells me that the locking of the page is also probably not in the interest of certain parties. I am sure you know what I am referring to. It's too bad I can't really be frank with my words. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, you should take a look at this thread. If others decide to play wiki-lawyer with this, then I think I might have to open an RfC just for that. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

RFC/U on Tenmei

As an editor who has interacted with User:Tenmei on the Senkaku Islands pages, I would like to inform you that I have filed a Request for comment on user conduct of Tenmei. You may read that RFC/U at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei, and are welcome to comment on it as explained at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance2 once it has been certified. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I have not had a chance interacting with this user yet, and not been familiar with the relevant edit history this user involved on that page or those pages. While I perhaps would like to take a look at this when I have time. It is really a pain or headache when users have spent a lot time to deal such kid of things than to peacefully make editions or contributions on Wikipedia. BTW, I am preparing to have a update on my "Edit Request" in Talk:Senkaku Islands and may include your recent thought on that {NPOV-title} template.--Lvhis (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; I wasn't sure if any of your recent contact with that page was with Tenmei, and I was just trying to be fair about inviting everyone who I thought might have interacted with xem. As for the Senkaku Islands, what I would really like to do, and have wanted to do for a while, is to enter mediation for that article plus Senkaku Islands dispute. I believe that because that the real world issues that surround the islands, along with the long history of dispute there, could really benefit from mediation. I think that it would be very helpful if we had an outside, independent mediator to help us work through our multiple difficulties, and hopefully be able to achieve some lasting success. I actually believe that, if we did so, we could put, at a minimum, the naming issue behind us eventually but firmly, along with dealing with other perpetually difficult problems on the other article (we're so bogged down in small details that the big picture is a big mess). Unfortunately, one editor refused mediation, so we couldn't go forward with that. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

New messages

Hello. You have a new message at Talk:Senkaku Islands's talk page. Message added 02:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC).

Senkaku dispute

I agree, the title is not NPOV, since the Liancourt Rocks article isn't called Dokdo, despite Koreans controlling the island. It is using a less common, but neutral Franco-English name (Le Liancourt) for the name, for neutral purposes since it's a highly contested island between Korea and Japan.Phead128 (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Since you are the main driver for the naming issue, I'd remind you that the "anti" faction has a tendency of making up rules and heuristics on the fly (i.e. Google searches are unreliable, dual names are not allowed, we should follow the standards of this encyclopedia that only uses the Japanese name, etc, etc, etc). After glancing through a few of the recent posts about the topic, this is what I notice. Since this type of issue does not commonly arise in Wikipedia, be sure not to assume the other parties are experts and authorities on the matter. And by the way, the "guideline" pages they cited can be edited by anyone and has been subjected to notable changes in the past without consultation - don't treat them as law. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

All guidelines, policies, and other "rules" on Wikipedia are editable by the community. If you disagree with one, you're welcome to go to that page and either change it directly or (as usually safer) start a discussion on the talk page about changing it. For example, if you go to WT:BLP, you'll see several ongoing discussions about changing the rules about biographies of living people. Sometimes, when changes are large and have big impacts, we have big, advertised community discussions (we just had one proposing a change that wouldn't let people create new articles until they are autoconfirmed). That's how wikipedia works. Bobthefish2 is right that you should always read any referenced guidelines (etc) carefully, as they are often complex, and even experienced editors make mistakes or fail to notice changes. But if a guideline says something, unless you know that point is currently under debate, it generally trumps any opinions about what should or should not be done. Ultimately, there is no law on Wikipedia; the closest things are the WP:Five Pillars, and precedent (although both of those are themselves liable to change over time). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, since you are part of the zh:Wikipedia, can you re-post the thread I copied and pasted to Project China to the relevant project page in the Chinese Wikipedia as well? Thanks. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Your points on the naming issue are very valid so keep up the good work. STSC (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I thought they are good and it appears 織田小姐 is not going to address replies to her posts after all. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank both of you! We have worked together very well in a nicer and nicer tacit way. I am just very busy that sometimes I cannot respond swiftly. I have done there as Bob asked while I think we can handle this case well enough even without extra outsiders. BTW, an idiom as the 1st words came out from my mind when I saw that 小姐 was referring the article in zh-wiki: 班門弄斧 (teach fish to swim). --Lvhis (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

織田小姐 sometimes does manage to give reasonable argument. Minus her vindictiveness, she isn't all that bad (at least compared to some other people). However, I do agree that they are 班門弄斧ing when they try to teach Chinese editors about Chinese usage. While there are indeed very good Chinese literature scholars among the Japanese people, I highly doubt any of these experts are are here. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Careful with Twinkle

Be careful when you use Twinkle for rollback--make sure you choose the correct one of the three rollback choices. In this edit, you mistakenly marked Phoenix7777's removal of the tag as vandalism, which it clearly is not (see WP:VANDAL). Instead, you should have used the generic Rollback or even Rollback (AGF), as I believe Phoenix7777 was editing in good faith when xe removed the tag. You may want to make a dummy edit to leave a summary indicating that your use of the term vandalism was in error. Calling edits vandalism when they are not is sometimes taken as a personal attack; I'm guessing you did mean this as an attack, but making mistakes like that can get you in trouble and lead to a loss of Twinkle privileges. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• I compromised and changed it as "violation of WP:NPOV". Hope he will not remove it or roll back by violating WP:NPOV again. --Lvhis (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The POV-title tag

