User talk:Badvibes101

Welcome
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Bottle rockets
Please stop adding a link to this band in the haiku article. They have nothing whatever to do with haiku. I have left the link you insist on inserting to the non-notable Bottle Rockets haiku magazine -- for now. I'm sure it will be removed from this already link-cluttered article at some point due to its aforementioned lack of notability. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well then, that just demonstrates the importance of checking before you add links. Please visit the Bottle Rockets article if you still have any questions about why your repeated addition of that particular link to the haiku article was removed.  Also, any so-called "journal" that uses free webhosting can hardly be called "prominent."  Exploding Boy (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Bottle Rockets happen to be one of the leading international paper-based haiku magazines. What you see when you click that link is an online version of it. It is important to keep this link in the Links section, and it should not to be removed. --Badvibes101 (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Haiku
In the haiku article, you've reverted my edit of 12 May, and in so doing have recreated a number of errors in the article. Having no wish to get involved in a petty edit war, I'd prefer to try to understand where you're coming from. Look at some examples of what you've reverted to:
 * "the haikai (or verses) in haikai no renga"; haikai does not mean 'verses' - you do know that, right?
 * "Haiku, when known as hokku, were the opening verses of a linked verse form"; Hokku is the (first) opening verse only - the following two (opening) verses have special names (waki and daisan), but there is only one hokku in each poem
 * "A kireji (i.e. a cutting word or pause)..."; a kireji is a word functioning as a pause, i.e. it brings about a following pause. Obviously a word cannot itself be a pause.
 * "...usually appears at the end of either the first or second line."; A kireji only appears in Japanese haiku; Japanese haiku are written in a single line or column. Furthermore, one of the most important and frequently-occurring kireji is 'kana' which appears only at the end of the verse

Do you disagree with the above? Or what is your motivation in reverting my factual corrections? --Yumegusa (talk) 10:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Your edits, due to the fact that you confused the singular and plural forms of certain nouns, didn't clarify things, I am afraid. I've read and edited the article again, corrected some mistakes made by previous editors that you pointed out to me. See the new version. --Badvibes101 (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Nicely done. The bit about 'haikai' meaning 'verses' remains, and I'll edit it out now --Yumegusa (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Novy Mir
Hi,

Can you please see my comment at Talk:Novy Mir?

I'll appreciate it, if you would clarify that. Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Haiku (see also)
Hi again. Thanks for tidying up after me. However, in your recent edit from
 * Haikai no renga – mushin (popular) renga, from whose opening verse haiku was derived

to
 * Haikai no renga – popular renga that has a hokku as the opening verse

you have dropped the info that haiku derived from the opening verse of Haikai no renga; your substitution of the words "that has a hokku as the opening verse" is confusing at best, since all renga (not just HNR) open with a hokku. The salient point, here in the Haiku article, is that haiku derived from HNR's hokku, rather than that of ushin renga. Additionally, your revision could be misread to mean that HNR is same as ushin renga except it has a hokku at the start(!)

Is there some special reason you prefer to avoid the ushin/mushin terminology? It seems the most economic way of making an important distinction, and is used throughout the literature. --Yumegusa (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate charge of vandalism
In Talk:Haiku you have explicitly referred to my editing of the article's EL section as vandalism. My edit which you referred to was done in accordance with an admin request to remove excessive links, and was discussed fully in Talk:Haiku. I am unable to ignore such a serious charge.

Allow me quote from WP:VANDALISM: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism."

Accordingly, the very serious charge of vandalism which you have levelled against me is entirely unjustified, and I would respectfully ask you to withdraw it, at Talk:Haiku where you posted it. --Yumegusa (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In addition to listed above, another kind of vandalism is an ungrounded removal of important parts of the text. Of course, I am far from describing your editing pattern as such; I am quite satisfied that your contributions have so far been useful. I only tried to show what the editors who spent a lot of time working on the removed section of the article may think about its ungrounded removal. This section is very important, and is being used by scores of members of the haiku community. By the way, the whole article on haiku is also considered to be too long, and it is recommended that we shorten it. Yet we keep your info about that performance in the 'Music and haiku' section, the relevance of which is rather questionable. Let us be reasonable, for Goodness sake! --Badvibes101 (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, --Yumegusa (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Issue resolved - see Talk:Haiku

