Talk:Caisson (Asian architecture)

message: I am going to remove my citations from another article that you incorrectly applied here in a way that is misleading. The sources are not essential to your article.  --Mattisse 12:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed information and citations that are at odds with this article and is incorrectly included. --Mattisse 13:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed sources from a book I have that do not support the statements you have attributed to them. You must find sources that do support your statements. My book does not mention either zaojing or dougong in reference to the Forbidden City. Dougong almost certainly was not used in the structural sense there, as after 700 CE fasteners and adhesives were increaingly used, especially when you get to the relatively recent time period of the Forbidden City's building and rebuilding.  --Mattisse 14:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Err.... no. Any standard reference work on the architecture of the Forbidden City talks about zaojing or dougong. What kind of book are you using? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The architectual books referenced in zaojing that you removed from the article and put in the caisson (Asian architecture) before you set up the #REDIRECT  from zaojing to caisson (Asian architecture).  --Mattisse 14:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing incorrect citations 

message: does not mention much of what you state in first para.  --Mattisse 14:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And nor am I presenting it as the reference for the entire paragraph. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then I suggest that you be clear in the way you reference so the reader will know.  --Mattisse 15:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you look at Wikipedia's Manual of Style, and any manual of style you care to cite, you will see that the reference for the sentence is placed at the end of the sentence. What would you prefer? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First para not supported by Peoples Daily source 

message: You make many statements that are not supported or are directly contradicted by my sources. Those are the ones I am removing. --Mattisse 14:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your description of caisson ceiling is not supported by my sources 

message: 1.1 Chinese vs East Asian
You cite chinainfoonline.com as showing that the Caisson is unique to Chinese architecture. This is plainly false. See the following Japanese sources for mentions of Japanese usage of caissons:
* 
* . --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I rely more on my architectural book that I do many online sources. On line sources will do when you have nothing else, but books by experts on the history of Chinese architecture are superior sources, from my point of view.  --Mattisse 15:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So which shape are you disputing? Does your "architectural book" say that it is only square or circular or what? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1. Opening paragraph

message: 2.1 OED
You have put a dubious tag on the OED reference. As I have said before, the OED is the authoritative source on the English language. I don't know what more I can say about your dubious tag without verging on personal attack. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles under discussion are on Chinese architecture and like the articles on Indian architecture, it would be preferable to use the Chinese terminology as other editors have been trying to do on Chinese architectural articles. You are taking a narrow view to quote the OED, hardly an architecture source for Chinese architecture. You are not taking a  view.  --Mattisse 14:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So are you disputing the authority of the OED on linguistics? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2. Names

message: 3.1 Forbidden City
You inserted: "Dougong was not used in the Forbidden City in a structural sense as by that time Chinese architecture, influenced by outside sources, had evolved more complex structural methods."
This is problematic in several ways.
3.1.1: it lacks citation
3.1.2: how is the construction of the Forbidden City more "complex" structurally than earlier structures?
3.1.3: there are plainly dougongs in the Forbidden City. The cited source (Yu) clearly discusses it. Unless you can provide a citation for your assertion, Yu, as the authoritative source on the architecture of the Forbidden City, will prevail your inconsistent statement. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No scholarly references I have mention zaojing in connection with the Forbidden City. In any case, the essential connect of zaojing to water and fear of fire in wooden structures does not seem to be featured in the descriptions of the structures of the Caisson article (other than in the sense of general past history not pertaining to the Forbidden City). --Mattisse 15:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a pretty poor argument. As I said, I have cited sources which talk about the caissons in the Forbidden City. You are arguing "omission in one book denies mention in another book" - not a valid argument. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 3. Structure

message: I asked for an honest opinion from an editor who writes many articles, including several Feature Articles, on Chinese history and Chinese architecture. His reply: 
If you want my honest opinion, I think it is Caisson that needs to be merged into an article on zaojing (preferably as a separate explanatory section), not the other way around. I say this in consideration that it only focuses on the Forbidden City, while the zaojing covers a much wider time frame. That's just me, though.--Pericles of AthensTalk 06:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See further reply from Pericles on my talkpage. I have posted a new message on your talk page. Cheers, PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Received third opinion on merge 