Yes, the tag is put there for good reasons, and the administrators know it. STSC (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Whatever happened, the battle is not over yet. I have asked AGK to put back the tag, I hope he would do that. STSC (talk) 05:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Good! Thanks! --Lvhis (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, AGK would not do it. Please go head with the edit-protect template to add back the tag. STSC (talk) 04:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I believe we were asked not to do anything with any of the related articles while MedCom is conferring privately--this presumably would include making edit-protected requests. At this point, I have intentionally not even responded to certain email queries, pending clear information from the committee or Feezo that we can do so. Of course, this is not an enforceable request, but it seems reasonable until MedCom decides if we're continuing with mediation, bumping this up to ArbCom, or whatever. Nothing is going to change either way if the tag is or isn't there for a few weeks. The problem is that if you put up the edit request, then the rest of us have to sound in whether or not there is consensus for the tag (since edit-protected requests can only be fulfilled when there is a clear consensus for the requested edit), and that would certainly break the Committee's request. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Replied at this user's talk page. --Lvhis (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to the admin. he's rightly done so. STSC (talk) 00:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The admin has put back the tag on the main article; this should be good enough, and I would not bother with the tag on the other sub-articles as it attracts vandalism from the mob. STSC (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I just pop in Wiki now and again depanding on my mood! You keep up the good work! STSC (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Monkey in silk suit is still a monkey

The silly argument of "Senkaku is English" cannot stand and you have presented your case very well. STSC (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Lvhis will have to elaborate on that argument. I don't really understand it (sorry!). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Bob, I am too busy to input my whole thought on the argument in one time. Maybe the incontinuity causes some problem. I am still working on it. Thanks. --Lvhis (talk) 04:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Google

Hi, thanks for your message. This is my reply to your question: if you think Pinnacle Islands should be the title then you may endorse the "Not support using Google as a metric (to determine a widely acceptable name)". Please note this option dose not mean it dismisses Google for other uses. STSC (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

What's up?

It appears an ANI is started somewhere by John Smith. What's going on? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I need a fact-checker to see whether or not what I said made sense [1]. In the event that I was actually spewing non-sense, I'd like to be informed.

Your OPPORTUNITY to either oppose or support Qwyrxian in his bid to become an administrator...

Hi, I would like to hear what you have to say about Qwyrxian, and here's your chance to do that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Qwyrxian. CHEERS! Diligent007 (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I made my “oppose” vote there couple days before already. Even though he has 100% chance to pass this vote, but in my mind he is not qualified to be an administrator for now. --Lvhis (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Japanophile

Since there was a lot of issues with Conflict of Interests and things like that, I had to come out early to make sure there wasn't an issue about that. Sure, I do a lot of the graphic work of Japanese symbols and made Japanese articles into Featured and Good articles and I am ja-3 (among other things, which I won't get into), but the main issue is that I was heavily involved in the Laincourt issue. I am a part of OTRS, the email team that deals with folks outside of Wikipedia and had to deal with the Laincourt issue there. Cannot say who, how or why, but I want to be very hands off with my admin tools and anything else when it comes to the issue about Senkaku. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your talk here. As for the Senkaku pages, actually some Japanese admin has been hands in with admin tools already for a while. I appreciate your self-restrict attitude, plus your proposal on Pinnacle. --Lvhis (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

	Thank you for your participation on my RfA
	Thank you for participating at my RfA. I know that you and I have great differences, but I sincerely hope we can continue to work together in ways that ultimately benefit the project. If you ever have concerns with my behavior as an admin, please let me know at any time. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I really appreciate your such kindly thanks very, very much given that I made my firm Oppose vote for your RfA. I hope that you, as a new admin, will realize that you start to bear more responsibilities and obligations to keep the wp better, specifically, in the pages both of us have been involved in so deep and so long (but I am much, much newer than you to these pages and the dispute on them). No one can be perfect but if you can realized what is the wiser way for you as an admin to help solve the dispute in a fair as well as the NPOV manner the wp emphasizes, you will get more closer to the point of "perfect". I raised a good example of admin in my Oppose comment there, here I'd like give you another good one, just please looked at a little bit up, the admin Zscout370 who is a Japanophile and with ja-3 (I guess you may have ja-1 as you ever mentioned something like this?) , and has made a lot of contributions in wp to Japanese related articles, and also ever involved in solving the dispute over naming the page Dokdo/Takeshima Islands. --Lvhis (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

BRD

You should confirm with Magog first about whether or not you are breaking the rules with your new edit. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I did. See here. Thanks. --Lvhis (talk) 03:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that. Anyhow, a very philosophical person has just reverted all your efforts, claiming the deletion to be "pro-Wikipedia" [2]. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Notice how he used the word "fraud" to describe his opponents. I've used the same word before to describe the nature of an information source, but its application on the efforts of an editor is not very nice. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

My dear friend Lvhis, the discussion is continued in [3]. I originally wanted an independent 3rd party opinion, but the message was somehow tracked down before she replied. Elen's page is probably quite popular. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bob, I saw your input there following the link you provided, thanks. I also read Elen's explanations she input later. I may input my questions there when emptying my hands. --Lvhis (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Just make this memo note that the block or sanction enforced on my user account here on 20:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC) was a mistake, i.e. I should not have been blocked, per discussions there, and admin Elen of the Roads' clear opinion. --Lvhis (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry that you have to swallow that block log entry. Although this may seem infuriating, don't forget that Wikipedia is a hobby and not life. On the bright side, this gives us a pretty clear perspective on where certain involved administrators stand. I think it is safe to say that we can't rely on any of them for good judgment unless future evidence dictates otherwise.

Meanwhile, let me know whether or not you'd like to pursue this matter further. If you feel there is bad administrative conduct that needs to be addressed, you can count on my assistance. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Bob very much! Yes, I will take the bright side more. And also as admin Elen of the Roads said: If we think "there are many more instances of this happening, then the correct step is the RFC/U." In addition to seaching some possible, justice, and powerful help like what you did this time. Thanks again! --Lvhis (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Since Tenmei has declared a withdrawal of his participation in the SI articles, I believe it is within reason to undo his reverts. Suppose you would like to move on, do make sure you check with Magog the Ogre about whether or not this is an action that is permitted. Even though Elen of the Roads criticized Magog's use of BRD to establish control, she does not out-rank Magog in the Wikipedia hierarchy and thus cannot override his decisions. There is a small chance that a revert battle wouldn't take place since everyone should've been exhausted by now. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I undid that edit within an hour of Tenmei making it (he didn't re-add, did he?). The other edits are minor things, like linking people's names (unless there was a mislink, I don't see why you'd undo them). Note that I actually felt (as I expressed on talk), that Tenmei's version was even worse than yours (Lvhis's) in its distance from neutrality. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

