Wikipedia

User:Enkyo2/Sandbox/Okinawa/Kōzushima

< User:Enkyo2 | Sandbox/Okinawa
Several editors (including myself) are currently discussing whether Japan's new Hyūga class helicopter destroyers should be classified as aircraft carriers or not and whether the article's references are adequete. Interested editors are invited to comment on the article's talk page. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose - This is a joke right? You want someone dismissed as a coordinator because they disagreed with your position on an article's name????????????????????????? Heeheeheehee! Thanks for the laugh - I need it! And thought maybe he had done something really bad, like support me in a dispute on whether a Japanese DDH was an aircraft carrier or not. Whewwww! - BillCJ (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
BillCJ, no, I am not asking to dismiss Nick because he disagrees with the historical name of the article, but the way he is going about achieving this, by using a straw poll to change it to a fictitious name unsupported by references which is completely contrary to Wikipedia policy and community consensus on straw polls--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


"... not all sources should be considered useful (with the big proviso that WP:V and WP:NPOV requires that all non-fringe views be acknowledged), and it may sometimes be appropriate to post notifications of discussions of sources on this project's noticeboards to gain other editors' views. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I personally find WP:V's assertion that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" to be frustrating given that its basically an open invitation for people to use any professionally published source they like and it can be difficult to correct material which is demonstratably wrong if it is sourced to a mistake. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia places a lot of emphasis on the need for consensus and being seen to rock the boat by working outside the mainstream dispute resolution processes isn't a good idea as it can lead to people thinking that the project is trying to be an exclusive club with its own rules ...." Nick Dowling (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


Three minutes to undo an edit, that is fast protection. Is it not useful to mention similar weight British and Korean vessels to get the idea across that not all flat tops are aircraft carriers? Even the Invincible class ships got the Harrier as an afterthought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.142.188 (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Aside from weight alone not being an indicator of ships' ability to operate aircraft, the comparison to similar British and Italian ships was already in the second para of the article. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


Is this "Personal Abuse"? " ... my serial attempts to invite helpful intervention have produced zero effect. Initially, I sought mediation for a variety of reasons, not least of which was because Nick Dowling persists in framing sham "queries" in which any "answer" becomes irretrievably confined within the terms of narrowing premises -- a pernicious variation on the classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. This sly straw man gambit has rhetorical appeal, but it unfolds with insidious consequences .... When I caused this dispute by merely adding one sentence only, I anticipated a controversy different than the one Nick Dowling has engineered. --Tenmei (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Oy vey?

edit
Coldmachine -- Please take note that nothing to do with the contrived furour which is seemingly associated with a presumptive dispute having to do with "aircraft carriers" vs. "helicopter destroyers" has been introduced in the following related articles:
Why do you suppose that is? Is likely that this was nothing more than felicitous happenstance?
If I were characteristically given to using a sledgehammer when a more delicate instrument would be more appropriate, then my one-sentence edit to Hyūga class helicopter destroyer would seem to become an anomaly worthy of more than passing notice -- especially in the contexts I did not selectively?

Proposition on which consensus was formed
The participants in the consensus discussion were invited:

The following language summarizes my understanding of the proposition for which consensus was sought:

Several editors (including myself) are currently discussing whether Japan's new Hyūga class helicopter destroyers should be classified as aircraft carriers or not and whether the article's references are adequete. Interested editors are invited to comment on the article's talk page. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

In the context above, I did nothing to inhibit the process nor the eventual consensus which was formed; nor did I impede or challenge the posting of the consensus-derived text in the "Details and Specifications" section of the article. Doesn't this beg the question, "Why does this passive conduct arouse such passionate opprobrium, such indignant claims about "disruptive behaviours"? Why is that?

If you haven't asked yourself these kinds of questions, I'd have to wonder about that? I wonder why I wasn't able to put it in such succinct terms before this. Why not?

Would it be perceived as helpful or inflamatory if I were to go back through the record to pick out postings consistent with the following:

22 July -- non-NPOV fundamentals in this talk page "accident" are set in 2007, not in 2008. In this context, re-framing questions in which the scope of "consensus" is limited by factors implicit in the premise is an impoverished logical strategy.
14 July -- Initially, I sought mediation for a variety of reasons, not least of which was because Nick Dowling persists in framing sham "queries" in which any "answer" becomes irretrievably confined within the terms of narrowing premises -- a pernicious variation on the classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. This sly straw man gambit has rhetorical appeal, but it unfolds with insidious consequences.

Deliberate redundancy for emphasis, yes; but not a sledgehammer. --207.69.140.37 (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Genuine apologies rebuffed?

edit

I'm just pinging you to make sure you were aware about some more proposed changes at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer, since you were involved in the last discussion to make sure you didn't have anything to add on this latest round. -Optigan13 (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. However, I won't participate any further in the discusions, for reasons which ought to be fairly obvious, if you note how badly my apology was received. There was no way I could keep my temper if I responded, so I bowed out. - BillCJ (talk) 04:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Understandable, that is also why I am staying out of this, just watching to make sure that you were aware of the discussion. My last reverts after what I perceived to be persistent badgering of Nick didn't go over well either. -Optigan13 (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
And I do appreciate it. Nick is also keeping me informed privately. Anyway, his ability to stay cool in the discussions is why he's an admin, and I'm not! - BillCJ (talk) 04:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note here: thanks very much for introducing a link to ASW carrier on the talk page of this article. Reading "ASW carrier" really helped me see JDS Hyūga in a meaningful context! Somewhat obviously "ASW carrrier" should also be linked from the Hyūga class helicopter destroyer page itself, but that can wait until things calm down a bit. Anyway, thanks again for your contributions to the discussion! (sdsds - talk) 19:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Enkyo2/Sandbox/Okinawa/Kōzushima&oldid=557841820"