message: *Merge Since the term Caisson is not used in Western architecture in the way it is used in this article, it seems like this material would fit better in the article Coffer which currently lacks much information now but is the right term. This article would help the article on coffer out by beefing it up,  plus it would  change the title of this article  to the correct architectural term.  --Mattisse 13:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about Caissons in Asian architecture. An Asian caisson is structurally different from a classical coffer. Please do not try to change the topic. The Zaojing issue needs to be resolved first. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see last several entries on your talk page. Cheers.  --Mattisse 14:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest merge to [[Coffer]] 

message: The sources that I used in another article that you took and put in this one (when you did your unauthorized merge of that article into this one) do not support the material in the article you  used them to reference. That is why I removed them.  If caisson is a generally used term for what you are describing, then it should not be hard to find reference sources.  Cheers. --Mattisse 14:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please centralise the discussion in the thread above. I am copying your response to that section. Please respond there. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My sources did not support the material in the article they referenced 

message: I am repeating this from my posting from the article talk page. On that page I fully discussed my objections and no resolution was arrived at. It was suggested that a third party be consulted by the person I consulted (you have removed it from you talk page so I cannot cite it) as he said each was equally valid a title for the article in his opinion and that we should draw straws or consult another third party. You cannot copy material and references from another Wikipedia article. I will take this up on ANI. Regards, Mattisse 10:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  You cannot merge articles without discussion  

message: The merge request was a way of getting new input. You cannot remove a merge suggestion unilaterally without attempting to get input first.  I will respond to the issues you raised above further since you complain about that. I did not respond further before because I did not know they were there. 
I was busy responding to attacks from User:Cyborg Ninja. She was warned and threatened with a block in part for stalking me to this page and entering comments here.  to which you responded and appeared to act on her advice.
 
Please take the whole picture into account before you act unilaterally and without consulting me.   --Mattisse 11:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  You cannot remove a merge suggestion without discussion as you have done 

message: That was the answer from ANI. Is there anymore to discuss about that? I believe it is clear that ANI  said it was required. However, if you do not consider that over, I will ask again on ANI to revisit that response if that is what you want. Or do you consider the first response from ANI a closed case?   --Mattisse 11:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please revert the page to the original merge request without the material copied from the other Wikipedia article.  --Mattisse 11:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ANI was clear that a merge procedure was required 

message: Since my input has been misunderstood, and the MERGE removed from the page without consensus (although as of this morning I notice that it is back) I have posted this issue for clarification on ANI. When I indicated the issue was closed, as you stated above, I meant that since ANI said merge was the way to go, that issue was closed. I have noted the ANI discussion on your talk page, as well as the matter that Cyborg Ninja was warned by admin for stalking me to this discussion page and entering comments.  Cheers!  --Mattisse 12:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posted this issue for clarification on ANI 

message: (copied from PalaceGuard008 and/or my talk pages - it is getting very confusing having this discussed so many places)
To repeat from my posting on your talk page, I don't care about the #REDIRECT on zaojing. I care that you copied text and the references from the article and put it in yours. If you look under WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE etc. you will see that you cannot cite sources that you have not consulted directly. That means you must access the source before you reference it. As someone else suggested, it can also be consider WP:NOR, WP:POV if you include information that you have not researched yourself.
Referring to another post on my talk page: As I have explained to you before, when I said "my sources" I mean sources I own and can consult. The sources that I own and can therefore verify by looking are quoted incorrectly in your article.  You have used the copied sources incorrectly when you copied from one article to another. In one instance I could not find the source cited in the book so I must have been mistaken. In another instance, the lady whoever's tomb, neither a caisson nor a zaojing is mentioned. These books are very difficult for me to read and understand, and I do at times make mistakes. Cheers.  --Mattisse 19:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copied from talk pages since this discussion is going on in several places 

message: Here is the diff with the answer. Please follow policy and remove the sources. Cheers. --Mattisse 22:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I asked at the Village Pump (policy) and the answer is that you cannot use the sources copied from another Wikipedia article - providing diff of answer 

message: (copyied from the Village Pump (policy)
*Plus link to go to read about it copied from Village Pump (policy):
:See more specifically the guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources#Say where you got it.  GRBerry 20:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are misrepresenting the issue. I have asked for a clarification on Village Pump. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking a properly sourced statement from one article and copying it into another (along with the citation to the source) is perfectly fine... with a caution:  if you are going to change the context of the statement, make sure that the source supports the new context.  If the statement is a simple statement of fact like "Joe Blow was born in 1925 " then I don't think there is any problem copying the statement with its source.  If the statement you are copying is something more complex (and especially if it is controvercial), then there is a good chance that context will have to be considered ... In which case, be more hesitant to simply copy the statement and source... you should get a copy of the source to make sure it says what you think it says. Blueboar 15:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, what he said.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 17:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plus here is link to Wikipedia policy regarding sources 