What's neutrality in this case :-)? There are a number of reverts by Tenmei that can be eliminated. I think it's within reason to remove them since he's out of the picture, although you should make it clear if that's a bannable offense. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If Qwyrxian you still have questions on the version A --that is not just "Lvhis' version" because that is an outcome of the discussion before Tenmei's revert-- I am about to continue the interrupted discussion with you soon when I have time. --Lvhis (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to continue that discussion, Lvhis. I'll have to look back at it, because I don't remember exactly where we were. Bob, if there are specific edits that Tenmei made that you think need to be reverted, please bring them up on the talk page. However, you cannot just go searching through the history looking from anything Tenmei changed and start taking it out, especially if it's been in the article for a long time; you still need a reason to remove stuff. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I have a pretty good idea of what I am talking about :). I was referring to the reverts Tenmei made on Lvhis' recent BRD. That's not age-old, as far as I know. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, those shouldn't be reverted, since I also object to Lvhis's edits, find them to be POV, and am discussing them currently on talk (or, will be, once I get back there). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Alrighty. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I replied Qwyrxian there. His one is really POV. Let us discuss these on the right talk pages. --Lvhis (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This type of comments [4] should be avoided because it's not going to solve anything. Even though Elen disagreed with Qwyrxian and Magog, her opinion is not gospel and does not technically supersede their word. I think we've already sufficiently shown that there was an abuse of authority involved and that's about as far as we can go until... something happens. Meanwhile, I hope you remember an expression that talks about how certain things are not too late for gentlemen to do even if 10 years have elapsed. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I input that one mainly due to he thinks only you and I recognized he did a violation, and reminded him there was some opinions from a third or fourth party. While anyway, thanks for your nice and helpful reminder. I won't use Elen's opinion as gospel and still respect Magog's authority almost as I did before. --Lvhis (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way. I notice Feezo deleted all the discussions associated with the mediation. Is that part of policy? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Really, I was surprised! Why? There were lot evidence there. May we ask ArbCom? --Lvhis (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

All members of ArbCom are administrators, so they can view the deleted pages at any time. However, according to the privileged nature of mediation, the "Mediation Committee pledges to ... prevent such communications being used as evidence in ... arbitration." (emphasis added), so it is unlikely they will even look at the pages. – AJL^talk 02:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I see. So it is a kind of policy. Thank you for the information. --Lvhis (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That sounds interesting. I suppose people can be as abusive as they want during a mediation without having to be concerned about getting penalized. However, what I don't really like is that a lot of our search results are in there and I would like them back. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Tenmei raised the same issue with me (though, as I'm sure you saw, not quite in the same tone). Once Arbitration is done (assuming they don't make the highly unlikely move of declaring a name by fiat), I will ask for Feezo's/the committee's permission to restore only those parts of the mediation that have specific data. I can go through and pick out the specific info at that time. Since clearly no work will occur on the article during arbitration, and to prevent any possibility that removed information may imply positive or negative things about various contributors, I won't pursue that until after arbitration is done. I remember JSTOR, WorldCat, and I think Library of Congress data, along with, of course, the multiple different and all questionable Google News/Web/Scholar data. There's probably more that I'm not thinking of, but I'm not going to worry about looking until later; handling the arbitration will be more than enough work on this topic for now. One nice thing with deletion is that it's never permanent (oversight comes closer, but can't be used in this case). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration on Senkaku Islands

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Senkaku Islands and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Qwyrxian (talk) 10:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification of arbitration case opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 31, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidence

I glanced through your evidence. One thing I find is that it is not expressed in a very clear and comprehensible manner. As an insider, I am equipped with the relevant knowledge to know what you are talking about because I've glanced through some of your exchanges in the past. But I highly doubt third parties such as uninvolved arbitrators will be able to appreciate the meaning of your diffs if you arrange and present them in the current manner. For example, let's take a look at this paragraph:

Despite that several Reliable Sources have been provided particularly to avoid POV two from Japanese authors [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] that there is a real English name for these Islands, and the current name for the wiki page is the Japanese name, User:Qwyrxian using Original Research insisted that the Japanese name is the real English name, and refused to provide reliable sources when requested for several times [6], [7][8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] even he lacked the basic knowledge of the naming history of the names on the page in question [14], [15], [16]. By this means he refused to reach consensus on an edited version that was a certain consensus supported by the reliable sources and an outcome from previous discussion [17],[18][19],[20].

It appears your main purpose is to convey a few basic ideas: (1) You have RS' that say Pinnacle Islands is the real English name, (2) The subject of your complaint willfully ignored it, (3) The subject of your complaint persisted to use OR to say the Japanese name is the real English name, and (4) The subject of your complaint actually does not have an adequate amount of knowledge of the matter

If I were you, I would try to write this in a more organized manner so that the readers would have a vague idea of what the diffs are about before reading it. For example:

I've repeatedly shown that there is RS that confirmed "Pinnacle Islands" as the English name of this geographical entity [1-5] and that the current article name ("Senkaku Islands") is a romanticized version of it. (Insert name here) repeatedly asserted that SI is the English name by citing community support but refused or was unable to provide RS to justify his position [6-13] (ASIDE: Cite his posts and not your's because you are critiquing his reasoning). (Insert name here) also demonstrated that he did not possess a substantial background in the historical etymology of this geographical entity [14-15] (ASIDE: 16 seems to be identical to 15). And again, you should be citing his posts and not someone else's)... (Another ASIDE: I don't get the part where [17-20] is used and I doubt third parties will spend the time to actually try to understand the point as well. You should clarify it if you want it to be read and understood)

In addition, you may find it helpful to further reinforce your position by citing examples of possible tendentious editing committed by the subject of your complaint. For example, you can cite how the literature searches done on LoC, JSTOR, Google Scholar, WorldCat, etc, etc, etc were all against the current status quo and how they were repeatedly dismissed as unreliable Google searches even though they were repositories of reliable sources. There are also examples that showed some people ignored or forgot the evidence shown by others. If my memory serves, there are also instances where the progress made by others were being slammed as junk and unproductive.

