User talk:Baru
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Before I Vote on 'Move Tsushima Islands' Issue
- I would appreciate a rational explaination (after you read my Comments in the subject dispute Talk:Tsushima Islands), of the arguement or arguments you consider vital and germane to the discusion and vote. Frankly, MOST all of you are being silly over nothing of particular importance, since both names can be redirected into the one used. I have left a comment concerning my contribution to the article, which contribution — seems to have triggered the current edit and revision wars. For that I apologize, but see the Comments on the vote. I am also taking the liberty of putting the vote section AFTER the Comments about same.
- Still, I have just spent over four hours of valuable spare time, and would welcome your thoughts after you read and understand the distinction I put forth between a governments termonology as a governing body and a geographical reference like an archepelego, which it certainly is.
- More to the point, I'd like to see your defense regarding your favorite POV of what I had to say viz a viz the mergest attitude of the senior editors and administrators that frequent the Wikipedia:VfD discussions. To my recollection, I don't recollect any of you hotheads in this dispute ever spending anytime thereon, possibly excepting Mel Etitis, but rarely even then.
- In any event, I'm neutral here, and have asked that the article be kept EDIT FREE for the next three days by placing The Inuse template into it — I'd copyedited over two and half hours before I suspended that effort the other night because this shameful fued was going on — proper English grammer does depend, unfortunately, on whether one uses the plural or the singular. I saved that on my hard drive, but I don't need to wade through yet another 70 edits to finish the job. As it is, this matter will probably double the time it takes for such a simple job.
- If you are local to Japan, some history of the canals or Sea-channel is certainly germane to the ongoing discussion, moreover, any cogent arguement you condsider being particularly telling needs to be clearly repeated in the current on going comments if you want them counted on in the vote.
- I will make sure this message goes to each contributor to the article the past month, so you are not being singled out. Now is the time to take a deep breath, for rational concise summaries, not all the arguing that is so wearisome in 66 printed pages - half a novelette, I'd guess! It's certainly a lot to ask your fellow editors to wade through on a minor issue.
- I will also personally be making sure that at least a dozen other Administrators I'm acquainted with take a look at the debate after the time below. I will in fact ask for twenty commitments, so be clear and respectful of our time!!!
- Thankyou for your time, attention, and good professional behaviour. I'll check the Talk state again no sooner than Monday around Noon (UTC), And ask the uninvolved others to do the same. PLEASE BE CONCISE. [[User:Fabartus| FrankB || TalktoMe]] 23:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] I Found Mr Tans Source
- I dug out Mr Tans source. You do realize he is just a kid, I guess 13, but he admitted to being the same age as my teens (14 and 15) when I'd gotten tough with him. See Wikipedia:Request for Comment\Mr Tan — I'm para-09 under uninvolved parties.
- In any event, we should have a whole bunch of others dropping into the talk in the next day or three, and I'd like to suggest you go back and edit your discussion contributions to reflect the indented numbering system turns a good back reference into a form like 1-2, or 1-0 (Alternately: 1.2, 1.0); It would make it a whole lot easier to follow your arguements with Mr Tan in particular! It should be your show.
- Tans text quoted an Professor at Columbia University, who's primary focus was on cultural matters. It's currently just above the vote heading. In sum, this guy stated bluntly that the island was divided in two, by the Jap Navy. Tan even got the exact wording correct... but missed the meaning — the guy was refuting a Korean claim on the island which refered to it as two islands, while making sort of tounge in cheek joke because in Far Eastern Studies the Korean Theory was something like 'two islands claim'. I don't have the exact wording here, but that's the sense and gist of what I got from reading his text which was quite long. Oh, and Mr Tan should have placed quotations around the matter — he lifted it verbatum!
Frank
[edit] Tsushima: island/Islands
In your vote, I noticed that you stated that you cannot find any map that says the Kamino-shima and Shimono-shima. I did found one myself long ago, and that is an Encarta map:[1]. By the way, I would greatly appreciate your comments if you wish to do post any. Thanks. Mr Tan 15:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] There is nothing to Fear, Save Fear itself! (FDR)
FrankB says... Regarding your nice note: "I am afraid that I don't understand your demand to me exaxtly, because I am new to wikipedia and I don't know datails of the wiki system. If I do it by myself, I will bring another mistakes, I think. So, I would appriciate it if you could kindly do it first. Of course I know you are busy, so rough correction is enough. I shall follow it. My intention of putting my comments to you is just to show facts about canals to you and other wikipedians. There are no other intentions. If you have no time to do, please contact to me. I will try by myself. Thank you. Baru 17:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fabartus"
-
- 1) Establishing the facts is just what we need, so thankyou very much for being so clear. Unfortunately, one of us doesn't have the training to recognize a good fact from beliefs, bias, and Junk, but is real good at locating web pages that seem to support his POV, without thinking much about how good his source material may be. If we have the patience (however it may be diminishing with time) to train him up to better quality research, trust me, we can straighten out even horrible english so long as you are willing to have it copyeditted and state the facts as best you can. In fact, such will be refreshing and welcome change!
-
- 2) I may be an old fart of 50, but I am new to Wiki on an interactive basis. I made occasional changes as an anoymonous web user, and was delighted when I discovered one of my IP addresses (I have many computers) to show me trail to those older edits. But the edit war needed a little leadership, so I stepped up as I have also been in our navy for over 26 years as a reservist. If I can keep the peace and give direction and purpose to 7-10 young sailors, I should be able to do the same for some serious fellows working voluntarily out of common interests. But while I feel funny saying it, Welcome!
