User talk:Enkyo2/Meiō 明応 1492

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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/Mei%C5%8D_%E6%98%8E%E5%BF%9C_1492.

"Building a taxonomy and nomenclature of collaborative writing to improve interdisciplinary research and practice" (abstract), The Journal of Business Communication. January 1, 2004.
Wikipedia:Process is important

________________________________________
== Jingū of Japan ==

You're not supposed to do a "cut-and-paste move" like you did for Jingū of Japan → Empress Jingu. You need to request it formally at WP:RM. Please see the rules there at WP:RM. I'm going to reverse your move for now.--Endroit (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has guidelines, not RULES. Certainly, there may be alternatives -- but why are you rushing without consulting me?

You are mistaken, wikipedia has rules as well as guidelines, and proper renaming/moving of articles is a rule. It is related to copyrights/licensing. In the future please listen to more experienced wikipedians. If something is unclear, ask questions. `'Míkka >t 23:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mess this up without discussing it. Think about the consequences. This move has links to:

--Ooperhoofd (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read Help:Moving a page if you want to move it correctly. Don't do a cut & paste move.--Endroit (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a BACKLOG at this page. But do not revert my work, or I will undo it immediately. Read your own words on your talk page about consensus. WAIT.--Ooperhoofd (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog is not the reason not to follow rules. This is not a life-threathening situation or other disaster that cannot wait. `'Míkka >t 23:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you refuse to listen, I won't spend much more energy on this. But I referred you to WP:ANI#Good faith cut & paste for Jingū of Japan, so that others can take a look and help you.--Endroit (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the page in a proper way, to Empress Jingū. If you made any changes, your version is here `'Míkka >t 22:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happened here? Today I felt like I've been struck up the side of the head with a blunt instrument; and I didn't like it at all -- not at all. And what about the consequences across a range of other articles. I don't know what happened, or what is about to happen with the following:

I hardly know where to begin asking questions?

I don't even care about these pre-history emperors. I was just spending time dotting the "i"'s and crossing the "t"'s, so to speak ... and I encountered unanticipated trouble seemingly out-of-nowhere?

How did you get involved here? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say I am not involved. But since you asked, I have looked at your talk page, and User:Endroit was right. Everything is sorted out now, so there is nothing to worry about. For the future, I suggest that you read the following links:

WP:MOVE -- Instructions on moving a page.
WP:CUTPASTE -- What cut-and-paste moves are and why they are bad.
WP:RM -- If you need administrator help in moving pages or want to notify others about a possible move that may need some discussion.

As for "consequences across a range of other articles" such as you listed above, there really should not be any issues. Existing redirects will continue to exist. Thus, regardless of the title, users will still be able to get to the right article. Though not necessary, I occasionally update links to avoid the redirects and for consistency. Regards, Bendono (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

"Wikipedia's Japanese empresses and Himiko explain -- but without identifying the source -- that Jingū was removed from the official list of Emperors in the 19th century" - in wikipedia there is the rule that wikipedia articles are not valid sources for other wikipedia articles. If you see some claim in a wikipedia article (as you wrote "without identifying sources), you must request the sources from the authors of "Japanese empresses" and "Himiko" You may also want to consult with authors of List of Emperors of Japan and references therein. `'Míkka >t 22:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Míkka --

This in-line footnote could have been put on the talk page. In other circumstances, I would have put it there; but the process of moving the page and cross-referencing consequences in articles which should have shown as linked (but which did not) ... was a tiresome frustration which caused me to place the mention of this unsourced fact in this specific location.

I didn't know about a Wikipedia convention that wiki-articles are not acceptable as references -- but in point of fact, who's kidding who? The majority of sources are not specified. If I had included this specific in-line footnote without specifying the link another wiki-article, it would have raised not even a passing comment. Indeed, if I hadn't made such a point of being transparent so that I could ask questions after the holdiays, I think it likely that I would have escaped the close scrutiny of Endroit.

What I learn from this is that my number one priority should be to "keep below the radar" -- to avoid attracting attention from contributors to Wikipedia whose sole pleasure seems to be in finding a chance to shout out "Gotcha!!"