Of course, I am not trying to tell you what to write, but I think these are helpful ideas to think about when your goal is to produce a clear and convincing piece of writing that can perfectly convey your message to arbitration committee members.

By the way, are you going to also mention about how some authority figures gamed the system to uphold a double standard against you? I think the ArbCom is a pretty good opportunity to present a case about it and perhaps clear yourself of that block log.

Hope this helps. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Bob, thanks for your critiques and suggestions. I made some changes and hope it has been better. As for tendentious editing, per ArbCom's policy that they don't rule on content dispute than user's conduct, and the data in RfM cannot be used for evidence, I am not going to do that. But it will be wonderful if you can do it because you know how to do it much better than I. As for the issue "gaming the system" and the mistaken block I got, I may add it in the evidence later because I still have free space of 250+ words and 25 diffs, and maybe I can make a request in the page "Workshop" after adding the evidence. We still have time and only three participants including me have input their evidence so far.--Lvhis (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I am no more experienced at this than you actually :). Just keep in mind that you are trying to convince a group of ladies and gentlemen who know nothing about the dispute and have already gone through 100 KB worth of text before getting to your part (and thus are likely to be very tired and bored). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I happen to have User:AlexandrDmitri's talk page on my watchlist. It appears the new evidence limit is ~720 words. In the event you need more words to complete your thoughts, this can be of use for you.

On a related manner, our friend posted a link to his ArbCom evidence draft there [5] (obviously, he wouldn't mind others seeing it). I've already written my own draft prior to seeing that link and I am content enough to leave mine as it is. However, I thought you may want a heads-up since you were mentioned. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Now there has been newly added evidence there. I think it is useful for us to re-read Elen's very helpful advice this and this. I am about to work on my request. --Lvhis (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I posted mine as well. I will look at your request later. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the evidence phase is close to over and the nature of evidence that may be presented by remaining parties are largely going to be what we would expect. What kind of requests/proposals do you think we should start with? I am leaning towards going more deeply into the circumstances surrounding your ban. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Just want to clarify your terminology. "Ban" and "Block" mean two very different things on WP; a full explanation can be found at WP:BANBLOCKDIFF. Lvhis was blocked for one day; any admin can block any editor as long as they are doing so in order to prevent disruption (which Magog at least thought xe was doing, even if you feel that decision was wrong). Bans are imposed by a large community discussion or by Arbcom. Full site bans are, by definition, indefinite (though not necessarily infinite); topic bans can have limited duration, but I've never seen one of less than 6 months. So, you'll want to be discussing Lvhis's block, not ban. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the terminology. The actual correct term is indeed as you've suggested. By the way, are you interested in helping us to raise this matter to the ArbCom? Your expertise in WP laws can be of help to us especially when our opponents are well-respected administrators. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank both of you. I have corrected there per Qwyrxian's clarification. Bob, it will be more thanks I owe you if you want to make a comment in "Comment by parties" there, but it will also be fine enough if no comment from other parties but only my own request alone waits for ArbCom's decision. --Lvhis (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It appears we (STSC, me, and you) were requested to be blocked indefinitely by some parties. Well, I suppose if that motion does actually go through, it will very neatly destroy their entire opposition. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if they really cared or read Ellen's advice "don't spend valuable words lecturing Arbcom on: ...". --Lvhis (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it applies to the proposal part of the ArbCom case, although it's true that we were all labelled as single purpose accounts who are supposedly driven by nationalistic urges (as if anyone pushed to name those islands "Diaoyu"). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. It appears I was so being unnecessarily picky which led to some unforeseen conflicts (WP can be ridicules like this). I will avoid making the same mistake in the future. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Bob, that's okay; you did not even need apologize. I sensed you had some misunderstanding. One of my main points to have that talk in your page is I hope you were not holding what was not belonging to you at all, particular a very bad thing. Now it is over, thanks. . --Lvhis (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I just realized you asked your question on WP:NORN. That was really unnecessary because we have bee in the Arb procedure. I myself don't want to touch any WP public board-like things when I am in the Arb procedure. Good for you it has been over swiftly. --Lvhis (talk) 04:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are about be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be reader by the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievious factual errors, as well as refrain from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour within the comments section. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message on my talk page. Maybe it is in your interest to know that I may take "Q" to RfC/Us if time allows me to do so as I'm still quite busy with other commitments. STSC (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice hear from you and hope you have done every thing well in South East Asia . I don't have enough knowledge about RfC/Us, while I think our current RfAr or Arbitration is a good platform regarding user's conduct, and it may be the highest one for such. The requester for RfAr sometime can "shoot himself/herself in the foot" if s/he is the major one causing the problem. You can make your proposal in the workshop page, besides you can make your comments to others proposals there. You also can make your comments in the part "Analysis of evidence" there too. --Lvhis (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Oda Mari's comment

You may want to reply to that [6]. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Just done as my plan. --Lvhis (talk) 06:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

One thing that strikes me is that the "U.S. government argument" should not be the main motivation that justifies the usage of "Liaoncourt Rocks usage", as Pmanderson indicated, since there are many governments in the world that have English as a primary language. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It will sound like "USA-G POV". (G → Government). --Lvhis (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

lol. I didn't even think of that. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:RfArb/Senkaku

According to Elen of the roads, "A useful thing that the parties can do is help Arbcom with ... what it is that [WP:RfArb/Senkaku] is all about...."

It would help me -- and perhaps it would be perceived as helpful by others -- if you were willing to give your answer to Elen's question.

