User:Tenmei/Sandbox/Senkaku

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Mutsu province/Iwase province

Your recent edits based on Yōrō-ritsuryō changes in Nara period in the plitical organization of Tohoku are transparent, accurate, reasonable -- of course. But I wonder if you might be persuaded to expand on the thinking which underlies this minor edit because I think it might help clarify my understanding of my own edits elsewhere.

I'm especially wondering about the plausible inclusion of deliberate redundancies in related Wikipedia articles. Why wouldn't it have been more "encyclopedic," more helpful, more appropriate to have left something about Yōrō chenges in the article which ostensibly focuses solely on Mutsu province? Do you see my point?

The issues in this instance are small. The consequent evolution of the two stubs is trivial. However, I'm persuaded that the implications may be relevant in a process of figuring out how better to parse the way I approach more complicated subjects. Expressed differently, I'm trying to invite you to think about something which is a little bit beyond mere lexicological metastasis; and my tentative POV assumes that the efficacy of internal links will ultimately prove to be Wikipedia's greatest asset as 21st-century reference source. At the same time, I try to approach every subject (and every edit) with a view to metastasizing the contents of any specific article across the broadest array of plausibly relevant corollaries -- not only by creating internal links, but by actively engaging the subject matter from this ontological perspective.

This means that I now believe I missed a trick by not editing Iwase province at the same time as I added the Yōrō chenges in Mutsu province; and also, this POV means that I suspect that it was a mistake -- or a missed opportunity -- when you deleted any mention of Yōrō chenges.

Bottom line, this isn't really a matter of POV -- not really. Rather, it goes to the heart of what we each construe to be the goal of an Internet encyclopedica. Now that I've actually typed out these thoughts, the words sound much too fancy; but there you have it. I could work on softening the overly-academic tone, but the gravamen of my questions might be muddied. I this strikes a responsive chord, I'd look forward to your feedback. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

In a sense, this request for assistance is a sham because I expect you to achieve little. I don't know what can be done -- nor have I any ideas about should be done. Nevertheless, I'm formally asking for one or more Administrators to intervene constructively in resolving an intractable dispute arising from Kōryū-ji. As far as I can tell, the fact of the matter is that User:Bueller 007 only became interested in this subject as a contemptuous consequence of tearing apart my work at Hōkō-ji, but that doesn't really matter any more. My patience is now over-stretched:

  • (cur) (last) 02:00, 18 January 2008 User:Bueller 007 (Talk | contribs) (1,007 bytes) (and the added references (which, of course were DUPLICATES, just for good measure) are now no longer being used in the article) (undo)
  • (cur) (last) 01:59, 18 January 2008 User:Bueller 007 (Talk | contribs) (1,704 bytes) (this might be difficult for some people to understand, but the section that has been added IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO THE TOPIC AT HAND.) (undo)
  • (cur) (last) 18:38, 29 December 2007 User:Ooperhoofd (Talk | contribs) (2,797 bytes) (retoring relevant text, in-line citations and bibliographic source notes which were wrongly deleted) (undo)
----
  • (cur) (last) 23:52, 28 December 2007 User:Ooperhoofd (Talk | contribs) (978 bytes) (→References - adding categories -- "Buddhism in Japan" and "Shingon Buddhism") (undo)
----
  • (cur) (last) 07:03, 10 December 2007 User:Bueller 007 (Talk | contribs) m (866 bytes) (removing irrelevant history. something like "it was here that prince nakanooe shaved his head in 645" might be passable, but a whole mostly irrelevant section is certainly not needed) (undo)

The ultimate foundation of this dispute has a genesis elsewhere. I don't know where or why I've managed to capture Bueller's unwelcome attention, but I've had more than enough of it.

My hardened perspective is informed by what you can see for yourself in a quick scan of the edit history of Daijō-kan:

  • (cur) (last) 10:10, 21 December 2007 User:Bueller 007 (Talk | contribs) (35,637 bytes) (→II. Ministry of Civil Services - readding #47 & #48 as a reminder to clean up this silly plagiarized numbering system) (undo) [emphasis added]
  • (cur) (last) 08:33, 21 December 2007 User:Bueller 007 (Talk | contribs) m (35,947 bytes) (→Council of State - if you're basically just going to plagiarize this french reference word for word and point for point, at least try to get the kanji & transliterations right) (undo) [emphasis added]

The words "silly" and "plagiarize" are not consistent with any subterfuge about constructive critical observations from a colleague whose only goal is to improve the quality of Wikipedia. This is nakedly objectionable. Moreover, these attacks appear to have no other motivation that the pleasure Bueller derives from being cleverly derisive.

My several efforts to respond reasonably in talk page venues have been entirely unsuccessful. That having been said: Now is the time for Bueller to start barking up some other tree. I'm cutting no more slack for this intemperate annoyance. NoI should I have wasted time and thought in the forbearance I've exhibited thus far ....

Bluntly, Bueller has over-reached. I do not need to tolerate gratuitous abuse; and this Bad Faith campaign won't profit further from my continuing meek participation. I've not been satisfied with the efficacy of my strategy in responding to criticism in the past. Clearly, a moderate rejoinder is clearly insufficient in this instance. What else did should I have done?

Nihonjoe -- In anticipation that this awkward complaint will be beyond your ability to handle, I'm posting a duplicate of this message on the Administrator's notice board and anywhere else I can think of. Perhaps in conjunction with your peers, you will be able to achieve what is likely to be beyond what you can achieve acting alone.

What can you do? What can anyone do? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)