User talk:Bendono/July-August 2007

Your opinion
If you are not too busy, I want to hear your opinion. Please take a look at the Misinformation section on the talk page of Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Thank you. Oda Mari 10:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Diacritics
I do want to aviod creating problems for anyone else to resolve; and your recent clean-up of "Chōwa" causes me to wonder if I'm still missing the point. I don't mind making mistakes, I suppose; but I shouldn't want to blunder around too much. The need to get the diacritics right is distracting, but important ... and the situation feels a little bit more confusing in the French Wikipedia. At the very least, I want to try not to be part of the problem -- as in the Greek admonition: "above all, do no harm." Do you have any plausibly useful comments or observations you'd be willing to share? Ooperhoofd 01:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello. You are not part of the problem. When the page was titled "Chowa", you did the only thing that you could do: used the pipe symbol (|) to rename the link to the correct spelling. However, that only solves part of the problem. The better solution is to simply move the page, as I just did. (Pages pointing to the old like should still be fixed, though.) At the top of each page is a "move" tab. Brand new users may not move pages, but you should be able to by now. There are various issues to contend with, so please read WP:MOVE for details. Also, not all editors will agree with some moves, so if there is any doubt, please discuss it first. There is also WP:RM for moves needing discussion. In some cases an administrator will be needed to complete some moves. When moving a page, please list a reason. For many of our moves, you may use WP:MOS-JA as the reason, assuming that you have first read and comprehend the contents. Regards. Bendono 02:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

S Etymology of yukata
Great addition to the article! We need more of these, if not only to get away with the often silly (or sillily!) quaint folk etymologies that dot the articles on Japanese subjects. Hope your doing well, Jim_Lockhart 14:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It's summer, and I'm going to a firework show this weekend. So I had yukata on the mind. If there are any articles in particular that you wish me to add or discuss etymologies for, just let me know. Bendono 14:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Expatlecturer on Gaijin article
I'm wondering if someone should report him. He's reverted more than four times in 24 hours, and he clearly doesn't seem to understand (or care) about Wikipedia policies, consensus-building or talk page discussions. J Readings 13:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've requested that the page be protected. Hopefully then he/she will participate in a discussion to resolve the issues. Note: I will be away for a few days on vacation, so any further responses will be early next week, at the earliest. Bendono 13:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. The admin (User:Alison) seems to have blocked him for 31 hours, but she didn't revert or protect the page. J Readings 14:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What to do?
I'm a bit puzzled. Perhaps you may have something helpful to say.

I spent a great deal of time explaining what I was doing with nengō, as you know. I invited comment and consensus about handling era name homonyms. I invested this time because I was under the impression this was the way to work with others who are interested in the topic. I presumed that this was a plausible process for building a working relationship with others. That did not happen.

Now, a new editor is changing the nengō romanji without any seeming awareness of that way of working in a cooperative fashion. Nor does there seem to be any interest in the possible consequences. I don't know what to think. Why is it that I should have been encouraged to explain so much, and this new fellow is not similarly constrained? In fact, as far as I can tell, his efforts are encouraging applause of a sort. I'd join in, but I'm somewhat persuaded that I've been the object of a poor joke. Do you see my point?

I'm also puzzled when I find reference citations removed from articles I've written. What's the logic in that?

I appreciate that there has been a tempest-in-a-teapot about using Hayshi Gahō's text as a source for Wikipedia stubs. As you know, I've done what I can to explain why my sources are at least adequate, and it appears to be for naught. The persistent critics don't seem to have even bothered to read Nihon Odai Ichiran or anything else I've written. But that "issue" doesn't explain removing a citation identifying R.A.B. Ponsonby-Fane's book on Kyoto as a demonstration that the trivial fact I've put into an article is actually backed up by a specific and verifiable source. No -- that's not good.

Do you have a constructive comment? Can you proffer a conciliatory point-of-view which will smooth my ruffled feathers? If so, it would be welcome.

Perhaps this will seem an untoward imposition. If so, well -- sorry about that. I thought I'd gotten over some sort of initial "hump" ... but I now find that I was overly optimistic. Not good. Ooperhoofd 00:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for all of your work. There are a great many editors and we all have our own opinions on certain topics. At times this may make it difficult to work with some editors. For individual topics, discussing it on the talk page is often beneficial. For more general topics that are widespread, it may be more useful to discuss it with a project group. For Japan-related topics, that would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan (which I do not participate in). For romanization related topics, perhaps WP:MOS-JA may be of use.


 * I am not sure which articles you are referring to. Do you have an specific articles that you would like me to take a look at?


 * Try not to take it personally. We're all working with the intent of improving articles. Discussion and consensus should be able to resolve the issues. Bendono 01:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me perhaps turn your thoughts in a different direction: I'm pleased with two articles I created -- a little bit proud of Hayashi Gahō and John Whitney Hall because both turned out a little bit better than I'd anticipated. Both seemed "urgent" because I wanted to think through why I thought what I was doing was reasonable, defensible -- good. As it happens, the more I transcribe of Nihon Odai Ichiran, the more impressed I am with whoever the anonymous Japanese it was who suggested that Titsingh try to translate Hayashi Gahō's "simple" text. In my view, the chronology stands up well in the context Gushankō and ''Jinnō Shōtōki" create.

When I began trying to pull facts together for both of the Hayashi Gahō, I thought that if I made better, and more focused information available about the original author, it would become a constructive step. As for Professor Hall, he spoke approvingly of Titsingh in Tanuma Okitsugu and I wanted to enhance the credibility of the citation in Nihon Odai Ichiran. I thought it would be persuasive if I provided more information about the scholar who came to that favorable conclusion about Titsingh. If not for the complaints -- and the extent to which it all got under my skin -- well, I probably wouldn't have invested the time it took to pull these thoughts together.

In effect, this becomes a positive response to thinks that confuse me about my Wikipedia experience thus far. This becomes a fine sort of alchemy, don't you think? Worth offering as a kind of thank you for what I perceive as patience and encouragement from solid Bendono ...? Ooperhoofd 02:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Susumu Kuno
Caught your note on the wing Bendono, while relaxing in Salzburg, where I just happened to catch a computer hanging around unused in the hotel bar, and checking, found your note. It would be absurd to erase that stub. Hold off proposals for deletion for a few weeks, and I´will see if I can pitch in when I get back home. Best regards (Nishidani. Can´t seem to paste and copy on this keyboard!)