Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:00, 6 June 2011

Talkback

EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 29 March 2011 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

Formal mediation of the dispute relating to Senkaku Islands has been requested. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. For an explanation of what formal mediation is, see Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee/Policy. Please now review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then, in the "party agreement" section, indicate whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page.

Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 04:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

This message is to inform you that a request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Senkaku Islands, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. Mediation of this dispute will begin within two weeks (once a mediator has been assigned to the case), so please add the case page to your watchlist.

• For an explanation of what is involved in formal mediation, see Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee/Policy#Mediation
• For a guide to accepted cases, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Guide#Case phase

The entirety of the above two pages (the MedCom policy and the guide to formal mediation) are also important reading for editors who are new to formal mediation. If you have any questions, please post them onto the case talk page, or contact the MedCom mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 15:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Re

Glad that you have been back. I have been badly busy now too. I am not the "main driver" and I saw reasonable suggestions from STSC and PHead128 not long before. The environment of the dispute has made me having less and less confidence on the coming mediation. Thanks for your message. --Lvhis (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I am back mostly to witness this mediation. Your lack of confidence on the process is understandable. I view it as little more than a formality that User:Qwyrxian and others intend to pursue. It's commendable that you stuck around for all this time, since these content debates are quite unproductive exercises. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Pinnacle Islands

Yes Bob, I also like the dual name solution but Misplaced Pages does not seem to endorse a dual name very much. In any case, I would support the dual name argument in the mediation process. STSC (talk) 12:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Bob and STSC, thank both of you for your input and efforts. My thought is to go step by step: step1, the "SI" is a POV one; Step2, choose either dual one or the English "PI". Step1 is very critical. --Lvhis (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The argument

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) 04:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Bob, you have done a good job in your section "The Practice of Unscientific Research". When I was close to finish my section "the SI is not a English name but ..." and then read through your section, I feel my one sounds echoing your one with specifics, as your one was more in principle and theoretical way. Hope these two are of complement to each other. I feel this long standing dispute has been with "penny-wise and pound-foolish" tricks which we need to avoid, and in addition, a trick of "Wikilawyering". As for the poll, I mostly agree on your vote. I had my concern left in STSC's talk page . Thanks. --Lvhis (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought the poll's kind of useless and distractive, but I took part in it anyway since it's not such a big deal. My feeling is that we should spend more time discussing the science behind this little research project than wasting time making premature opinions on various data collection methods.

By the way, you should take a look at Phoenix7777's data in here. It's a classic case of how impressive results can be cooked up. I've made a few reassessments of his data and the significance of his results had then unsurprisingly vanished. I'd encourage you to do similar reassessments of his other data.

Finally, this is a very sensitive question -> What do you think of our mediator? While he appears to be a pretty nice guy, I am not exactly sure if he has the expertise to really fully appreciate the arguments, the data, and the (very basic) science that were presented by us. Just by looking at his profile, it appears he technically should have the relevant training in science and computation (being an expert Perl programmer and all). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

"I'm in the mood for dancing"

I was in the mood to confront those edit-warlords in the absence of the mediator, particularly when I saw John Smith's appearing on the scene! STSC (talk) 10:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)