User:Enkyo2/Sandbox/Okinawa/Mikurajima

• Discourse on holiness#Appreciation of the teachings

"The discourse argues that one should not cast pearls before swine .... The phrase pearls before swine itself has since become a common expression for putting things in front of people who don't appreciate their value, and there have been numerous uses of the title in popular culture...."

"Some scholars, including some aligned with Christian orthodoxy, have proposed that, since Jewish literature of the period frequently portrayed non-Jews as dogs and the Roman Empire as a pig, the phrase is a rebuke of Gentiles, and hence that Jesus' message was intended solely for Jews. Amongst mainstream Christians the phrase is often interpreted as an instruction against continuing to evangelise people who are unsympathetic to Christianity, while evangelicals themselves, as well as a few mainstream Christians, interpret the phrase as merely being an attack against unholy things - that special effort should be made to keep places of worship clean, religious meals respected, and holy days honoured."

Deletion of talk page contribution

Optigan13's response to the words above was to undo them entirely -- to delete the entirety of Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer#RESET and the carefully drafted text which was added at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer#Hyūga aircraft carrier. I know of no conventional rationale which justifies that kind of action, but at the very least it should be reasonable to demand that Optigan13 meet some minimal burden of persuasion and production -- neither of which are evident here.

The following was posted on my talk page, and I have copied both the whatever-it-was and my response because they are relevant here. I can't be certain, but I take it as a threat. If not, someone needs to explain it to me because it should be more than clear by now that I do not understand what is happening nor do I grasp why. My best guesses are not flattering, generous, kind:

Optigan13 posted:

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Please be direct, concise and only discuss the content, not unsubstantiated attacks against your fellow editors. Also Assume the assumption of good faith; assumption of good faith does not equal agreeing with your position. -Optigan13 (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

My reply:

Optigan13 -- NO. The related edits you reverted at Hyūga class helicopter destroyer and what you reverted on this very talk page were entirely content-focused, as has been (1) the entire substance of my terse one-sentence contribution to this article and (2) my extensive defense of that one sentence across an extended, detailed, and repetitive record of thwarted efforts to engage a thoughtful and careful discussion and analysis. If you construe things otherwise, your reading is mistaken. The least I can do it to tell you here and now that your concerns are unfounded. Close scrutiny will not support what I take to be your interpretation; but without more detail, any assumptions about what you view might be are too insubstantial for me to address with any constructive rebuttal.

Optigan13 -- I can say this: Mine was not a heedless act of folly. Whether or not you take this statement in the spirit in which I offer it remains entirely up to you. Nevertheless, if you feel strongly enough about whatever it is you find objectionable, please feel free to take advantage of whatever options you find in the Wikipedia review system. My edit, my words, and my conduct can withstand scrutiny from an unbiased review.

Optigan13 -- In the dramatic context you would seem loathe to survey, what more can I have done than to have sought both informal and formal mediation? I invested a not-insubstantial amount of time in trying to attract reasonable minds to assist in resolving the impasse you now perceive. This investment allows me to ask whether you have done the same. More to the point, what are you prepared to do now?

Optigan13 -- I can only try to reassure you of my certainty that closer reading, evaluation and thoughtful review will vindicate both my conduct, my writing, my intentions, and the gravamen of the substantial contribution to NPOV which this article requires. Whether or not you see it this way is irrelevant amongst the broader readership my edit is designed to inform.

Optigan13 -- In terms of what you reverted on this very talk page, my prose can only be evaluated as modest, controlled, seemly and correct -- and, more importantly, it is supported by credible citations. In addition, the words which precede the deleted text, I reveal my quality. You claim to see it otherwise, but simply reverting my contribution without more than a terse edit summary is unconvincing, unavailing.

Optigan13 -- I repeat for redundant emphasis: Whatever it is which informs your edit, I can only guess. I do note that there are no in-line citations which would help me understand the otherwise impenetrable logic which presumably informs your decision to undo prose which took quite some time to create. I can only urge you to re-visit my words with a more careful attention before you determine to set out on a further course of action as you have done.

Optigan13 -- Caveat: Do not revert both my edit to the article and the invitation to further discussion which is posted on its talk page. Frankly, you have been too rash. I can't be more blunt. Perhaps on re-reading, you will begin to see that my comments are constructive, reasonable, appropriate. My one-sentence edit, as-a-matter-of-fact, is necessary, essential, valid -- as your heedless actions have so unexpectedly illustrated.

Optigan13 -- Remember that this is really all about just one short sentence added to this article. Reconsider just one of the sentences from the talk page which your rash edit deleted:

It is noteworthy that this short sentence is only slightly different from other similar sentences in articles about other vessels in the JMSDF fleet; and this minor distinction is neither unjustified, irrelevant nor inessential.

Optigan13 -- In conclusion, I can do no more than urge you to think again. --Tenmei (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

A simple "Optigan13 why did you revert my edits?" would have sufficed. I reverted the talk page because mixed in with the lengthy post, you continue to grossly mischaracterize Nick Dowling and your fellow editors efforts with attacks such as "if I hadn't pushed hard against Nick Dowling's unexplained resistance", "Nick Dowling asserts with near-religious fervour", "yes, but Nick Dowling's leadership qualities seemed to ensure that the group would also assent in wrongly construing their successes as sufficient cause". All of which (on top of previous posts) assert that he is angrily conspiring against you in bad faith, and that the other editors are not acting with a mind of their own. He and the other editors deserve the same respect and assumptions of good faith we have extended to you. This doesn't necessarily mean that they have to agree with you with respect to article content. I reverted the article additions because after several (many uninvolved) editors tryed to develop a well worded compromise version above and waited patiently for just under a week to allow you ample time to respond and suggest changes to the wording, the text was added. Soon after the text was added you then added more material to slant back towards your own interpretation of the sources. Which myself and the other editors disagree with. So as stated earlier, could you please explain your concern about the article content, but in a simple and concise matter and without attacking your fellow editors? -Optigan13 (talk) 06:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Do I really need to address Optigan13's posting seriatim? Would it make any difference? Would the investment of time and attention prove worthwhile? Maybe the same consequences will flow from simply referencing a number of crucial steps which are recorded as part of the readily accessible history of this article? --Tenmei (talk) 07:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:28, 4 September 2007 -- Marcd30319

Newer edit → External links:

+ http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3000171&C=landwar

Revision as of 16:43, 4 September 2007 -- Marcd30319

Newer edit → External links:

+ http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200708/200708270007.html

Newer edit → External links:

+ http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/articles/20070825.aspx

Revision as of 14:25, 30 October 2007 -- Buckshot06

Newer edit → The 'Hyūga-class destroyers are a new type of small aircraft carrier (though for political reasons called a helicopter destroyer (DDH)) being built for the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF).

Revision as of 19:42, 19 November 2007 -- BillCJ

m (moved Hyuga class destroyer to Hyuga class helicopter destroyer: Better name, as "aircraft carrier" is a loaded term, per text)

Revision as of 05:45, 29 February 2008 -- Saburny

Newer edit → The Hyūga-class helicopter destroyers are a new type of small aircraft [[Helicopter carrier]] (though called helicopter destroyers (DDH) for political reasons) being built for the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF).

Revision as of 10:43, 13 July 2008 --- Nick Dowling

m (fixed ref and tagged claim which is currently being discussed on the talk page)

Newer edit →The JDS Hyūga is the first aircraft carrier to be specifically constructed for Japanese marine forces since the end of the Pacific War.{.{dubious}}