Monoku
Hi. In case you're not watching the page, I've been arguing for article deletion on Talk:Monoku for over a month, without response. As you're one of the two editors who have worked on the article, I'd like to give you an opportunity to respond before I move for deletion. Thanks for any input.--Yumegusa (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi,I would be happy for my original Monoku article to be deleted provided a suitable amendment is made to the haiku article.Monoku form is significant as it is an original presentation form for the haiku and is a valuable variant on the three line presentation in its western variations now so prevalent. ichthys —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichthys58 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, one-line haiku are notable (even if the term 'monoku' is not commonly used). I transferred a part of the monoku article to haiku, so now we can safely remove monoku. --Badvibes101 (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Thank you... but the Haiku article is so long I could not readily find your amendment perhaps you could advise which section it is in.By the by I would say the Haiku articles needs to be split into TWO (related articles) ie the original Japanese Haiku ,its history etc AND the western development therof in the English language.Clearly the haiku in the west is a living developing form especially in its haiga form with the easy accessibility of digital transfer of jpegs. I have recently experimented with a vertical haiku in English on one of my paintings ....a return of the wenren in a modern style ! Rgds Ichthys England Ichthys58 (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichthys58 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi,I would support the proposal to divide existing over lengthy Haiku article into two... namely Haiku in its traditional original Japanese form with its historical examples etc etc... and secondly its western form in the English language and the history thereof and current developments therein.A link between the two being appropriate and convenient for the Wiki reader.Maybe the second article could be labelled English Haiku.RgdsIchthys58 (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think it a very good idea. As I see it, we have to maintain the continuity of the genre, and trace the development of haiku from Basho up to now. The haiku article is too lengthy, indeed, so maybe we should get rid of the video games section? What do you think? --Badvibes101 (talk) 08:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Can I suggest we move this discussion to Talk:Haiku where part of it already resides? (See this bit of it.--Yumegusa (talk) 10:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi I take your point about keeping the haiku as one but perhaps the way to shorten it is to delete the complete 'media' section Ichthys58 (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good suggestion, though I'm doubtful how thoroughly it will address the underlying problem. My reason for suggesting moving this discussion to Talk:Haiku is so that editors who have an interest in the article may join in. The only reason I'm aware of your posts here is because of my involvement in the movement for deletion of monoku. I'd guess there are a number of editors watching haiku that ain't watching here.--Yumegusa (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I second the removal of the complete 'media' section from haiku. By the way, we can even save it as a separate article called Haiku in Modern Media. How about that? --Badvibes101 (talk) 08:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Haiku in English
You have 516 edits. I have nearly 30,000. Consider that regards pure wikification and wikipedia formatting, I may have my reasons for my changes. Rather than insulting my ability to edit, you may be intrigued to know why I did what I did:
 * Per WP:ALSO, Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also". I would think with Haiku in the page name, the WP:LEAD; the other link, to hokku, is also already embedded appropriately in the history section.
 * One thing I didn't do and should have was remove the main from the lead, as the main template isn't meant to be used in the lead section
 * I did not perform an "underground removal". I was bold, per the first part of the bold, revert, discuss cycle.  However, the hostility attracted on the talk page made it not worth my while to put in the time to correct the errors made.
 * The replacement of the sentence "The extent to which the "haiku movement" will become integrated into existing literary canons remains to be seen." is a violation of WP:OR as it is unattributed and looks rather like a personal opinion (also violating WP:SOAP), and WP:CRYSTAL since it's about the future.
 * The section title "Haiku Movements in North America" is both redundant, out of keeping with WP:HEAD, and eve were it to remain in its full form, violates MOS:CAPS. The subsection "Publications in North America" is also a violation of WP:HEAD
 * The placement of the list of periodicals is arguably out of place in the article at all, since wikipedia is not a web directory, but the placement of the external links section is also a violation of the guide to layout's order of standard appendices. The DMOZ is usually a better link than a bloated, over-long list when, in addition to wikipedia not being a link directory, per WP:EL we're also also urged to keep links to a minimum.

