This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not a Wikipedia article or the talk page for a Wikipedia article. If you find this page on any website other than Wikipedia, you are looking at a mirror site. This page may not be up to date, and the user who made this page may have no relationship with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page can be found at https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Horeki/Archive_2.
This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
Portrait of Daruma' attributed to Soga Dasoku, 15th century, Japan
I have noticed that on many of your article creations you use the section ==External links== (as is used on en:wp). This was decided to be a bit too complex to understand and the term "Other webpages" was chosen to be the standard simple translation for the name of the section. --Creol(talk) 05:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please bear with me. I do know this, but I make the same mistake again and again. I check my work before moving on, but this seems to be a kind of blind spot. I hope your words may help me to end this curious problem. Please excuse this odd and unwanted annoyance. --Horeki (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, don't forget to include "BBW" in your edit summaries for bridge-related articles! That way we'll get a better idea of how many bridge-related edits were made, and you'll get recognition for participating! --Auntof6 (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since my job is keeping track of the numbers, I was only paying attention to what others are doing. I forgot that my small contributions might matter. --Horeki (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry Horeki — I just realised when I saw this that I haven't been marking my changes. I haven't actually done all that many, so I hope it will be okay. Osiris (talk) 05:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledging your work as one of six contributors created 20 new articles and 13 new categories in a context of 309 changes in bridge-related articles. --Osiris (talk) 08:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask that when you present me a situation that is best dealt with by fully examining the problem, that you do not revert edits (which were marked as "checking something") to pages you provided to support your opinion in the situation. It would be best to allow me time to look at the information, make my reply and return the pages to their original state before hitting the revert button. Understanding what impact the template had on the linking of pages is a part of your supplied reasoning on the situation and my changes were needed to get that understanding. Not having that template complicate the matter for 30 minutes would not grossly impact the wiki in a negative manner. --Creol(talk) 22:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Icon for not accepted The phrase "checking something" does not suggest an process of review and investigation.
diff 21:40, 3 April 2012 Creol (talk | changes) m . . (5,055 bytes) (-7) . . (checking something)
I didn't know how to make guesses about what your words were intended to mean.
diff 22:13, 3 April 2012 Horeki (talk | changes) . . (5,055 bytes) (+7) . . (Undid revision 3473145 by Creol region supported by reliable sources -- discuss on talk page)
From the SE wictionary, First definition, verb: If you check something, you look at it to see if there is a problem, or something new or different.
From the Japanese wiktionary, first verb defintion: 調べる（しらべる）、点検する which Google translates to examine, inspect, investigate, look.
All wiktionary definitions lead to the conclusion that I was examining something. Given that the checking was on a subject (the region) in an page that was directly tied to something you asked me (you provided both the the link to the template and commented on the effect the template was causing - links to the page for the region - on my talk page), the likelihood that I was not actually checking something (as was clearly stated) and making harmful changes to the template without reason (as is shown by them being reverted) is very small. My words were meant to mean exactly what they are defined to mean. There was no need to make guesses as the actual meaning was used (per the first definition of the word in three wiktionaries).
I had not commented on my page yet, but cause it would be foolish to make a comment on the subject without considering the information you had provided fully before giving my opinion on it. It is important to try to see (and understand as best we can) both sides of the situation before taking action. --Creol(talk) 00:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What you misperceive as redundant is important in the Japanese context. --Horeki (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC) :On a wiki when one page is so small like this it is very common to merge them when one article is essentially a duplicate of the information on the other. It is why we have redirects on the wiki. His merge was appropriate. -DJSasso (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC) ::Please review the inter-related contexts: ::* Template:Regions and administrative divisions of Japan ::* Template:Japan Old Province ::The maps at the right are representative of three distinct sets of maps which parse the Japanese understanding of their home.[reply]
The similarities in these maps are obvious, but what matters somewhat more are the relationships which are revealed in comparison with other maps in the series. In other words, there is more than one series of maps which look the same except for the areas highlighted in dark green or brown. The pattern is similar in the series which highlights each of the main Japanese islands in off-red color.