A summary re-statement of what you think this case is all about would appear reasonable here in the context of an analysis of the evidence you presented. --Tenmei (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The time for presenting or resummarising the case has long passed. Please read what Newyorkbrad, one of the drafting arbitrators, says four days ago. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievious factual errors (making sure ot note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands closed

An arbitration case regarding Senkaku Islands has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. User:Tenmei is indefinitely topic banned from the subject of Senkaku Islands, widely construed. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace.
2. Tenmei is advised that his unusual style of communication has not been conducive to resolving this dispute. Accordingly, Tenmei is urged to develop a different style of communication, which is more similar to that used by experienced Wikipedia editors. Until this happens, Tenmei is advised not to engage in topics which are the subject of a dispute.
3. Tenmei is banned for one year.
4. User:Bobthefish2 is topic banned from the subject of Senkaku Islands, widely construed, for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and user space.
5. User:STSC is warned to avoid any sexualisation of discussions, especially during disputes.
6. The parties are reminded that attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground may result in the summary imposition of additional sanctions, up to and including a ban from the project.
7. The topic covered by the article currently located at Senkaku Islands, interpreted broadly, is placed under standard discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
8. An uninvolved administrator may, after a warning given a month prior, place any set of pages relating to a territorial dispute of islands in East Asia, broadly interpreted, under standard discretionary sanctions for six months if the editing community is unable to reach consensus on the proper names to be used to refer to the disputed islands.

   While a territorial dispute is subject to discretionary sanctions due to this remedy, any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in these topical areas, after an initial warning.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Wiki e-mail

Dear Lvhis, someone wishes to contact you and asked if you could activate your Wiki e-mail? Thanks. STSC (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Please click on "My preferences" from the personal menu (at the top right); then on the "User profile" tab, go down to the bottom you'll see the "E-mail options" section. Fill in your e-mail address then click "Enable e-mail from other users". Remember to "Save". After the confirmation, the "E-mail this user" will be featured in the Wiki menu on the left-side. STSC (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Which name are you recommending?

As I was drafting the RfC, and thinking how to name the sections, I realized I wasn't 100% sure which name you were recommending. Are you advocating in favor of "Pinnacle Islands", or in favor of some sort of hybrid name (like "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands")? Or do you not intend to take a position on that point, merely preferring any name that is neither Senkaku, Diayou, or Diaoyutai? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been sick now and will be back as soon as I am better enough, sorry. I basically wanted to try to solve this issue within the talk page there, to see if we ourselves can make some progress/compromise. You like to start an RfC and I just have to be there. --Lvhis (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you've been ill. On the RfC, it's still going to be at least a few days for me--while I have what I think is a good outline for the problem, I want to have my "arguments" basically ready to insert as well. You may want to do the same. As I mentioned on the talk page, I want to keep the details to a minimum, likely with links to past discussions if more info is necessary. If you want to see the draft of the outline, it's at User:Qwyrxian/SI RFC. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I am back as being better. When responding your question which name I am recommending, we first need to admit and to acknowledge the fact that the frequencies of usage in English for both the Chinese name (represented by Diaoyu) and the Japanese name (Senkaku) for these islands are not of significant difference. Then my answer is as follows:

• If one side insists on using the name "Senkaku" and on interpreting the relative WP policies and guidelines in certain way to fulfill this stance, I will strongly recommend to use the name "Diaoyu" as using the same way to interprete the relative WP policies and guidelines.
• If both sides of us who have been involved in this naming dispute agree to wisely make compromise, as exampled in WP:NCGN#Multiple local names, namely neither using Japanese name "Senkaku" nor using Chinese name "Diayu" (and any others), I would agree that "Pinnacle" can be recommended as the most possibly acceptable one after both sides compromise. I would be happy and would like to prepare for such compromise to reach consensus.
• If both sides of us agree to compromise not singly using either Japanese name nor Chinese name, but still feel "Pinnacle" be not good enough, we can calmly discuss and explore any other possibility.

Thank you for referring your draft at User:Qwyrxian/SI RFC. I have some questions on that. I will input my questions later. --Lvhis (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The RFC needs present uninvolved readers with the possible alternatives. If you want three sections (SI, Pinnacle, Hybrid), that's fine. It can even be subsections (SI vs. non-SI, with Pinncle and Hybrid as subsections of non-SI). Heck, we can even include Diaoyu as one of the names. But we can't run one RfC to decide if the current name is correct, then, (if the answer is no), run a second RfC to find out which other name should be chosen. This has gone on for years, long before you or I ever got here. But in the last 1.5 years it has gone through multiple RfCs and Mediation and Arbitration, and its time for the community to make a decision. Endless arguing helps no one. I want to at least attempt to establish a consensus here, and, if we can get one, just stop arguing about it any more. Besides, asking "Is the current name correct?" isn't even the right question. The question is, "What name meets the guidelines and policies". If you want to provide an argument that says it's Pinnacle, be my guest. And if you want to provide one that says it's Diaoyu, you're also welcome to do that. I'm going to provide an argument that says it's Senkaku Islands, in the argument subsection of the RfC. Any other argument will be up to you or others.

Let me know on the draft; John Smith's asked me about it today, and I pointed him to the draft as well. Hopefully we can get this rolling somewhat soon (of course I still haven't even begun writing my argument for SI yet, but it shouldn't be too hard is it's pretty much all on the talk pages somewhere or other). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you can use "Arguments in favor of avoiding singly using a local name (Japanese or Chinese)" for the section opposing to use "Senkaku". That will be more flexible and saving space. "Pinnacle Islands" will be of course included and will be explained in the argument subsection. For my questions or suggestions on your draft of the open section, do you mind if I put them, maybe in a modified version of yours, into the talk page of your User:Qwyrxian/SI RFC? That may be easier for both of us. --Lvhis (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That basic idea sounds fine...how about "Arguments in favor of a name other than any local name (Japanese or Chinese)"? That keeps it focused on the end result. And feel free to put other thoughts on User talk:Qwyrxian/SI RFC Qwyrxian (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

