User talk:O not

lets work togather to fix the problem with the king abdullah page

List of Chinese exonyms for places in Japan

I disagree with the too hasty deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese exonyms for places in Japan. I'm not trying to argue that the result was wrong, only that closing off discussion was too rushed.

While I have no particular interest in the substance of this page, I was inclined to keep it because of its categories, which were so unfamiliar to me that I was still exploring its cohort when David Fuchs closed the deletion thread.

I am concerned that no one who worked on this page was notified that it was being considered for deletion. A template was placed on the deleted page, yes; however, a conventional follow-through which would have involved notifying each of the contributors about the proposed deletion was only assumed to have been done. As your talk page shows, this was not done, despite the fact that the anomaly was specifically noted, e.g.,

• Administrivia: The templates seem to have not been completely applied to this AfD -- I've attempted to fix them, but if a full-time wikignome could check my work, that'd be wise. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC) [emphasis added by Tenmei]

I am also concerned because there was at least one suggestion that the content could be retained if it were re-cast in the context of a re-titled article, e.g.,

Comment: The articles you listed are useful and encyclopedic because they address pertinent topics. The problem with this article in question is that 1. per TakuyaMurata, why Chinese? And 2. since the overwhelming majority of Japanese kanji has its correspondance in Chinese, and that the overwhelming majority of Japanese placenames are written exclusively in kanji, there is virtually no "real" Chinese exonym for Japanese places. I'd suggest changing this article into List of exonyms in East Asia, and listing placenames in China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, etc., all of which used the Chinese writing at one point, making real exonyms (e.g. Seoul) of particular encyclopedic interest. But in any case there's nothing in this article now that's worth keeping. o (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC) [emphasis added by Tenmei]

I don't understand why it is not construed as significant that one of the article's contributors did argue to keep; and there was a modest response to the suggestion that the article could be re-focused and expanded in light of the general comments of those who saw no value in the work, e.g.,

To user o, who initiated the deletion: There is a big number of monolingual lists in the Wikipedia. You might to review them before trying to delete someone's efforts. You suggested to improve, why not instead of being destructive be productive and improve the article instead? I suggest Korean and Vietnamese may be a candidate for a separate article, as they don't have a Kun'yomi concept, which makes Japanese and Chinese so different (more different than modern Chinese vs On'yomi. --Atitarev (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[emphasis added by Tenmei]

I was struck by the fact that the arguments to keep were thoughtful, considered, informed. In contrast, the fact that editors arguing for delete offered only cursory comments. I am persuaded that these becomes relevant factors.

In my view, the following alternatives should be considered:

1. This deletion should be reverted, and the discussion thread should be re-opened ... AND
2. A reasonable amount of time should be allowed for comment by the editors who constructed this article ... AND
3. This article might be proposed for consideration by the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron ... AND
4. As a general rule, the significance of unfamiliar categories should not be too casually dismissed as appears to have been done in this instance.

To summarize for redundant clarity: I'm not trying to argue that the result was ultimately wrong, only that closing off discussion was too rushed. I rarely disagree with 日本穣 in such matters as this; and 日本穣 did favour deletion. My reservations focus solely on what seemed to me the premature nature of that closed discussion .... which could have remained open. --Tenmei (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Re: I am concerned that no one who worked on this page was notified that it was being considered for deletion.

I admit that I may not have followed all the procedures properly. I apologize for that. But there was only one major editor to the article and I did initiate the debate in the articles talk page long before starting the deletion process.

Re: I am also concerned because there was at least one suggestion that the content could be retained if it were re-cast in the context of a re-titled article, e.g....

The person you quoted was me, and you misunderstood my point. I was saying that the topic itself (Chinese exonym for Japanese places) is indeed worthy, but the article was not worth keeping as there was no encyclopedic information in it.