What can we do together to prevent the likelihood that others will continue to mis-perceive a problem because of mis-framing? --Horeki (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC) :::Yes I understand what you are saying, however, when the information we have on the wiki is the same in both articles we merge it into a single article that can cover the information of both subjects. Until such a time as there is enough information on each subject that they can later be separated out again into their own articles. Right now the information in both is pretty much the same. I realize that they are different things, but right now the articles are similar enough that there doesn't need to be two. This is quite a separate issue from the what you are talking about. Remember the goal of Simple Wikipedia is to be Simple. That involves many things, one of them being its better to have information on one page if possible instead of many pages. -DJSasso (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC) ::::DJSasso -- Yes, exactly, we are on the same page when you explain that "the goal of Simple Wikipedia is to be simple" ... which means that two articles are needed as clickable links in different usage contexts. For example, compare ::::* Pages that link to "Shikoku region" ::::* Pages that link to "Shikoku" ::::In this instance, a merge creates a "carousel of complexity" by confusing the carefully constructed network of hyperlinks which each article exists to serve. For example, please review User talk:Auntof6/Archives/2012#Hokkaidō Prefecture. --Horeki (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC) :::::But it doesn't disrupt anything because you explain on the merged page the situation. That it takes up the whole island and that geographically speaking they are the same thing. -DJSasso (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC) ::::::DJSasso -- The word "slugfest" is not fully a part of my vocabulary, but I think I begin to "get it" ....[reply]
No. --Horeki (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC) :::::::I actually think you are ignoring what I am saying. Yes they are different things, but they occupy the same area. (ie they are geographically the same). Everything you have posted above goes to show that. In the article you then go on to explain the three different distinctions. You then edit the redirects so they point to the section of the merged article that is appropriate and then the usage context is still there. -DJSasso (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC) :My first question here would be: What information, aside from the definition of a region in Japan, is provided by the region article that does not also apply to the island? :While the island will have a history that includes things that does not apply to the region, I can not see how anything about the region (other then the name region) does not apply to the island as well as the region. Is there a historical and cultural context to the region? Certainly. Does it not also apply to the island? I am not see this to be true. With the other 5 regions, it is certainly true, but in the three where they are geographically identical, they have the same history and culture. :How is the history and culture of Shikoku region differ from that of Shikoku? It is not a question of these differences being important, but of if they are numerous enough to create an article about. Is there enough information that it would be too much to explain it on the page for the island and use one article to explain both the island and the region? Looking at the English version of the subject, I can't see enough information to require a separate article. Apparently they can't either as the region(s) is(are) also a direct there. (and looking at the history of both redirects, they were never anything but redirects - no one there has ever thought to create a separate article) The only differences they point out is that the region also includes the small islands off the coast of the main island. This can easily be added to the main article without the need for a second article to explain it further. :As to the linking, all but 6 of the links to the region are from one template. One change fixes all of them. Of the 6, one is a "for other uses" on the island article which is not needed. Four are in the infoboxes for the four prefectures. The last in on list of regions.. which lists 9 main regions and may be an issue itself as there are only 8. :As to simplicity, being simple does not mean expecting the reader to be unable to read the introduction and understand why they were brought to that page. The introduction should action state that is is both an island and a region of Japan (with proper links to both). Redirects are meant to deal with both different names for the same thing (not entirely accurate here) and for single articles providing the same information of separate but very similar subjects (which this is). The redirect may just point to a specific part of the article (in this case the regions section - but see below) but as most of the information is identical, linking to the entire page is better. :From all I have read (mostly your links above, with some help from enwp), I just do not see how there is enough information on the separate identity that is the region to provide for an article. All the information that is separate is barely 2-3 sentences that can be used in the article for the island and would likely not even need a section of its own. :And speaking of section of its own, the one on Shikoku is both misleading and in need of copy editing. It implies that the four prefectures are regions and not prefectures. 2 of which are badly linked. -- Creol diff 22:44, 3 April 2012[reply]
Horeki please also be aware this combative nature you keep showing towards people on this wiki who don't agree with you is the same attitude that got you banned on en.wiki. If it continues it will be a violation of your one strike. This is something to keep in mind. As was pointed out to you on en.wiki you need to stop talking in riddles and talk in normal conversational English. I realize that English may be your second language but you make it very hard for anyone to understand a thing you are saying. That combined with your combativeness is a large problem. -DJSasso (talk) 01:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This was addressing the problems, currently the problems are your actions. Your post now on simple talk and this image are examples. Feel free to take the advice or not. However not taking the advice will end up with you being banned per our reciprocal ban policy due to your ban on en. -DJSasso (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
┌─────────────────────────────────┘ This may a good time to remind you of some things you already know about moving the goalposts.
A. The comment here is not an example of a "combative nature".
B. The graphic here is not an example of "combativeness".
C. The change summary below continues to be on-point:
* diff 10:04, 4 April 2012 Horeki (talk | changes) . . (7,956 bytes) (+126) . . (→Reverting: attacks the writer without addressing substance)
D. The label "combative" does conflate value judgments as facts. These examples show how labeling functions as a self-justifying mechanism.
My comment had nothing to do with the on going discussion itself. (here I will even make it more clear by giving it its own heading) It was a statement of fact and a warning about your behaviour. Whether you choose to continue down this road or not is up to you. -DJSasso (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find it more interesting that you turned an unrelated warning about your behavior into a claim that others are sidetracking the discussion on the matter when you never replied to replies on the comment you yourself started on the subject. And there is also the matter of you adding unrelated information to the articles dealing with the subject all in the name of sources claiming things that have no value in the discussion at all. No one has argued that the regions don't exist, only that there is no information to support an article on them. Yet you go and find information on other semi-related topics and include it as if it explained the topics in question and only create those articles when you get called on the problem.
You go and pull out multiple links to terms and diagrams/images (which was brought up in the ArbCom case that got you banned from En:wp in the first place - nice to see you are learning the errors in your ways there.. ) which do nothing, zero, zilch to support your case and only push a combative mentality (better to play games than provide a good reason/answer to points made).
You claim over and again that you don't understand, you claim people are being vague.. yet you strive to push linked terms and words like "conflate".. you don't understand basic terms (which are easily looked up if needed) but do your best to show your expansive vocabulary.. Simply put - The way you deal with people is seen as not acceptable by many people. The English Wikipedia banned you because of this. Your behavior in dealing with other people is not good for creating an encyclopedia. People can only work together as a group when they are willing to work with each other and your attitude and actions are those of a person who is not willing to even try to work with others. Also, when someone warns you that your actions are not good for the group, this is an additional subject.
People can talk about more than one subject with out talking about your actions making a discussion about the regions of Japan being a moot point. (do I need to explain moot? or does the term not confuse you?) You say wikipedia is not a game, but they way you act shows that you believe differently. --Creol(talk) 06:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Creol, your diff is many things -- many sentences, no paragraphs.
A. In general, I do not know how to respond without giving cause for DJSasso to use the adjective "combative".
B. There is one set of sentences can be answered in words written by someone else. You wrote:
C. My changes were suggested in the instructions given to anyone who wants to try to participate in at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion. Please review the following bullet.