In this context, why do I think it unlikely that Endroit would feel at all inclined to look at my list of contributions. My work is more heavily endowed with in-line citations and specific references than most. I'm shaking my head, wondering "What went on here today?" --Ooperhoofd (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't think that this wikipedia reference was noticed only because of what had happened. Yes, I agree that a huge amount of text in wikipedia lacks proper references. Please keep in mind that wikipedia is very young and its traditions and rules have been changing. In the beginning It was not fully recognized the vital need of proper citations. Everyone was simply looking with fascination the very fast growth of wikipedia. But gradually all serious wikipedians recognized that proper referencing is the cornerstone for the credibility of wikipedia. The rules in this respect gradually became more and more strict, and regular wikipedians keep an eye on proper referencing. What is more, it is now recognized that not all sources are reputable enough to be used in wikipedia. There is a guideline Wikipedia:reliable sources, which in particular, says that various blogs, message boards, wikis, etc. are almost never reliable sources (with some exceptions). And regular wikipedians routinely delete references to blogs, "youtube" pages, etc. So sooner or later your reference to wikipedia would be noticed and removed. `'Míkka >t 19:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also please explain why you deleted the text "Her name would have been Okinagatarashi-Hime (息長帯比売) before she assumed control of the reigns powers relinguished by her husband-emperor." `'Míkka >t 22:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Míkka --

This small question is easily resolved: Then sentence you ask about was not deleted.

As it happens, the introductory paragraph comes to a rational close with the in-line footnote reference to Meiji era changes in what was the then-conventional list of Emperors of Japan.

The following paragraph incorporates text about what is knowable in the contexts of the figures who are now considered to have been "legendary emperors." These Emperors preceded Empress Jingu. At that point, the moved sentence introduces what would have been a pre-accession name if it weren't for the Meiji rescript which decreed that Jingū was yet another legendary figure about whom too little can be verifiably known.

The next paragraph then moves from that nexus into a chronology of of the years until here son did acceed as Emperor Ōjin.

The revised text follows:

"...She is said to have served as Regent and de facto leader of Japan from the time of her husband's death in 209 until her son Emperor Ōjin acceded to the throne in 269.[1]

No firm dates can be assigned to this empress's life or reign. Jingū is regarded by historians as a "legendary empress" because of the paucity of information about her, which does not necessarily imply that no such person ever existed. Rather, scholars can only lament that, at this time, there is insufficient material available for further verification and study. It is believed that her name would have been Okinagatarashi-hime (息長帯比売) before she assumed ~~[control of the reigns of]~~ powers which would have been relinquished by her husband-emperor."

Does this answer the question you had in mind? Or was there something else? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please introduce this into the "Empress Jingū" page. Please edit the text as you need. There is no objections as to quality of your edit. The only problem was with your improper way of renaming of the article. The main reason is that the usage of "Move page" function preserves the complete history of past contributions to the article, which is important as a respect to all editors of the article. `'Míkka >t 19:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some comment about what had happened

Please accept my apologies for all what had happened. Below my explanation of the reasons, which is of course not an excuse of what had happened. We all are imperfect humans and very prone to mistakes, misunderstanding and other problems. So, here is my explanation.

Regular wikipedians have to deal with the same typical mistakes of relatively new users again and again, hundreds of times. It is very easy to forget that what I see for 153th time, for a newcomer it is the 1st time, and it is a common mistake to address a newcomer with very brief explanation, which many may find insulting. Please understand this was not intentional disrespect, it is just a person may become tired to write long explanations again and again and slip into the style which is called "alphabet soup of policies" in wikipedia. (example of such bad style of reply: "please see WP:RS, WP:CITE", WP:RM").

Therefore please don't assume any disrespect to your contributions. It just happened that you unknowingly violated one of the basic rules of wikipedia: proper recognition of all past contributors. Please notice that user:Endroit did not edit this article and he has no personal interest here: he was defending the memory of all wikipedians whom he probably does not even know.

