| Revision as of 03:58, 3 December 2012 editHijiri88 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users37,390 edits Given that articles on other monogatari topics are covered under "novels" but not poetry, and uta monogatari seldom involve original compositions, this classification seems bad.← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 20:48, 23 January 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,935 edits Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{WikiProject Japan|class=start|importance=mid|culture=y}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start| |
|
|
{{WikiProject Japan|importance=mid|culture=y}} |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
{{archives|auto=yes|search=yes}} |
|
{{archives|auto=yes|search=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
== A note on this page's history == |
|
|
|
|
|
I am adding this note for posterity, and to explain why the article shifted dramatically in September 2012. |
|
|
|
|
|
This article as it exists now was mostly built by me in September 2012. While looking for the Misplaced Pages article on '']'', I found that it was at that time ]. I eventually requested a double-move so that right now "]" is an article about Japanese poetry and the disambig page is located at ]. Before that, though, I noticed that there was a very curious statement on the disambiguation page that: |
|
|
|
|
|
''<nowiki></nowiki> Tanka prose, a literary genre which combines tanka poems and prose'' |
|
|
|
|
|
Having never heard of this "tanka prose", despite years of studying Japanese literature, I looked at . I found it lacking in ''any'' reputable sources on Japanese literature, despite the introduction and "History" sections claiming that "tanka prose" existed in the Heian period. I ] that "tanka prose" was an obscure English translation of ''uta monogatari'' ("tanka" apparently being used on English Misplaced Pages as a general term for both modern '']'' and classical '']'', the word ''uta'' meaning essentially the same thing in most cases, and ''monogatari'' being a prose narrative, my assumption seemed justified). I thought that some misguided users who did not speak Japanese had created this page based on online sources, with the intention of creating a proper article on ''uta monogatari'', which they believed was known as "tanka prose". I posted a comment on the talk page asking for clarification, and when after a day I received no further comment, I decided to, in good faith, move the page to ''uta monogatari'' and rewrite much of the article to fit this description. |
|
|
|
|
|
Upon doing this, within 9 hours I was reverted, rather rudely, by the creator of the original page. He still refused to cite any reliable sources or justify his claims relating to classical Japanese literature, so I reverted him back and posted a further comment on the talk page asking the user not to add unreliable material based on primary sources to Misplaced Pages. He replied with a very lengthy tirade in which he demonstrated that he knew very little about the Japanese language in general and Japanese literature in particular, as well as a complete lack of respect for Misplaced Pages's rules regarding the presentation of opinions as facts (I didn't know that if I kept something the article stated as fact, but removed the source because the author seemed unreliable, I was committing "plagiarism" of that author's ideas). |
|
|
|
|
|
This sparked a ''very'' long dispute in which I decided it wasn't worth fighting with him and suggested he go and create an article on his "modern English tanka prose" and refrain from making ridiculous statements about Japanese literature, and base his article on secondary sources where possible.. He pretended to agree to my compromise, and then went to "Tanka prose" and created an article that made the same ridiculous claims, and relied on the same online/]-published primary sources as before, and our dispute continued until the article was ultimately ] to ]. But the rest of the user's history of posting spam and personal attacks against me and other users is not relevant to this article. |
|
|
|
|
|
The above is an account of why this page's history from its creation in August 2008 to September 2012 appears to be about a completely different subject. I am not sure if the original history is worth keeping for posterity, or if Misplaced Pages policy favours deleting the history in cases like this, where some Wikipedians accidentally took AGF too far and instead of creating a new article moved an already existing article that actually should have been deleted in the first place. I have added this note here so that users who come across the history and are confused can consult the talk page to find a summarized answer. :D |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 02:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ]'s outside comments related to this page. == |
|
|
|
|
|
User:Tristan noir, the ] who created the copyright-violating article originally at this location, apparently has problems posting his comments in the right forum. At the same time as I posted the above note regarding this article's history, I had also posted a call for administrative attention on his behaviour elsewhere at WP:ANI. Since then he has not edited a single page ''other'' than adding remarks to the ANI, and he posted a response to my above note : |
|
|
:''Elvenscout, on Nov 30, has also posted his of the article ] (“I am adding this note for posterity, and to explain why the article shifted dramatically in September 2012”). Apart from this further evidence of his desire to recycle old accusations against this editor, his comments on this article’s talk page are particularly troublesome when placed in their proper context. With this on Oct 17, Elvenscout replaced the former Talk Page Comments with the templates “WP Poetry” and “WikiProject Japan.” On the previous day, with this , per his edit summary, Elvenscout had removed his ''“own comments relevant only to a past argument relating to material that formerly appeared on this page.”'' That edit was on the same day by User Bagworm with the edit summary: ''“Do not remove one side of a conversation - see ].”'' Elvenscout’s suppression of the former talk page on Oct 17 removed both sides of the conversation; I therefore assumed his gesture was made in good faith and offered no complaint. His most recent “history,” however, has in effect again censored “one side of a conversation” — his opposition’s, in this instance – while resurrecting and recycling his former arguments. If Elvenscout’s ''“own comments”'' on Oct 16 were ''“relevant only to a past argument,”'' what possible purpose can their restoration on the Talk Page now serve?] (]) 05:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)'' |
|
|
Odd, given his claiming he has assumed good faith and not complaining about my actions that he should choose a completely separate forum to attack my actions on ''this'' page, without ever posting here or addressing me on ]. Additionally, his above claims either demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of ] or very bad faith on his part. My desire to remove a completely out-of-date, irrelevant argument from this page and archive it was completely normal. His use of these particular diffs gives an inaccurate impression of what actually took place. See, the ''entire'' conversation was irrelevant, since it dealt with fringe theories only loosely related to the article, so deleting it all would not have been unacceptable. I decided to delete my comments first in order to demonstrate how ridiculously ''ad hominem'' TN's arguments had been: the of the page without my comments consists entirely of personal attacks on TN's side and/or lies about accepting my compromise proposal -- as I have mentioned, TN broke the agreement immediately. ] (]) 08:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Additionally, since the comments belong to me, it is my right as a Wikipedian to remove them. User:Bagworm was in the wrong to revert me in the first place, since ] is a guideline, and while it may be ''best to avoid changing ''<nowiki></nowiki>'' own comment''<nowiki></nowiki>, in the context above there was no harm done. Drawing my attention to the appropriate guideline on my talk page may have been appropriate, but reverting a user's good faith removal of their own comments is not. ] (]) 08:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
