Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Konjakupoet (talk | contribs) at 14:45, 25 April 2013 (→Not a cleanstart). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Haiku references

Konjakupoet, I appreciate your concern about reliable sources, and I, too, would like to see a somewhat higher level of source used in the instances you edited, if possible. Nevertheless, each of the four sources is either a refereed journal (Frogpond and Simply Haiku) or a recognized expert in the field (David Lanoue and Haruo Shirane). The fact that Simply Haiku sometimes published material that falls below your quality standards or mine doesn't seem relevant here. Obviously, editors have to use good judgment in selecting source material, but no one expects, or can expect, any source publication to be 100% good or accurate, or even 90%. If you really feel that Carmen Sterba's or Haruo Shirane's comments on the recent attitude towards juxtaposition don't have a legitimate basis, that would be a problem, but it seems to me you should discuss any problems individually on the talk page before you start slashing away. Not to do so shows serious disrespect for Misplaced Pages's other editors.

I'm not especially interested in defending the haiku page; in fact, I'd be delighted to see the whole thing rewritten. But I don't see what you're actually adding to the page by cutting out a few less-than-ideal sources--by doing so, you actually invalidate the text to which the sources are attached, making it weaker, while adding nothing constructive. What is the problem, for example, with the Issa source link? David Lanoue is a widely recognized authority on Issa, and the fact that he makes his own website doesn't disqualify him from being able to say that this is a poem by Issa, which is the only thing the source note is claiming. Sure, we might all sleep better if he said this in a book published by Harvard University Press, but Misplaced Pages has a more flexible standard of reliability. That's fortunate, because university press publishing is a mess these days, and there's quite a lot of reliable material to be found all over, if people use their good judgment.

I'm not interested in having a sumo match with you on this, and you must realize that using the "edit summary" as an adjunct to reverting isn't the best way to work out an argument. Looking at your other edits, and some of the comments below, leads me to worry about your attraction to provocations. I have no interest in involving myself in one here, especially with someone whose main interest is Japanese weapons. But if you have an interest in discussing standards for reliable sources and editing issues, I'm all for it, and would be happy to continue this discussion here or on the haiku talk page. I think I'll finish by reverting your edit one more time to keep things interesting. That'll be my last, so if your heart is set on hacking away at those sources, I'll just leave you to it.Icuc2 (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Deadbeef (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, are you referring to my removal of obviously contentious text that one disruptive user was adding in violation of his topic ban? I really don't see how I am failing to assume good faith: In ictu oculi pointed out the same thing over two weeks ago. Konjakupoet (talk) 10:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Gunto

His, I saw that you returned the beheading image to the article Gunto, with the edit summary "Undoing ridiculous OR. DW, please get a Japanese dictionary: all swords used by members of the military are 'guntō'." I'm not going to revert it, because I don't know enough about the image, but your comment is incorrect. It would seem intuitive that everybody in the military used "military swords", but many officers carried katana that were family heirlooms, passed down from samurai ancestors. Those antique swords are not synonymous with "gunto". Please assume good faith in comments. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense I guess. I was only reverting another user, though, who unilaterally removed the word and currently appears to be under investigation for compromising Misplaced Pages possibly with the motive of SELLING such swords. Under these circumstances (also, he/she doesn't appear to speak Japanese) assuming it was NOT a gunto is probably the worse of two evils. Konjakupoet (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Email

I've sent you an email -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

And I already have a reply :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Please slow down a sec

I don't really care what you've got going on with DW, but please don't drag other disputes into the SPI page. I just remembered to look at the page and it's gone way off-topic. That's due to his additions as well as yours, but please, let any business you have with him at AN/I take place there and not at SPI. Also, please tone down the talk a little and remember to assume good faith, even if you doubt competence. If competence is what is lacking, then patient guidance is what is required. Let's cool it down a bit and see what happens. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 15:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for continuing to engage constructively there. Don't forget to sign your posts! Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 16:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages. When you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a cleanstart

Part of the whole gestalt of cleanstart is that you don't reference your prior history, so saying an account is a cleanstart pretty much makes it not a cleanstart. NE Ent 02:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

As the policy WP:CLEANSTART makes clear in the first paragraph "The old account must be clearly discontinued, and the new account must avoid editing patterns or behaviors that would allow other users to recognize and identify the account" etc. So given the limited areas you edit in, and the editors you have crossed swords with since you started to use Konjakupoet(2), I do not think that you could have expected your new account to be seen as a clean start. -- PBS (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen, to be completely fair, my new account is much more aggressive in dealing with harassers than the last one was. See, for instance, Tristan noir getting away with 3+ months of abuse, or JoshuSasori/Mysterious Island's month-per-account. Darkness walks started harassing me a matter of minutes before I retired my previous account, and then within days of my coming back he had got himself indefinitely blocked. I wouldn't expect non-specialist to recognize the difference between Japanese literary history (my main area of editing before February) and Japanese military history (my main area of editing for the last week), but you have to admit I am a lot more efficient now. Konjakupoet (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)