I hope the event will not discourage you from further contributions to wikipedia. While I agree that in some aspects wikipedia is really horrible, in some others it becomes a valuable resource. And it survived over 6 years now, despite the predictions of doom and hard criticism since early times. `'Míkka >t 19:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==Walter Benjamin

2008 -- [http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/BENWOR.html The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility, and Other Writings on Media, Michael W. Jennings,

Brigid Doherty and Thomas Y. Levin, eds.]] Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 10-ISBN 0-674-02445-1; 13-ISBN 978-0-674-02445-8 (paper)

2006 -- Berlin Childhood Around 1900. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 10-ISBN 0-674-02222-X; 13-ISBN 13: 978-0-674-02222-5 (paper)
2006 -- On Hashish, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 10-ISBN 0-674-02221-1; 13-ISBN 978-0-674-02221-8 (paper)

1999 -- The Arcades Project. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 10-ISBN 0-674-04326-X; 13-ISBN 978-0-674-04326-8 (cloth) 10-ISBN 0-674-00802-2; 13-ISBN 978-0-674-00802-1
1999 -- The Complete Correspondence, 1928-1940, Henri Lonitz,ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 10-ISBN 0-674-15427-4; 13-ISBN 978-0-674-15427-8 (cloth) 10-ISBN 0-674-00689-5; 13-ISBN 978-0-674-00689-8 (paper)
1986 -- Moscow Diary Gary Smith, ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 10-ISBN 0-674-58743-X; 13-ISBN 978-0-674-58743-4 (cloth) 10-ISBN 978-0-674-58744-1; 13-ISBN 0-674-58744-8 (paper)
1973 -- Benjamin, Walter. Charles Baudelaire: A Lyric Poet In The Era Of High Capitalism (Charles Baudelaire: Ein Lyriker im Zeitalter des Hochkapitalismus). [reprinted by New Left Books, New York, 1973. 10-ISBN 0-902-30864-5; 13-ISBN 978-0-90230864-0] [reprinted by Verso Books, New York, 1997. 10-ISBN 1-859-84192-9; 13-ISBN 978-1-859-84192-1 (paper) OCLC: 37242943]

The Correspondence of Walter Benjamin, 1910–1940. ISBN 0-226-04237-5
The Correspondence of Walter Benjamin and Gershom Scholem. ISBN 0-674-17415-1
Illuminations. ISBN 0-8052-0241-2

One Way Street and Other Writings. ISBN 0-86091-836-X
Reflections. ISBN 0-8052-0802-X

The Origin of German Tragic Drama. ISBN 0-86091-837-8
Understanding Brecht. ISBN 0-902308-99-8

FOUR VOLUME SET

- V1, 1927-1930
- 2005 -- Walter Benjamin: Selected Writings, Marcus Bullock and Michael W. Jennings, eds. Vol. 1, 1927-1930. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 10-ISBN 0-674-01588-6; 13-ISBN 978-0-674-01588-3

Four Volume set in Five volumes?

V-1, 1913-1926
2004 -- Walter Benjamin: Selected Writings, Michael W. Jennings, Howard Eiland, and Gary Smith, eds. Vol. 2, Part 1, 1913-1926. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 10-ISBN 0-674-94585-9; 13-ISBN 978-0-674-94585-2 {cloth} 10-ISBN 0-674-01355-7; 13-ISBN 978-0-674-01355-1 (paper)

- Volume 2, 1927-1934, ISBN 0-674-94586-7

2-1, 1927-1930 2-2, 1931-1934

- %Volume 3, 1935-1938, ISBN 0-674-00896-0
- %Volume 4, 1938-1940, ISBN 0-674-01076-0

-- The Writer of Modern Life: Essays on Charles Baudelaire, Harvard University Press, ISBN 0-674-02287-4,

