User talk:Enkyo2

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Enkyo2.

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Enkyo (延慶) = "becoming prolonged"

Template:Archive box collapsible

Courtesy notice

I have mentioned you in a thread on WP:ANI, so if you would like to contribute there you can find it under the title "AFDs not being properly considered due to assumption of bad faith".—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent link: here.

Non sum qualis eram

Between the idea and the reality .... falls the shadow -- T.S. Eliot

Usurpation of the account Enkyo

Hi, Enkyo2. I saw you tried to rename to Enkyo and it was declined because the name was already registered to a global account. However, if it passed years since the last edit of the account, the usurpation of the account is available. It will take about ten days after your request if no response to an email notification returned. You can try and leave it for ten days. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful words. --Enkyo2 13:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully we can clear up the simple.wp account too : simple:User talk:Griffinofwales#Ongamenet and Enkyo. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Hope all is well. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nippon Era's

Hi I noticed that you contributed a lot to these articles (your name kept propping up in the talk pages) - do you think those era's should be merged together? I mean the Taika (645–650) Hakuchi (650–654) Shuchō (686–686) Taihō (701–704) Keiun (704–708) Wadō (708–715) periods? NarSakSasLee (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear why you seem to suggest that articles about specific Japanese era names should be merged. For example, each of these articles is an independent subject with explicit and different support cited from more than one reliable source:

Taika (era) → Takia (era)#References
Hakuchi → Hakuchi (era)#Notes
Shuchō → Shuchō#Notes
Taihō → ... etc.
Keiun → ... etc.
Wadō → ... etc.

For me, the point of your question is not understood. --Enkyo2 12:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Neutral notice

As an editor with an interest in New York City articles, you are invited to participate in an RfC at The Dakota. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Moving of "X family" to "X clan"

Regarding the series of moves your Ansei account made at the start of May, could you be a bit more careful? Most, if not all, of them were/are branches of Fujiwara/Minamoto/... clans, rather than clans themselves. I've already moved Nijo back, and will work on the others in a bit if you don't wanna do it yourself. Cheers! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Jimmu" and others

Enkyo, why did you violate WP:SELFREF when you had clearly already seen on the talk page where I had pointed you to the Wikipedia style guideline where we have an established consensus on how to romanize that?? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Enkyo,

I opened an ANI thread on you. This is not personal, and it's not about content (where I think I agree with you). It's about your use of language (and images, etc) on talk pages. Very difficult to understand. Maybe someone needs to teach you how to communicate on Wikipedia. This seemed the easiest way.

Cheers!

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Enkyo2, I haven't had time to look at this but appears to be the same old; I think you're a great, v.interesting, and v.informative communicator; my advice would be not to get bogged down in discussion with someone who thinks fit to write like this but to move on to one of the tens of thousands of other pages which need your time and learning, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links to related threads are here and here. --Enkyo2 (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added an inline-note here which mirrors WP:MOS-JA#Syllabic "n". A review of the guideline page history shows that these sentences were drafted by Jpatokal in 2004 here and the section was created by Nihonjoe in 2008 here. The guideline suggests "Use Google to check popularity if in doubt, and create a redirect from the n version" -- compare the list of Google Books Ngram Viewer results posted by Kusunose here.

Since 2009, there have been similar notes in the first paragraphs of articles about Emperor Temmu, Emperor Kimmei, Emperor Mommu, Empress Gemmei and Emperor Kammu -- compare Talk:Emperor Temmu#Tenmu vs Temmu. These spelling notes were each deleted by Hijiri88 with unhelpful edit summaries:

14:05, 22 August 2013 diff . . Emperor Temmu ‎ (WP:SELFREF, WP:POINT.)
14:08, 22 August 2013 diff . . Emperor Kimmei ‎ (WP:SELFREF; WP:POINT.)
14:12, 22 August 2013 diff . . Emperor Mommu ‎ (WP:SELFREF; WP:POINT.)
14:16, 22 August 2013 diff . . Empress Gemmei ‎ (WP:SELFREF; WP:POINT.)
14:19, 22 August 2013 diff . . Emperor Kammu ‎ (WP:SELFREF; WP:POINT.)

This is moving in the wrong direction. --Enkyo2 (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A review of the edit histories of these articles and most others about the Japanese emperors reveals a cross-checking system of cited sources. This includes Delmer Brown's 1980 translation of Gukanshō and H. Paul Varley's 1979 translation of Jinnō Shōtōki -- compare List of Emperors of Japan#Notes. See JSTOR reviews of Brown's work here and Varley's work here. --Enkyo2 (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enkyo PLEASE be coherent and stop making unrelated rants on talk pages

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretext for continuing a pattern which is difficult to parse neatly -- see here and here. The fact that this is a pretext needs to be made explicit. I can only hope that the mere act of naming it will diminish its power to cause harm. --Enkyo2 (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]