Re: I don't understand why it is not construed as significant that one of the article's contributors did argue to keep; and there was a modest response to the suggestion that the article could be re-focused and expanded in light of the general comments of those who saw no value in the work, e.g....

Yeah, I would have welcomed a debate but someone deleted the article before it could have happened. FYI I was not the one who actually deleted the article; in fact I don't even know how. However Atitarev did not actually respond to my concerns nor did he respond positively to the refocus and expansion idea. First he said that there's other monolingual lists in wikipedia, but that really has nothing to do with this debate. And then he said that Vietnamese and Korean exonyms shouldn't be listed together with C-J exonyms, in effect voting against a more inclusive East Asian exonyms list. He cites the fact that V and K don't have kun'yomi, but that has nothing to do with what should or should not be considered exonym, either.

Re: I was struck by the fact that the arguments to keep were thoughtful, considered, informed. In contrast, the fact that editors arguing for delete offered only cursory comments. I am persuaded that these becomes relevant factors.

But did you considered the fact that the only two keep votes were you and the author?

Ultimately, I have nothing against reopening the debate. Indeed I think there should be more debate on the issues specifically concerning what should be considered note worthy exonyms. But I maintain that the article contained no information worth keeping and that, in the end, deletion was the right move. o (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your deletion

Hello, yes, I am the author of the article you initiated the deletion of. I think you are not ready to listen to the arguments I and Tenmei have suggested. First of all, why did you pick it? I see you have some knowledge of Japanese and Chinese and you could explain the reality of how Japanese names are pronounced in Chinese in the talk page or even in the article itself. The information was useful and of interest and I am utterly disappointed. Was there a consensus? Why was it deleted despite the votes against? Should I have just deleted the templates? I don't know the procedure exactly myself. There is a big number of city lists and lists of exonyms, which can be easily checked in dictionaries, still they don't become candidates for deletion. I brushed you off? How would you react if I say your article is unencyclopedic and suggest its deletion. There was a lot of room for improvement, no doubt. Don't think I don't understand the rules how Japanese names SHOULD be read in Chinese and I understand you point about them being true exonyms. Still renaming the article or clarifying your point would be a far better choice. --Atitarev (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Atitarev -- This exchange of views isn't strictly necessary because a new article which builds from the old one is easily achieved. The effective "restoration" is immediately within your grasp. As I understand it, the focus of any "new" article -- as suggested by a "new" and slightly altered or revised title -- needs to be somewhat broadened; and at such point, the full text of the now-deleted text can be re-introduced as a rough draft template for whatever seems best to you. Rather than pursuing a potentially fruitless line of inquiry here, it would seem more profitable and ultimately more effective to post your thoughts on the talk page of a new article which has yet to be created. Do you see my point? --Tenmei (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

O not -- As nearly as I can tell, you did nothing wrong. According to the administrator who actually handled the mechanics of deleting this article, I was mistaken in my notion that contributors to an article must be notified when an AfD (Article for Deletion) thread is commenced. This notification is preferable, of course; but not required -- ergo, your conduct in this instance was entirely above reproach. Not to worry.

Maybe I should mention that this is only the second AfD in which I've participated ...; and so it would appear that both you and I are stumbling somewhere on a similarly steep learning curve. Perhaps this just proves that some things can only be learned the hard way, I guess. --Tenmei (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Lost city

As we know the location of Port Royal, I've reverted you. Dougweller (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I see your point, and admittedly I had not read the article carefully when I added Port Royal. However Port Royal certainly belongs to the same category as Carthage, Xanadu, etc. Furthermore, while the general location of Port Royal was known, exact location of the original old city had been lost. Anyway, it's really more of the problem of the article as a whole, so let's take the discussion there. o (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Nara (Manchu clan) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Jin dynasty, Li, Ming, Laha and Later Jin

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Royal and noble ranks of the Qing dynasty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Darhan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Royal and noble ranks of the Qing dynasty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Han. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, O not. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, O not. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, O not. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)