Secondary literature

Adorno, Theodor. Prisms. The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA. 1967.
Benjamin, Andrew & Peter Osborne (eds.), Walter Benjamin's Philosophy: Destruction and Experience (New York & London: Routledge, 1993). ISBN 0415083680 (hardcover); ISBN 0415083699 (paperback)
Derrida, Jacques, "Force of Law: The 'Mystical Foundation of Authority'," in Gil Anidjar (ed.), Acts of Religion (New York & London: Routledge, 2002). ISBN 0415924014
Ferris, David S. (ed.), Walter Benjamin: Theoretical Questions (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996). ISBN 0804725691 (hardcover); ISBN 0804725705 (paperback)
Jacobs, Carol, In the Language of Walter Benjamin. ISBN: 978-0801866692
Jennings, Michael, Dialectical Images: Walter Benjamin's Theory of Literary Criticism. ISBN 0-8014-2006-7
Leslie, Esther, Walter Benjamin, Overpowering Conformism (London: Pluto Press, 2001). ISBN 0-7453-1568-2
Lindner, Burkhardt (ed.), Benjamin-Handbuch: Leben – Werk – Wirkung (Stuttgart & Weimar: Metzler, 2006); ISBN 3-476-01985-3
McMurtry, Larry, Walter Benjamin at the Dairy Queen: Reflections at Sixty and Beyond. ISBN 0-684-85496-1
Missac, Pierre, Walter Benjamin's Passages (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1995). ISBN 0262133059 (hardcover); ISBN 026263175X (paperback)
Schiavoni, Giulio, Walter Benjamin: Il figlio della felicità. Un percorso biografico e concettuale (Turin: Einaudi, 2001). ISBN 88-06-15729-9
Steinberg, Michael P. (ed.), Walter Benjamin and the Demands of History (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996). ISBN 0-8014-3135-2 (hardcover); ISBN 0-8014-8257-7 (paperback)
Witte, Bernd, Walter Benjamin: An Intellectual Biography. ISBN 0-8143-2017-1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ooperhoofd (talk • contribs) 01:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please do not cut and paste discussions form one talk page to another. Please use the wikilink as a reference. For example you may wanted to write thusly in my page: "Please see the discussion User talk:Endroit#Wait!!" and User talk:Endroit#Cooperation. In this way the discussion stays in one place. Otherwise someone starts answering in my page, someone other else will continue in Endroit's page, and it will become very difficult to track the talk. `'Míkka >t 19:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC) _______________[reply]

Thank you for this feedback. It does help clarify my thinking. I appreciate your apology, but it necessarily focuses on what you imagine you might have done a little differently. What I really need here is to figure out how I can act differently -- and I'd like to ask you, please, to bear with me a little bit while I sort through this in a characteristically slow fashion.

A priori, let's temporarily agree not be distracted by anything to do with Endroit. Let's simply agree that he was right and I was wrong -- simple, easy, clear. That having been said, it doesn't matter to me (or I wish it mattered less).

I was completely blindsided by an attack I didn't understand. There was no way to stop the pernicious attack. It appeared that four hours of work was about to be undone by someone whose motivations were so far removed from Jomon period Japanese history as to be indistinguishable from berserk action. The prospect of a post hoc apology would have been meaningless at that point. It feels rather barren now.

What could I have done differently ...?

In my working context, User:Endroit was an unanticipated interloper. My focus of attention was summarized by the following quotation from a Nobel laureate in chemistry:

One never notices what has been done; one can only see what remains to be done. -- Marie Curie

When User:Endroit atttack popped up out of nowhere (as far as I was concerned), I was focusing on finishing a task which had already taken longer than I'd wanted. I was really wanting to rush out to replace the last of the milk I'd used up hours before ... so I could make myself a much-deserved cup of tea. Literally, the thirst for tea and the desire to finish fixing the list of articles linked to Jingū of Japan were in a kind of uncertain equipoise.

Under those circumstances, my interpretation of the words I myself typed is entirely sympathetic. I'm so stunned and shocked that I can hardly type fast enough to get the unknown attacker to slow down, to explain .... but it was for naught.

What could I have written? What should I have explained differently? One may hypothesize that it would have been different if I'd been cooperative -- but how could that have played out? As it was, I did respond with alacrity? I tried to encourage a slower pace -- but all for naught.

No one can cooperate when there is not even an element of shared understanding. If I'd known I was doing something dreadfully wrong and then agreed that Mr. Good-Guy caught me in my illicit deeds, that would have been different .... But I had no idea what was happening.

I hated this more than I can adequately convey. Your apology today does nothing to address the impotent fury I feel today more than yesterday.

Yesterday: User:Endroit = exemplar of good faith

Today: User:Endroit ≠ good faith because he will not help me understand anything except I'm wrong and he's right .... Not good. My patience is not thin, but I do recognize the wisdom in a caveat about casting pearls before swine.

I've learned a hard lesson which doesn't sit well at all. Can you achieve an alchemy which turns bitter into something other than bitter? That would be an extraordinary achievement. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]