message: Since both of you have quoted my replies to you questions at the Village Pump, I offer my services as an informal mediator in your current debate.  Please note that I am not an administrator or anything official... I am simply a normal editor who is willing to act as a neutral third party. That said, I am an experienced editor and do know the policies and guidelines.  So if you are willing to give informal mediation a try, I will be happy to see if we can reach a compromise.
So, if you are willing to let me help, please outline the dispute for me and point to the sections that are of concern. Blueboar 12:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your offer, and I am grateful to take it. I will outline the dispute shortly (might take a couple of days)... stay tuned! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the details on your side of the debate.  Obviously, I will wait until Mattisse has had a chance to tell his side of the story before I make further comments. One question, however, I see that the article on Zaojing is now redirected to Ancient Chinese wooden architecture, does this help or hinder the discussion here, as far as you are concerned? Blueboar 16:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not too sure of Mattisse's rationale there. As far as I am concerned, Caissons/Zaojings are the same thing, and they (however named) are notable enough to deserve their own article. My preference is that this article should be titled "Caisson", but that's a separate naming issue. I will try to fill in all the ""s as soon as possible. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Having looked over the Ancient Chinese wooden architecture, I find it a little disingenious of Mattisse to shift the caisson/zaojing material into the section discussing ceilings, while omitting all references to that name. Shifting the goal posts, in my view. However, this is not the issue here, and it can wait for another day. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offering to help settle the issue 

message: (this subsection is under construction)
I see two basic issues.
Issue 1: Merger. 
Caisson (Asian architecture) is the earlier article. Mattisse later created Zaojing, which, as far as I understand, is exactly the same subject matter but titled by its Chinese name rather than the common English translation. The view that zaojing is simply the Chinese name for Caisson as used in Asian architecture is supported by a number of sources cited in this article, e.g. .
When I discovered the article Zaojing, I feld that merger between this article Caisson (Asian architecture) and Zaojing was required. I hold that the two articles deal with an identical subject matter, and therefore should be merged. Mattisse has disagreed . An independent 3rd party who is knowledgeable on this area, and whom both Mattisse and I consulted, also believes that the two articles should be merged.
Initially, I moved hastily to merge the two articles by a copy-and-redirect, because I saw it as such an uncontroversial move, and when I approached Mattisse he initially gave no objection.
Mattisse later objected, and recreated Zaojing at a different location. Upon being pressed by me, he gave some arguments for why they should not be merged - some of which, it seems to me, are a misapprehension of the nature of Wikipedia along the lines of WP:OWN. That is, he argued (and still argues; see below) against my "copying" of "his" material, as if he had a proprietary title to it.
As Mattisse objected, I let the separate article stand, with a promise to run a full merger poll. However, two events intervened. First, I have become busy in real life. Secondly, a contents dispute developed between myself and Mattisse after he began editing this article, apparently with a view towards thwarting a future merger. (see below)
There is, of course, still a naming conflict issue between the titles of the two articles to be merged - but we never got that far.
Issue 2: Contents of this article.
Soon after my initial attempt to merge by copy-and-redirect, Mattisse began editing this article. I believe that he is motivated by a desire to make this article as different to "his" Zaojing article as possible, in order to stave off a merger.
For example, he tried to add a bunch of (false and uncited) claims about the Forbidden City, in order to support his claims () that this article is "all about the Forbidden City" - which it is not.
He also tried to add a bunch of (false and uncited) claims about the Caisson not being used in later classical Chinese architecture, in order to support his claims () that this article is about "later" architecture than "his" Zaojing article.
He attempted to remove material added by me from his Zaojing article. I believe that this material is relevant to this article, and have synthesised them, responsibly and in context, along with the attendant citation. Mattisse repeatedly removed them, without clearly stating the reason why. He simply repeated his claim that I was using the sources "incorrectly" - which I didn't see how, since I copied the statements with the citations as he had written.
Mattisse also began to deface sections of the article. He reserved a pet hate for the Oxford English Dictionary, which I had cited to support a statement about the more general meaning of the word Caisson outside the Asian architectural context. He continually alleged that this article is for the most part "based on a general dictionary source", when the OED was being used to support precisely one statement, a statement on general word usage, and not architecture. His objections on this front appear to have died down after I pointed out that the OED cited as its source a major authority on architectural terms.
In any event, I attempted to discuss the issue with Mattisse. Due to his penchant for opening multiple threads to post the same message, the discussion quickly became confusing and spread across several pages. I attempted to rein this in by opening the centralised discussion thread above (#Centralised list of issues), and continually pushed Mattisse to centralise our discussion there. Nevertheless, he continued to open multiple threads everywhere: just have a look at the state of my talkpage. Mattisse's topics, all about the same issue, take up about 1/3 of the table of contents. He began making false or misleading claims on user talk pages and administrative pages (such as the Village Pump and AN/I) in order to solicit favourable responses, which he could then quote out of context at me. Fortunately, in every case I was able to obtain a response based on a more accurate statement of the situation.
That, however, is a behavioural issue and not immediately pertinent. After one round of comments in the centralised discussion thread, Mattisse stopped posting. I waited for a while for him to answer my last comments. Eventually, I happened upon some statements by him on AN/I that the discussion had "closed" . Seeing as he did not respond to my last comments, and had stated that the discussion had been "closed", I naturally took it to mean that he conceded on all the points, and so reverted the page to remove all of his edits which I had disputed.
That, I believe, is the state of the matter now. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the details on your side of the debate.  Obviously, I will wait until Mattisse has had a chance to tell his side of the story before I make further comments. One question, however, I see that the article on Zaojing is now redirected to Ancient Chinese wooden architecture, does this help or hinder the discussion here, as far as you are concerned? Blueboar 16:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not too sure of Mattisse's rationale there. As far as I am concerned, Caissons/Zaojings are the same thing, and they (however named) are notable enough to deserve their own article. My preference is that this article should be titled "Caisson", but that's a separate naming issue. I will try to fill in all the ""s as soon as possible. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Having looked over the Ancient Chinese wooden architecture, I find it a little disingenious of Mattisse to shift the caisson/zaojing material into the section discussing ceilings, while omitting all references to that name. Shifting the goal posts, in my view. However, this is not the issue here, and it can wait for another day. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PalaceGuard008's outline of issues