I'm still not going to edit the page as I have no doubt that whatever my reasoning and justification I will still be met with hostility. But I would suggest you examine the guidelines and policies I have written up here and consider bringing the page into keeping with the overall formatting of wikipedia. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 14:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Oknologo.jpg)
You've uploaded File:Oknologo.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 21:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It was replaced with a .png image, which is used in the article on the Okno magazine. I give my consent to the deletion of the .jpg version. --Badvibes101 (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:KudryavitskyPortrait.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:KudryavitskyPortrait.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Haiku in English
Hi BV. Your move of a paragraph out of the introductory section has engendered a discussion at Talk:Haiku in English, to which you may wish to contribute. --Yumegusa (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Anatoly Kudryavitsky
Last year you reverted an edit here, but it's unclear on what this reversion was based. The version which you undid agrees with the other-language Wikipedias and you have provided no supporting reference or citation for your change. Can you please do so now? Thanks. --candyworm (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, I can. Here's the link: . I added the reference to that page. --Badvibes101 (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements. See WP:SOURCES and WP:SELFPUBLISH. --candyworm (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's another link: --Badvibes101 (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The Gadfly
You inserted the above book into the list of Ireland-related books unbanned in 1967. My source is the Irish Times article of 25 August 1967. I don't recall seeing the Gadfly among the list of books in that article (but I could be wrong - it was a long list). Can you provide a reference? Thanks in advance Hohenloh + 16:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Begging your pardon, I didn't insert "The Gadfly" into the list of Ireland-related books unbanned in 1967. The Wikipedia article mentions books banned in Ireland, and "The Gadfly" was one of them. My source is the Irish Times article of 27th April 1966. Here's the link: .--Badvibes101 (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Actually, the names of those books in the Wikipedia article, as the reference mentions, is taken from the list of books that were unbanned in 1967, published in the Irish Times. I'd be interested in finding out why the book was banned, since it was previously widely available in Ireland, but as far as I know details were not released in those days. Hohenloh + 01:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why was it banned? I reckon because it portrays a Catholic cardinal having an illegitimate son - and this as early as in 1897!--Badvibes101 (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Prilepin
The http://lenta.ru/lib/14182720 is a copy+paste from an old Russian wiki article, and it is full of errors. In any case: it is RS.--Galassi (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am afraid, you are greatly mistaken. Even Prilepin's official site confirms that his Prilepin is his real name. In his interview in Medved magazine he explained that he used that Lavlinsky name to sign a few magazine articles, as he didn't want to use his real name. He said the following: 'Prilepin's name is Prilepin, make no mistake about it.' Russian Wiki has him as Prilepin, and not as Lavlinsky. The Journalist League source that, as you believe, 'confirms' the Lavlinsky theory, is notoriously unreliable. I revert your edits, and I have to ask you to study the sources before reverting such edits as mine.--Badvibes101 (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * However sta-sta.ru is not RS, and http://www.medved-magazine.ru/search/?text=%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%BD is not finding your citation.--Galassi (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, here it is for you (hope you can read Russian):

"Здесь надо пояснить, что фамилия моя Прилепин. По паспорту, по рождению и по отцу моему, Николаю Семеновичу Прилепину. Когда-то, в бытность работы журналистом, я публиковался под разными псевдонимами, у меня их штук тринадцать было, самый известный — Евгений Лавлинский. Потом, когда я начал писать книги (я пишу книги про войну, про революцию и про любовь), все свои псевдонимы я напрочь позабыл и вернулся к родной фамилии. Тем не менее призрак Лавлинского иногда нагоняет меня по сей день."
 * Source: Zakhar Prilepin's Column; Medved, 2010, No 3 (138). Hope this helps. --Badvibes101 (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Irish Chess Union, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ballina, Cork and Shannon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Anatoly Kudryavitsky.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=592470668 your edit] to Haiku in English may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * from 1989 to 1997 by Michael Dylan Welch), Hal Roth's Wind Chimes, Wisteria, moonset edited from 2005 to 2009 by an'ya (Andja Petrović), and tinywords (founded by Dylan F. Tweney

Disambiguation link notification for March 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haiku in languages other than Japanese, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vatican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Disunity by Anatoly Kudryavitsky Book Cover.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Disunity by Anatoly Kudryavitsky Book Cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SoapsCover.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:SoapsCover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)