Due to your insistence on putting up your own RfC prior to running the main one, I have requested your conduct be examined for possible violation of the sanctions in place as a result of the Arbitration case. You may review and discuss the issue at WP:AE#Lvhis. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I just came back and saw this message of yours and what you filed at WP:AE#Lvhis, and that one has been closed. I 100% agree on what Quigley commented there, which is very reasonable and in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I see again you have tried to mix up the different concepts and played the tricks you like to play. I don't think the current situation and atmosphere is fair and justicial in order to solve that naming issue. --Lvhis (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian, I read you guy's talk there a moment before. Let me just waste a more minute here: The RfC I started but unfairly closed is simple and straightforward on the disputed naming issue, and this is why you dare not face it, and dare not debate/answer it. Facing almost a common sense supported by numerous reliable sources and critical as a root question to the naming issue, you are the one sticking to an unsupportable viewpoint against neutrality and verifiability showing signs of "WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT". You are better not to mention my username without my permission. --Lvhis (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I had no way to describe the issue at the article's talk page other than to use your name. All I said on the talk page was that the person I expected to put up an argument on the "other" side has chosen (as far as I can tell) not to do so; further, I linked to the table in the archive, because it was a quick and easy thing for me to point to that had at least some of the positions you had advanced. And if you don't want to participate in the RfC, you don't have to. If we get a reasonable consensus, then you'll just have to live with that result despite your lack of participation. Maybe someone else will put up an argument supporting Diaoyu or Pinnacle Islands. As for your RfC, another admin (one who has a lot of experience with arbitration enforcement, I might add) made the call that your version wasn't neutral, not me. You can dispute the issue; I'm not sure on the exact procedure, so you might want to ask the admin who made the call, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, directly. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The sentence "The RfC I started but unfairly closed ..." of mine should be revised to "The RfC I started but unfairly closed because of your unreasonable request ...". Done for talk exchange in this section. --Lvhis (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Copy-Paste for memo

Is the current title/name "Senkaku Islands" POV or NPOV?

The original section has been archived [7], which was intially posted starting on 17:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC). The left column accusing "POV" was mainly completed by users Lvhis and Stuartyeates, and the right column defending "NPOV" was mainly completed by users Qwyrxian and Oda_Mari. User Kusunose helped in formatting the table.

	POV (It needs to be changed)	NPOV (no need for change)
Reasons	It is the (romanised) Japanese name for the islands, that is the fact supported by many reliable sources including those from Japanese writers. The ownership of these islands is officially disputed between Japan and Chinese sides (PRC and ROC). The frequency of using Japanese name or using Chinese name in English is not significantly different, or slightly in certain search way, that of using Japanese name is less than that of using Chinese name. The name used in related documents of the United Nations (UN) since the dispute over the islands emerged after 1970s: On December 30, 1996, the name "Diaoyu Islands" was used in a letter in English by the Secretary-General of the United Nations addressing to the permanent representative of the People's Republic of China to the UN; while on February 14, 1997, neither Japanese nor Chinese name of these islands was mentioned in a letter in English by the Secretary-General of the United Nations addressing to the permanent representative of Japan to the UN. (pages 107-108 of this documentary year book) In most circumstances including this Wikipedia project, using which language name represents or implies supporting which party's claim over the disputed islands, i.e. giving the impression of support for a particular national point of view (national POV). Based on Wikipedia's spirit, policies, and guidelines, particularly the WP:NPOV and WP:NCGN, the current Japanese name for this Wikipedia page and its related pages is POV, and it shall be changed. The US-government's use of "Senkaku Islands" appears to be a hold-over from their involvement in the Occupation of Japan, when Japanese naming conventions were adopted wholesale.	The real world dispute has absolutely nothing to do with this question. Our only responsibility per WP:Article titles and WP:NCGN is to determine which name is most commonly used in English. If one name is used significantly more than another, particularly in high quality sources, then that is the English name. If such a name exists, it must be used as the name for the article. Thus, the "NPOV side" is concerned that the very phrasing of this dispute as POV vs. NPOV asks the wrong question. The name "Senkaku Islands" is the name used in every major international English almanac that could be found. Only one almanac even provided a reference to the name Diaoyu Islands. No contemporary encyclopedia has been found which uses any name other than "Senkaku Islands". Google searches (including Web, Scholar, and News) have been spotty, produce different results over time, and are extremely sensitive to the exact search terms and formatting of the search. Thus, they don't really provide useful information about which name is more commonly used in those sources. On average, the numbers were very close to equal, particularly depending on how you count the use of the multiple different "versions" of the Chinese name. The US government (a key source when looking at official English names) uses the term "Senkaku Islands". Major English official nautical charts (US, UK, elsewhere) use "Senkaku Islands" as the official designation. (Note that I have not actually checked this myself, it is a claim put forward by Oda Mari. US chart (please zoom) and UK chart (see page 76)

---

Is the name "Senkaku Islands" the "Japanese name" or "English name"?

(rfc template was here) This name is currently used for the Wikipedia article about a group of islands in East Asia, whose ownership is disputed. The name/title "Senkaku Islands" currently used for this article and its related articles has also been disputed for quite a long time. The main Romanized Chinese name for the islands is Diaoyu or Diaoyutai. The main Romanized Japanese name for the islands is Senkaku. There is another name, Pinnacle Islands, from English language, though far less frequently used than above mentioned Chinese and Japanese names. Is the name "Senkaku Islands" the Japanese name, or the English name? This is a basic or essential question or dispute for the naming dispute on this article. The question is, per Wikipedia's guidelines and policies (relevant ones listed below), which definition on this name is correct. Previous discussions, which have included discussions on relative article's talk pages, formal mediation, and an arbitration proceedings, have failed to reach consensus to settle the question. The relevant policies are listed below; in addition, involved parties will present their arguments for the definition of this name.

Policies and guidelines

• WP:VERIFY
• WP:ORIGINAL
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) (in particular, the sections Widely accepted name and Multiple local names)

Arguments from involved editors

Arguments for that "Senkaku Islands" is the Japanese name

1. Reliable sources have clearly stated/asserted that "Senkaku Islands" is the Japanese name. The following is just listing part of these reliable sources. A number of them were written by Japanese authors. I avoided using sources from Chinese authors.