message: *Issues
PalaceGuard008 copied text and references from  my DYK articles and rearranged them in Caisson (Asian architecture) to meet the needs of his article.  Please clarify these inaccuracies so that the material in the article will be correct and the sources acccurate. Thanks.   --Mattisse 17:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of specific inaccuracies  to this article's  use of references 

message: User:John Broughton posted on my talk page that this was the way to proceed if my issues were not addressed.  --Mattisse 14:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Had to add another fact tag per Issue One, as a zaojing is not an "otherwise flat" ceiling necessarily and the rationale for copy/paste and #REDIRECT was that zaojing and caisson were the same. The first fact tag in the paragraph listed in Issue One was for the definition of caisson as " an archiectural feature typically found in the ceiling of temples and palaces, usually at the centre and directly above the main throne, seat, or religious figure." I have not seen that definition regarding a zaozing so I question the validity of the statement. The rest of the paragraph is source by the People's Daily link. Mattisse 14:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted above, I very much like the direction that this discussion is going (focus on the what are stated to be facts, and their support, rather than on the issue of cut-and-past per se; sometimes cut-and-paste is okay, sometimes it's not, so it's best to shift to specifics, not the issue of cut-and-paste itself).  Please do give things a couple more days to before starting in on issue 2, yes? -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 14:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly... Go through Mattisse's laundry list of problems one at a time... see if a solution can be found to one issue before you move on to the next one.  Stay focussed.  The goal is to make this a good, accurate article... but we do not need it to be perfect right this second.  As long as there is slow progress, then the goals of Wikipedia can be met.  I am sure that both John Broughton and I will be more than willing to pop in and help break the occational log jam by offering a neutral comment... but if you both assume good faith and are patient with each other, you should do fine.  Go slow and take it one step at a time.  Blueboar 16:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Since Issue One on the list ask for by Blueboar has not been addressed I have added a citation needed tag to article 

message: Please remove this flag after you read my reply. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''ATTN MATTISSE - REMOVE AFTER YOU HAVE READ THIS'''

