User talk:Valentim

Requested move

Valentim -- You may not have noticed that I relisted the projected move of Eulsa Treaty at WP:Requested moves#Current discussions/August 31. It is only prudent for me to alert all contributors in our discussion about changing the name of this article.

Please consider Talk:Eulsa Treaty#Relisting at WP:Requested moves.

On one hand, this can be construed as an unnecessary delay. On the other hand, this ensures the possibility of wider community input which may bring out any points-of-view which remain unstated or glossed over. --Tenmei (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

こんにちは天明さん, indeed I noticed　your action. But as you may already have seen on my user page en-wp is not my home-wiki. I drive a policy of non-intervening on "foreign" wikipedias (except for minor edits, of course). Therefore responding to Histriographers comment was already gone too far regarding my policy.

I apologize if either my policy or my response and silence afterwards led to a kind of confusion on your side.

I wish you success in this matter, best regards: --Valentim (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I offer two related comments:

A. Your multi-Wikipedia perspective is invaluable to our project; and it needs to be encouraged -- not discouraged. This is especially important for the English Wikipedia because its articles are so often used as the basis of corollary articles in other languages and in multiple mirror sites. In other words, the metastasis of non-neutral information from en-wp must concern all of us, regardless of home-wiki.

B. In my view, your participation in the discussion thread at Talk:Eulsa Treaty was useful, on-point, and provocative in a constructive way. Although your sentences were responding directly to a distracting comment posted by Historiographer, the words were indirectly beneficial for me. Your point-of-view caused me to re-think whether, why and how Google search statistics help or hinder a discussion about an article name in our Wikipedia context. This was very helpful to me. Your words sparked analytical thinking.

I would encourage you, please, to modify your concept of personal "policy." In my opinion, you should continue to contribute these kind of overview diffs because of the potential for unintended consequences. In other words, the validity of your analysis is unrelated to your expressive or receptive language skills. --Tenmei (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your compliments and encouragement. Very well, as this is a request directed directly towards me in a non-mass-spaming way and as I already intervened I agree to take part on this discussion. --Valentim (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

I sought assistance here — Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-10-04/Eulsa Treaty. I do not know what happens next. --Tenmei (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A very good idea. Let's hope to find a (good) solution. Greetings --Valentim (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing the so-called discussion which began at Talk:Eulsa Treaty in early August here:

A. In an attempt to help us start discussion, options were proposed here and refined here.

Leave it at its current name?
To Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty?
To Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905?
To 1905 Protectorate Treaty?
Or what?; see the second paragraph of page Eulsa Treaty.

B. Valentim presented the results of a Lexis/Nexis search here. This supplements several Google searches.

In the many weeks of so-called discussion thread development, those opposing the move have either been unwilling or unable to present refutation or counterargument; and therefore, I propose we delay no longer.

In other words, I suggest that there is a consensus to act now on the basis of the Lexis-Nexis search outcome. The time has come for this article to be renamed Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905. --Tenmei (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking outside the box

Please reconsider the thread above from a slightly different perspective. My comments were not focused solely on the subject at hand. My goal was more general. I wanted to encourage you to participate with constructive comments in contexts unrelated to this one.

Looking forward, I know that sometimes a terse observation will seem to have no direct effect. Your words may not affect the development of a specific thread. At the same time, your words can become a catalyst in unexpected ways. Your words may have significant indirect benefits for our project. Your point of view is useful; and sometimes your comments may be necessary precisely because they arise from "thinking outside the box". In other words,

Das Neun-Punkte-Problem ist somit ein gutes Beispiel für den englischen Begriff thinking outside the box (zu deutsch etwa: außerhalb des vorgegebenen Rahmens denken), der im Bereich des Problemlösens eine wichtige Rolle spielt.

When you find yourself hesitating, please try to guess whether your silence deprives our project of a potentially useful point-of-view? --Tenmei (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three Kingdoms map

Not sure why you decided to change Tamna back to Tamra, but regardless, could you change Kaya to Gaya in keeping with Baekje and Goguryeo (not Paekche and Kokuryo)? Also, I'm using the map in the various Buyeo languages articles, so it would be a plus if you could add the name Buyeo in the appropriate place in the north of Goguryeo.

Thanks for the map, — kwami (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kwamikagami, you don't need me to change the map, you can do it by yourself. Just upload a modified version here.

The reason for trying to change back the name can be reread here and here.

By the way: Your idea to use Revised Romanization instead of McCune–Reischauer is a good one.

Greetings --Valentim (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]