• A UN General Assembly document [8] page 85, International Organizations and the Law of the Sea: Documentary Yearbook 1996 By Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea.
• Ogura, Junko (10-14-2010). "Japanese party urges Google to drop Chinese name for disputed islands". CNN World. CNN (US).
• Hara, Kimie (原貴美恵) (2007). Cold War frontiers in the Asia-Pacific: divided territories in the San Francisco system. New York, USA: Routledge, c/o Taylor & Francis. p. 51. ISBN 9780415412087.
• Suganuma, Unryu (菅沼雲龍) (2001). Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations: Irredentism and the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. Hawaii, USA: University of Hawaii Press. pp. 89–96. particularly p96 ISBN 978-0824821593.
• Kiyoshi Inoue (井上清). Senkaku Letto /Diaoyu Islands The Historical Treatise. (English synopsis [9])
• Daniel J. Dzurek, "The Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands Dispute" at the International Boundary Research Unit web site, University of Durham, UK, October 1996 [10]
• Jeff Hays. "DISPUTE OVER THE SENKAKU ISLANDS (JAPANESE NAME)---DIAOYU ISLANDS (CHINESE NAME)" Facts and Details
• Koji Taira. The China-Japan Clash Over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands [11] This is an article that originally appeared in "The Ryukyuanist", spring 2004.
• Joyman Lee. Senkaku/Diaoyu: Islands of Conflict Published in History Today Volume: 61 Issue: 5 2011
• Jesper Schlæger. Senkakuphonia: The East China Sea Dispute page 4 of 31
• Peter J Brown. China ire at sea chase signals wider reach Asia Times Sep 16, 2010

2. The Naming history on this group islands tells that "Senkaku Islands" is the Japanese name. Names for this group islands are from three languages, that I have pointed out during the Mediation [12]. Per the order of their generated time, they are Chinese name, English name, and Japanese name.

1) Chinese name: the romanized Chinese name is "Diaoyu Dao Qundao" or "Diaoyutai Lieyu". For English use, they are adapted as "Diaoyu Islands" or "Diaoyutai Islands". Their original form is 钓鱼岛群岛 or 釣魚台列嶼. The Chiese name used for naming these islands was generated as early as 1403 .

2) English name: In 1843, the British naval battleship "Samarang" surveyed areas around this group islands and gave a name "Pinnacle islands" for them according to how the shape of one of the islands looked like.

(Not sure whether putting here is appropriate. Hope it's interesting to you.) Around 1787, La Perouse called Diaoyu Islands their Chinese name: Tiaoyu-su (Mandarin pronunciation) or Hoapinsu (Minan dialect pronunciation) the chart from La Pérouse Strait. Several nuance points that need special attentions when using this map:

• It seems La Perouse viewed Diaoyu Islands as a part of Islands of Ryukyu. But there are apparent differences. The name "Tiaoyu/Hoapin" is an indigenous Chinese name while names of Ryukyu Islands in that map are indigenous Ryukyuan. So this can be explained that La Perouse incorrectly put Diaoyu Islands inside Ryukyu Islands.
• Chinese dialects are complicated but sometimes can be confusing. The main reason is pronunciations in the ancient times are preserved in dialects like Minnan or Cantonese. And sometimes the differences can be huge. My gut feeling is that "Hoapin" is a Minnan pronunciation but it doesn't match: [13]. Also, not sure what does "-su" mean in that chart. Maybe it's a Minnan pronunciation for "island" like "jima" in Japanese.

72.80.192.166 (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

3) Japanese name: Before 1886, at least some Japanese documents used Chinese name for these islands. Since 1886, the Japanese Imperial Naval Records used "Pinnacle Islands" with Japanese Katakana form (Transliteration). It was until 1900, a Japanese teacher Tsune Kuroiwa (黑岩恆) translated the "Pinnacle Islands" into Japanese "Senkaku Island". Its original form is 尖閣諸島. While the "Senkaku Island" was not yet officially used until 1950s by Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

3. No reliable sources tell that "Senkaku Islands" is the English name. On the other words, that "Senkaku Islands" is the English name is an unsupportable viewpoint.

Conclusion: "Senkaku Islands" is the Japanese name as defined by reliable sources, as required by important policies WP:VERIFY and WP:ORIGINAL. Both Chinese name and Japanese name are local names for this geographic entity per WP:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Multiple local names. Indeed there is a real or pure English name for this group of islands: "Pinnacle Islands".

Arguments for that "Senkaku Islands" is the English name

Put argument here.

---

---

My comment on 06:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC) regarding the above RfC and another

• It has been over 30 days past since the RfC above unfairly closed with an unreasonable and insolent label "disruptive" by user Fut.Perf. using his admin power granting user Qwyrxian's unjustifiable request. At mean time closing the above one, user Fut.Perf. forcibly opened the following RfC or Qwyrxian's RfC [14]. Such tendencious intervence made the situation and atmosphere here was not fair nor justicial to solve the naming issue, and actually resulted in stifling voices from other side, so that none parties from the side opposing Qwyrxian's side took part in that "RfC". The RfC above I started is simple and straightforward on the disputed naming issue to avoid a root question to the naming issue being mixed up with different concepts, and this is why Qwyrxian dared not face it, and dared not debate/answer it. The reason user Fut.Perf. used to close the above RfC is purely and only based on "Assume Bad Faith" that violates "WP: Assume Good Faith". Because of this, in this topic user Fut.Perf. has not been neutral anymore.
  

The second point I need to raise is that user Fut.Perf. has not been really an uninvolved admin in this topic. As a well known reason, the wiki page Liancourt Rocks and its topic is closely related to this topic. Since Dec 1, 2011, User Fut.Perf has participated in the discussion there [15][16][17][18][19][20], and has involved a conflict with an editor in editing some part of the page Liancourt Rocks [21][22]. Although his view point there itself may be correct, he indeed has become an involved editor due to such edit activity. Based on the two reasons above, he apparently cannot play a role as uninvolved and neutral admin in this topic anymore. It is not proper for him to close (or to take part in closing) the "RfC" below [23].

As stated above, the "RfC" below [24] has run under a situation and atmosphere that is not fair nor justicial to solve the naming issue. Therefore, it should be closed by really uninvolved admin(s), and it would be better closed as "leave the title issue as status quo" for the time being. As a proposed new wp policy or guideline Wikipedia:Binding RFCs is under construction, a real binding RfC could be well and carefully prepared in really fair and justicial manner including being preceded by some non-binding RfC(s). --Lvhis (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Lvhis. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 22:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the names in CMS

Thanks! Delete this if you think it unsuitable to place here.SummerRat (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for substantially improving the quality of the CMS article. Unfortunately, someone tendentiously modifies CMS ships articles like this. I am not sure whether it has been brought up to your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SummerRat (talk • contribs) 04:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Problem with the proposed RfC

Please see my comment about Talk:Senkaku Islands#Name change suggestion which I left at WP:AE#Senkaku Islands. If you insist on setting up an RfC in a non-standard manner admins may need to take action. If you are concerned that you won't get proper feedback about the RfC at Talk:Senkaku Islands you can ask for advice about the format at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your message and I replied in your talk page. --Lvhis (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions: topic ban

Pursuant to the outcome of this AE thread and under the terms of the discretionary sanctions mandated by Arbcom decision in the Senaku Islands RfAr, I am topic-banning you from the subject of Senkaku Islands, widely construed, for a period of 3 months--Cailil ^talk 12:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for your support. If everybody could decide to think about it from that point, the talk wouldn't spiral into a political debate again...after all, for names, history matters most.--Wikireader20000 (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Add oil

Admired by your great efforts in correcting wrong parts of Wikipedia. Don't discourage yourself since there is still time to go.Tiffany M-F Lee (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Presentation

As a comment on your debating style in an RM. I think you need to adjust your style. You ought to imagin that you are not writing for the benefit of someone who has already expressed an opinion contrary to yours (as very few change their opinions in this type of debate), but for those who are going to come to the page anew.

In the case of you opening proposal you could have chopped it down to one sentence, the rest could have gone into a "Discussion section" below the survey. The point you seem to have missed is that proposals do not have to reach some sort of neutral POV, they mealy have to inform editors of the choice.

One of the things that puts people off from considering the issue properly is a wall of text, another is two or more editors involved in a war of words (that generates a wall of text). Take for example my exchange with "lssrn45" there was no need for you to pile in, the point had already been made with my question, amplifying it in the way you did was a personal attack was not going to change "lssrn45" mind, and was I suspect unappealing to neutrals who read the debate.

I would suggest that when you are involved in RfC or other type of polls that you try to restrict you answers to one sentence. and try not to start them "user name...." There is general advise on this in "Talk page guidelines".

So your points:

• Fairly speaking, the use of "Pinnacle Islands" Y — factual correction useful for a neutral third party
• Lssrn45, you are not honest. N — enough said
• SnowFire, did you see my words in reply to Kendall-K1? N — way too long and rambling (as it was the first time).
• According to Wikipedia:Consensus, N Look how many times you use that construct (once is enough). In particular using it to the comment that was was off topic "... is a stupid, undemocratic idea, and I don't know why Americans and Britons like it so much." was unnecessary.
• Phoenix7777, your format was non-constructive or disruptive. N — you are scolding Phoenix7777 the information you give is of no use to a third neutral third party considering how to decide on the most appropriate name.

This has nothing to do with sanctions or complaints about personal attacks, but simply debating style and how to present you point of view effectively to third parties.

Please do not debate this with me. I am just trying to give you some pointers, and if you were to look through the debates I have on talk pages I do not always practice what I am preaching, but if you keep the points I have made in mind, then your presentation may improve. -- PBS (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your pointers, very helpful. Only one point I want to clarify: the words "... is a stupid, undemocratic idea, and I don't know why Americans and Britons like it so much." were not from me[25]. But I will keep the points you have made in mind and do my best to improve my presentation.--Lvhis (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I know that "... is a stupid..." was not your comment, but as it was off topic it did not need a reply. Just let comments like that remain unanswered, as answering them added to the mountain of text and may be seen as validating them. -- PBS (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps if you were to read a recent messy debate about the definite article ("the") at the start of an article title, a topic I presume you have little interest, it will help you understand the problem of walls of unstructured rambling verbose text and how off-putting it is. As you will see from my initial input to the debate I was baffled, but once I restructured the debate the two IP addresses quickly came to a resolution. Ask yourself if you were to come to that debate to express an opinion would you rather enter it at point one or or point two.-- PBS (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is a good example. I want to improve mine but you know it is rather a challenge within a short time. I wonder if you can or are willing to restructure my request there and I will appreciate very much. I am afraid I might ask too much. Thanks.--Lvhis (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

No I will not (see here). I have just endorsed the close to underline the point. I suggest that the graceful thing to do is to say that on consideration that you have decided that "Sandstein acted within the discretion given to closing admins" and ask for the review to be closed immediately (as there is no way you are going to get that close overturned). -- PBS (talk) 09:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I fully understand what you said. One point of mine said above would be easily misunderstood is that I might try to convince you to change your mind to support my MRV request, but no, definitely not. I mainly want to get a real example (right for me) to improve my presentation. I even wanted to add "place the restructured one in my talk page as an example for me to learn". But never mind. I saw your "Endorse close" there and appreciate your words (though I have some a little different view) "While consensus can change, with contentious article titles such as this it does not change overnight." So just let the RM/CM and this MRV be a part of gradual accumulation of final successful change which is really in line with wp policies and guidelines. Thanks very much again! --Lvhis (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh joy. You guys are debating RFC mechanics. But to be honest, PBS is kinda right. Even though some of the words xe listed may seem over-the-top, it's all about persuading some potentially disinterested 3rd party. Unlike debates in your work area, narrative style can be more important than truth in wiki. 174.89.163.195 (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

A Japanese nationalist is trying to disrupt the China Coast Guard page

[26] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.194.212.219 (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Maintaining records of China Coast Guard's patrol operations around Diaoyu Islands

I've invited you to the discussion of removing Japan's reaction column in the China Coast Guard page to remove "Japan's reaction". China Coast Guard has been conducting regular patrol operations in territorial waters around Diaoyu Islands and exercising China's administration there. I propose to keep that record but remove contents that reflect Japan's twisted view and unlawful interests. Tiffany M-F Lee (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

July 2017

Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." - this talk page is 100.2 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1