-
- 3) I mean the heading. It is nice that you worry about causing more arguement, but it takes TWO PEOPLE to argue unproductively, and so long as you are willing to discuss and change when an agreement on facts is reached, talk with us and your efforts will be very welcome. When the arguement goes on beyond what is reasonable, then one may cross the line to less welcome, or even unwelcome. But I don't think your comment would have been made were you that sort of person, so dig in! Even if you think you have nothing more to add to this article, Wiki can use you elsewhere. Do not let bad english stop you, so long as you are willing to share what knowledge you do have, your use of our language will improve very quickly by seeing how others take your meaning, and turn it into better words strung together in good grammer (rules of putting words together to make meaning clear). I will certainly willingly work with anyone who knows he has many things to learn, and perhaps my strengths can help his knowledge, and his knowledge can help my mistakes or interests. The trick is to be polite enough so no one get feelings hurt, or loses face.
-
- 4) I MADE NO DEMAND, only a suggestion (except perhaps, for a cease fire in the edit wars) — I think you were meaning the verb word 'Request' OR 'Ask', and knew that I was not demanding anything. In any event, I invite you to try. As I have noted, I have no face to loose anymore, I did THAT when I misinterpreted the original paragraph a long week ago just after Mr Tan Added it without quote marks. So since my face is all dirty and covered with mud, would be a shame if someone else didn't share my embarrassment! (Joke attempt).
-
- 5) If you don't want to tamper with article itself, open it in a second EDIT window and the Talk page in the first EDIT window, and copy out the offending section to be edited, and paste it as is inside quote marks ("like this")into the talk page. It is best to take a little of the prior paragraph and a little of the following paragraph so people can readily see the context in the article of the excerpt; See the Professors text I found for Mr Tan (5th Discussion point? / for an example) — it is in the vote discussion, just above Mr. Otani's kind help, and a little farther than that above the Vote section.) After you paste it in you can cut it mid-phrase if necesaary, by using ellipses ("...").
-
- 6) Once you are sure you have made it's context clear, go lower, and paste it in a second time and then adjust it as you will and think best. Next to each other, the two versions are easy to compare. No one is going to pick on you for spelling and non-perfect english grammer if you are asking for help and corrections, so focus only on what needs said to be accurate with the facts. Make a note or two with your changes as to what was wrong, assuming it was inobvious, and someone will come along, or drop a message, and it will get copy editted before entering web-wide text.
If you do this, your contribution will be large, and we can get this article settled and completed as soon as possible. I will be pretty busy all weekend, but will pop on for a few minutes now and then at irregular intervals. So please fix it if you have the time. Drop me and Mel a note when you want it copy edited, and one of us will take a look, probably before Monday noon (UTC). I'm four hours behind, so that will be my 08:00 hrs in the morning.
Best wishes, [[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 01:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Since you are new, and all...
Oops! Editing twice — I didn't know that the enter key saved the edit and hit by mistake!
Go to my user page, and steal stuff - there is some good stuff there to read and explore. If you want to make your signature have talk like some of us, change your preferences under 'Nickname' so is something like "User:Fabartus|FrankB]] || [[User talk:Fabartus|Talkto_FrankB" (make sure you get the double square bracket right. I just changed (fixed) mine, so compare with above. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB Is still bad, but close - need only now to remove the first pipe and unnecessary nickname... like "User:Fabartus]] || [[User talk:Fabartus|Talkto_FrankB" now will see: User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB which is what I want. Three tildes does not put in the time.
Cheers! Time to eat! User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 01:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Re: Baru's short comment: (Im sorry I don't have enough time to make long comments.) "dividing the island into two islands in a technical sense" is out-of-context and diffirs from geograpical facts. As for the scale of the task and preparations by Imperial Japan, I can't grab your intetion from the paragraph.Baru 04:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I need to get to bed, but in a technical sense, the island is divided in three. THAT is a geographical fact, as you yourself have said. 'Technically, the land on one bank is no longer touching the land of the other bank, so technically they are divided. Pragmatically, and customarily, they are not — Neither does the Erie Canal seperate New York State into North New York and South New York, as someone correctly argued on the discussion page. 'Technically' is Mr Tans narrow world view as seen from inexperience; pragmatic, is 'So What, they are still same place', lots of places have rivers and canals and no one calls them two different cities. 'Customary', is how the inhabitants feel and talk about it. They don't have to administer the three sections as the same community, but evidently they combine even more, including some communities on the satelite islets. This is the 'CU' of Nanshu's Comment, and well said it was indeed. Thus the dividing ... in a technical sense was an attempt to avoid the phrase 'Permanently dividing the Island' used by that professor Mr Tan should have quoted properly with quotes. I have no objection at all in dropping the whole phrase leaving the reader free to make whatever interpretation occurs to him.
re: Final Vote on Talk:Tsushima Islands— I'd suggest you vote despite reservations. One of her projects was streamlining and fixing WikiMoves, so this format is evidently the new procedure when there is no consensus, and you can't call VOTES OF 6:5 a consensus! (See my edit tonight.) User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 6 July 2005 02:50 (UTC)
[edit] Heads Up on Tsushimas
- Forgot you already knew... but this is already posted, so... don't forget the Strait!
- Just a friendly heads up— through some magic I don't understand the Talk:Tsushima Islands is up for a Final Vote. Get there soon, and pop into Talk:Tsushima Strait as well. The Koreans seem to be counterattacking.FrankB 7 July 2005 00:26 (UTC)
- I agree- I posted that point, and that Hermeneus had first noticed that 'entanglement' over the weekend, with the suspicion that that was your objection on her Talk, and noted she hadn't answered either of you.
- Looking just now. The Vote is closed, and the apparent intention is to runoff the vote between 'Tsushima' and 'Tsushima Island' (No 'S', Hurray!!!) but it's somewhat up in the air. I struck through my secondary preference, as I can't spend much more WikiTime until my evening at the earliest. Shrug.