message: Although WP:LS doesn't say so explicitly, I happen to think that the lead section, as a summary of the topic and the information in the body of the article, requires citations primarily for what isn't cited elsewhere.  Or, to put it differently, it may be better to work through issues 2 through 6, above, and then return to the lead section, than to spend a lot of time on issue one, first.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 15:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me. Just as long as there are credible sources somewhere.  Sourcing the first para, however, does not mean the sources have to stay there in the finished article. Since everything in the lead has to be follow up and expanded in the article (as you say the lead is a summary) the citation can be moved down in the article, as we go through this process, to a more appropriate place. --Mattisse 15:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: John, you are absolutely correct! Forgive me for starting us off on the wrong foot... I had not focussed on the fact that we were talking about the lead here.  The rules and guidelines are indeed a bit different with leads, and summarizing/sythesizing is more acceptable.  In fact, ideally, there should be no citations at all in a lead... because everything in the lead should be discussed in more depth elsewhere in the article, and any needed citations would be made there.  So yes, we should move to the next issue and come back to the lead later. Blueboar 18:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can amend Issue One to say that the text in the lead is not further expanded nor referenced elsewhere in the article. That point needs to be dealt with at some point. Or perhaps I can move the point that the lead is not expanded or referenced elsewhere in the article down to Issue Six and move all the others up  one numerically? Mattisse 20:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or we can move directly  on  to issue Issue Two. --Mattisse 23:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Lets do that since Issue One has not been addressed.  --Mattisse 23:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree that we move to Issue Two, but disagree that Issue One has not been addressed. Please clarify your last post in the section above, please, because I'm afraid you've lost me again. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I meant, could you clarify your last comment in the section above about the Forbidden City. It seems to have nothing to do with either Issue 1 or Issue 2. I just want to be clear exactly where that comment fits in. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see any point to it. I can find your list of issues perfectly clearly. But if it helps you, go right ahead. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm talking about the list of Issues that Blueboar asked to provide. When I did Blueboar said it was a good start. So John Broughton formatted the list of Issues with individual headings so each one could be addressed independently. If you follow the discourse it is above. It started out as #28 List of Issues. John Broughton  formatted the Issues so that each Issue has an individual heading so it can be edited individually. Unfortunately, posts have been entered out of sequence and entries pertaining to Issue One so now it is confusing. But we can follow the formate on Issue Two since it has been appently decided that we can skip the lead for now. I would urge clear and concise entries without personal comments about other editors as a more constructive way to continue this dialog. --Mattisse 12:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: The changes I have added  are justified by and pertain to the list of Issues I proved. Plese do no remove reverenced material without good cause. I remove one reference, discussed in the 'Issues because it was fixated  on "spider web design", not something featured in the paragraph it referenced or anywhere in the article. --Mattisse 02:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please do not revert changes without justifying reverting them first 

message: I have filled out a request for formal mediation after Mattisse rejected Blueboar's attempts. The link for the request in here: . Each party, in this case PalaceGuard and Mattisse, is required to sign near the end of the form and then fill out their general issues. You don't need to inundate the mediator with issues that are already discussed on the Talk pages, and the request must first be accepted. - Cyborg Ninja 08:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please sign to agree to formal mediation 

message: Mattisse, you are not only re-introducing contested edits, but making clearly irrelevant edits. 
If you still wish to participate, please re-engage in this discussion. If you feel informal mediation did not work (as apparently you do), please agree to formal mediation. A link has been provided on this page, and I have also notified you on your talk page - although I notice you subsequently deleted it.
Your choices are clear: either discuss (by agreeing to mediation or otherwise), or leave the page alone. Quitting discussion, then introducing the very edits subject of the discussion is violating the principle of consensus. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please re-engage in discussion or leave this page alone 

message: Well, this is certainly going to teach me to check out all relevant talk pages before I do something, but despite my aversion to conflict, I stand by my actions. I've redirected Zaojing (Chinese) and Zaojing (traditional Chinese architecture) here as the seem to both be duplicates of this article. I don't want to step into an edit war, but do we really need three articles essentially saying the same thing? If it is really that important in maintaining the "right version" that you feel you must create duplicate articles, may I recommend doing so as a subpage in your userspace? AniMate 09:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects 

message: Will arbitration be necessary now that the mediations were both rejected? There isn't much editing going on with the article now, so I don't know. Let's make a quick survey here of what people think. - Cyborg Ninja 05:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There doesn't seem to be an active issue here. Mattisse has not been editing here since the last episode, and I won't be continuing with the issues list for at least another week. Let's wait and see. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration