Hello, I see that you recently reverted the Haiku in English article, and I thank you. I myself and not too familiar with Haiku beyond a basic understanding,but the article itself needs work, and I would love to work with someone to fill in a few blanks within the article. If you are interested, please feel free to post on my talk page Mrathel ( talk) 16:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply

The first line of the New York Times article is suggestive:

TOKYO, Jan. 19 [1980]--A select group gathered at the imperial palace in Tokyo, the men dressed in morning coats and pin-stripe trousers, the women for the most part in formal black kimonos.

This brief NYT article discusses an Imperial poetry event in 1980. In that year, Emperor Shōwa read aloud what he had crafted. The first sentence of the article helps us imagine what the formal occasion might have looked like. On this occasion, the waka written by Empress Kōjun had to be read aloud by a courtier. NYT reported that the empress could not attend the event because problems with her hip made walking too difficult.

I mistakenly believed that the tag was supposed to elicit confirmation that such events do occur? -- Tenmei ( talk) 23:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm try to figure out an easy way to add a bio page for Alan Pizzarelli for the Haiku in English and Senyru pages. But, all this coding has me completely confused. Is there an easy way to add my bio pages, which is currently in Word. The biography template had be even more confused! Any suggestions. Help!! Haikuwiki ( talk) 00:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Haikuwiki reply

Hi Haikuwiki. It's not entirely clear to me what you wish or intend to do. If you wish to create an article on Alan Pizzarelli, you will need to show that he is objectively and verifiably notable - see Wikipedia:Notability. I'd suggest it would in any case be a good idea to read through Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia and some of the pages linked from it, before beginning to edit. I'll be happy to assist you with any specific points. Best wishes -- Bagworm ( talk) 20:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello! Do you think the headings/categories in List of National Treasures of Japan (writings) are chosen in a reasonable way? Unfortunately I don't know much about Japanese literature, so I took the headings from the Japanese wikipedia article. bamse ( talk) 09:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Bamse. On the face of it, it seems so. But I would not claim expertise in this area. Nice work! -- Bagworm ( talk) 13:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks! bamse ( talk) 08:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

What is this? Are you now running a substitution on old user talk page posts?? I'd advise you to undo such edits with all the speed you can muster. -- Bagworm ( talk) 23:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC) reply

good point, i stoped editing those because i saw it was unnecessary and did already undo some. but why do you say undo as fast as possible? is there anything essential i forget? thanks ... -- Updatehelper ( talk) 03:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC) reply

After a closer examination I also came to that conclusion. I was unaware that there were multiple titles for the same publication. TheTallSarge ( talk) 19:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I apologize if you found my message to be unwanted. I haven't contacted you before but I was simply trying to encourage other members of the Wikipedia community to participate in an ongoing discussion. Your comments will be appreciated there. In the future, I will not use the "Email User" function with you and will write on your talk page instead as you requested. With regards, Anupam ^Talk 00:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Read WP:CANVASSING Anupam. Pathetic. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 11:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

This page is not a valid arena for launching a personal attack on another editor, in direct contravention of wp:civil. Kindly note. -- Bagworm ( talk) 14:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

What personal attack? The attempt by this editor to push POV by canvassing people sympathetic to the cause. Or the fact that this editor emailed you and you thought it appropriate to copy what was privately sent to you confidentially and expose and humiliate him in front of myself and Shahid and anybody else? That is far more danaging or an "attack" to him than asking him to read WP:CANVASSING. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 14:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Please indent when posting here. What the editor tried or did not try to do outside of this page is irrelevant to my point. WP:civil states: "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours..." and no editor has the right to use this page as a platform for an ad hominem attack on another. Kindly keep your rants for somewhere more appropriate. -- Bagworm ( talk) 17:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

One word. Pathetic. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 21:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I see you have deleted my post here. You have made it rather clear who the 'p'-word refers to. Enough nonsense and time-wasting. -- Bagworm ( talk) 21:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi, I'd really appreciate your insight and opinion on this...

I have read dozens of linguistic articles on morae and, specifically, morae in Japanese and I am coming to the opinion that it's a lot simpler than linguists would have us believe. It seems to me that mother-tongue Japanese-speakers feel the importance of the mora in their language for no other reason than that they learned to read and write using hiragana. The key to this, I think, lies in the perception of "-n" as a separate mora. This does not fit into any pure linguistic definition of morae but is perfectly explained by it having its own kana.

I do think that linguists have an odd tendency to believe in pseudoscience. When I studied linguistics it was in the days when Chomsky was God. Hence my tendency to scepticism. As I'm aware of my prejudice against prevailing theories, I thought I'd seek informed opinion. And your opinion seems as informed as any!

Thanks in advance

Tesspub ( talk) 09:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Frankly, I suspect you're better read and informed than me in this area, and you've certainly suggested an interesting tilt on cause-and-effect above. Your recent edits on the haiku article have made a considerable improvement, so please feel free to continue! -- Bagworm ( talk) 09:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply

You are very kind. Thank you. If you know where I might find a nest of bright, linguistically aware, mother-tongue Japanese speakers to whom I could address my question, do let me know. Tesspub ( talk) 11:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply

The intro to this is interesting... [ [1]]

Sure is, but I think it's probably beyond the scope of the onji article. -- Bagworm ( talk) 16:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

You might also find this of interest: [2] -- Bagworm ( talk) 16:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

You're right, I did. Fascinating. Not sure whether to believe it or not...

You keep sending me a message about how i need to stop deleting posts. Well teach me how to cite them. I just started using wiki using an account so i need a bit of help.

Please read Wikipedia:Introduction -- Bagworm ( talk) 21:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 18:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi, I'm asking you because you're the only editor I know! I am trying to work out how to put up one of those boxes that complains about an article being focused on the US. I have spent over an hour searching the help files and I haven't found anything close. Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks Oh and congratulations on your elevation! Tesspub ( talk) 09:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I haven't investigated what the 'elevation' means, but thanks :) You'll find just the thing you're looking for at the top of Haiku in English (though I now notice that that template is in danger of being deprecated). It just involves inserting {{Globalize/North America}} at the top of the article. Anyway, the place to look for all such things is at WP:TEMPLATE, or more specifically WP:TMC. Does that give you enough of a pointer? I should say that its purpose is not so much to 'complain' as to ask for help in redressing an imbalance (but I'm sure you knew that anyway). I agree the 'Help' section of Wikipedia is something of a catastrophe. -- candyworm ( talk) 10:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Brilliant. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tesspub ( talk • contribs) 09:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC) reply

This is in reference to your comment: "Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Black metal. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thank you. This is the second time you have added this information to the article, in contravention of wp:coi candyworm (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)"

How does adding a legitimate bibliographic entry under Literature heading fall under advertising or promotion? I did not add link, only information about the volume of essays

Nicolamasciandaro ( talk) 02:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Moved discussion to Talk:Black metal as it's of article relevance. -- candyworm ( talk) 09:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Please help me with my article of 21 line fusion sonnet.It is indeed a new form of sonnet appearing in significant online journals and well edited and selective poetry websites as well as newspapers but still notability questions are raised.Please help to keep this article.It is indeed necessary and it is notable as it is a new type of Sonnet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poet009 ( talk • contribs) 13:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC) please share you ideas here to save the article or else it will be unnessarily be deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Web_based_magazines_as_sources.3F —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.86.87 ( talk) 18:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Please help as Ragib is deleting many articles without having proper knowledge. reply

I was going to create an article about Sonnet Mondal but I found that due to repeated spamming in the gone years the article name has been blocked.May be it was not written properly by other users before with non notable and reliable sources but I find enough resources in the net now to establish notability of the article.I have prepared the article in my user page with RS references and external links which you can kindly take a look.Please help.Here is the link where I have prepared the article.Or you can also createthis article as it seems that with the present references it has enough notability. [3]-- Poet009 ( talk) 20:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Is there a policy on cleaning up talk pages? I know a lot of it is my fault (!) but the haiku talk page is getting out of hand and I think a lot of it has been resolved. I am happy to spend some time tidying up, but I don't know if that's OK Tesspub ( talk) 22:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Archiving_a_talk_page. The Talk:Haiku page is a lot shorter than some I've stumbled across, so I wouldn't feel any urgent need to archive. One disadvantage of archiving is that an editor new to the article can start raising the same old issues again, even though they've been resolved, whereas leaving the old discussions visible avoids that problem. -- candyworm ( talk) 22:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_line_fusion_sonnet .It has been vaguely tagged with speedy deletion in spite of the fact that it has reliable references. The subject who has tagged seems to have an attacking attitude towards removing this page. He has very less no of wiki edits but has added the tag in spite of the fact that such tags cannot be added when an article asserts significance. --Diameter 17:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poet009 ( talk • contribs)

AFD of Fusion Sonnets

The page has which you helped me create by cleaning and fixing references has been taken to afd. You may please comment on the afd page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_line_fusion_sonnet --Diameter 18:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've left comment there. -- candyworm ( talk) 22:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Very interested in what other movements there are beside gendai. Can you point me in the right direction? Tesspub ( talk) 21:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Me too. Can you show that gendai is the only one? -- candyworm ( talk) 23:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Not at all. I am not arguing. I am seeking info. From your comment I assumed you knew there were others. Tesspub ( talk) 17:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Your edit at Gendai suggested that it was the only one. From the sheer number of different and competing haiku groups in Japan, it seems unlikely in the extreme that there could be just one modern aesthetic. -- candyworm ( talk) 18:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Dear Mr Worm,

You probably think this is hubris, and well it might be, but I am starting to write a small book introducing haiku to the gaikoku-jin. I would like to be able to thank you for all the support you have given me in my journey so far - and I would like to be able to send you a copy. Please let me know how you would like to be named and where to send the book. elliott@tesspub.com Tesspub ( talk) 12:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi Tesspub
I'm sure it's not hubris at all! I've no doubt your book will prove very useful. There is really no need to thank me, but if you feel you must, you could mention editor Bagworm at Wikipedia. As to sending me a copy, rather send the cost to your favourite charity. Let me know here about its availability, and I'll order a copy for myself. Thanks for the message 8) -- gråb whåt you cån ( talk) 12:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Hi,You reverted my edit saying that,"Rv unexplained removal of image,Ehsan Sehgal,your edit summary was incomprehensible."

I did not act Rv,acctually your reverting edit is Rv and without giving reasons and explaining summary that why you think it must be reverted. As I am familair to that area of the subject,I know who is who?.There are hundreds of biographical articles of poets,it does not mean you add their names everywhere,you want.Wikipedia has a standard and for it requires classical entries,not just an entry.In the article Poetry section Ghazal,should be the image of any classical or prominent poet,not just a poet.And other thing removed subject of image is a comic poet,and section Ghazal requires images of classical and prominent poets of puur ghazal,as like Ghalib, Mir and etc.

Please take a look at Ghazal,then may you understand,why I removed the image.Please do not revert any edit without explaining properly.I have ask, about your Rv reverting,to User:LadyofShalott,her assistance in this regard,after this I will react accordingly.Cheers. Ehsan Sehgal ( talk) 18:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC) reply

I have copied your comment above to Talk:Poetry, as it is relevant to that article and may be of interest to other editors. Please continue any discussion there. Thanks. -- gråb whåt you cån ( talk) 19:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Dear Bagworm, the articles about Korean, Tagalog, French gogyohkas have no sources about them. The link of ATPO has no gogyohka and no articles of it. Take a look at it.So I deleted them. Show us them from any books or any blogs. If you show us them, you can post them in Wikipedia. I would agree with you if you could! (Sourcist)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sourcist ( talk • contribs) 04:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply

As the creator of the Death in Paradise (TV series) article, I would just like to thank you in all your efforts doing speller and grammer corrections. Thanks very much Bruno Russell ( talk) 18:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Happy to have helped, Bruno :-) -- gråb whåt you cån ( talk) 20:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply

To name Basho as a writer of Hokku, when he is known in Japan as writer of Haiku, is the pure vanadalism and crime against Japanese cultural inheritance.--Karate 11:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haikago ( talk • contribs)

Haikago, your comments have been fully responded to at Talk:Hokku. Since that is the article being discussed, please conduct any discussion there. Thank you. -- gråb whåt you cån ( talk) 11:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Haikago/Karate, I'm moving your most recent post to Talk:Hokku, since that is the article you are attempting to discuss. Please confine your discussion of that article to the relevant talk page, not this page. Thank you. -- gråb whåt you cån ( talk) 12:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi, on a point of detail following this edit, it's only disambiguation pages that are restricted to one blue link per line. Lists of people with a shared name are (hopefully) watched by WP:WikiProject Anthroponymy, and are not covered by MOS:DAB. There is a section which sets out the distinction at MOS:DABNAME. Best wishes – Fayenatic L (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Many thanks for the heads-up, Fayenatic. -- gråb whåt you cån ( talk) 18:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC) reply

ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 16:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your edit.

I checked some guides and now I know I should not add external links, but the fact remains the same. I enjoyed reading the article "Haiku in English" and would like to see it's developed by adding Protest Haiku, Atheist Haiku and modern haiku written about human loneliness and mother earth mainly. I would love to help, please let me know how I can be a helping hand for completing the article. Thanks again. Marian74 ( talk) 05:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi Marian. It's great to read of such enthusiasm :-) On your talk page User talk:Marian74, the very first message ("Welcome!") contains very useful links to some fundamental Wikipedia guidelines. If you read carefully though them you'll be well-prepared for editing. Best wishes, gråb whåt you cån ( talk) 13:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply

[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=|link=]] This is your '''only warning'''; if you make [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|personal attacks]] on other people again, as you did at [[:Byrne]], you may be '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]] without further notice'''. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. It is entirely inappropriate to call another editor a "vandal", as you did in an edit summary at Byrne. Don't do that again. Personal attacks of that degree are taken very seriously. 89.100.207.51 ( talk) 12:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Lol, IP, thanks for the giggle! If you're referring to this edit, you are failing to distinguish between commenting on content and commenting on a contributor. You are continuing to edit against consensus at Byrne, and referring to one of your edits as vandalism is not a personal attack, unlike your personal attack here. More details at Talk:Byrne. -- gråb whåt you cån ( talk) 13:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC) reply

You accused me of vandalism. People who engage in vandalism are vandals. Therefore, you called me a vandal. Disagreeing with you is not vandalism. If you dish out personal attacks, you need to be ready to receive them in turn. 89.100.207.51 ( talk) 14:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC) reply

No, I characterised one of your edits as vandalism. If you think this is hair-splitting then you obviously need to brush up on WP guidelines. -- gråb whåt you cån ( talk) 20:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC) reply

You accused me of vandalism. People who engage in vandalism are vandals. Therefore, you called me a vandal. Disagreeing with you is not vandalism. If you don't realise that people who engage in vandalism are vandals, then you obvioulsy need to brush up on your English. 89.100.207.51 ( talk) 22:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Referring to one of your edits as vandalism is a comment on an edit. Calling someone a "dickhead" as you did, is a personal attack. If you choose to call yourself a vandal, that's fine. End of. -- gråb whåt you cån ( talk) 22:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi. When you recently edited Bucket shop (heraldry), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bucket shop ( 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) 11:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot ( talk) 05:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Can I invite you, Bagworm, to review the revised article on this subject? I know that you’ve followed the entry previously and have offered edits in the past. I’m uncertain of how to format the notes so that they appear in superscript, so I’d appreciate your assistance with that, if you deem it worth your time. I view this article as similar in gist to Haiku in English, Tanka in English and Haibun, all of which are directed at a discussion of contemporary English-language adaptation of Japanese literary forms. Objections to the prior Tanka prose article were lodged almost exclusively by one editor; he/she objected predominately to reputed errors in discussing the Japanese literary background. However, there were also objections to citing primary poetic documents from the literary small press because, in that editor’s view, they are not “valid,” are not independent or “secondary,” etc. A quick review of other articles, such as Haiku in English, shows that citations are primarily from small press literary sources as, indeed, they are by necessity since there is little, if any, academic discussion of the English-language phenomenon of haiku, tanka, haibun and tanka prose. I’d appreciate your view on this matter, if you wish to share it, as the same editor, before I could post the revised version of the article, had already issued warnings of a possible request for deletion and renewed his/her rejection of my sources. In brief, the expectation of academic sources, as regards the current English phenomenon, strikes me as unrealistic and, in light of the other articles I’ve cited (which this same editor has worked upon), a double standard. Any insight or comments you’d care to offer would be most appreciated. Tristan noir ( talk) 00:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Bagworm, for your assistance with formatting the footnotes.

Tristan noir ( talk) 15:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC) reply

For the record, I find the above personal attack offensive, and highly inaccurate. I never applied a double standard, and I only ever requested that Tristan noir work within the boundaries of our previous agreement. He/she did not, and so the dispute has continued. elvenscout742 ( talk) 15:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC) reply

This is not a valid arena for third parties to slog it out. Any further posts in such a vein will be deleted immediately. -- gråb whåt you cån ( talk) 15:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC) reply

==Notice of Dispute resolution discussion==

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. Thank you! elvenscout742 ( talk) 01:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi Bagworm! :D

I just noticed your earlier response above today. I am sorry for calling the above user out on your talk page. I understand that it was inappropriate, and such concerns should be brought up at the article talk or at the offending user's talk page. I was frustrated with the particular user, since he/she has consistently refused to discuss content on the article, instead attacking me personally, and his/her above comment on your talk page above is the closest thing to a substantial comment he/she has made on the article since creating it.

It was, however, still wrong of me to bring it up here. I apologize for that.

Are we still cool? ;-)

elvenscout742 ( talk) 08:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Understood. -- gråb whåt you cån ( talk) 09:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Sorry for the error in removing the maintenance tags. I didn't mean to remove them. I had been working on an overhaul of the article in my Userspace, and there had been no substantial edits to content since I started. I did not actually remove any maintenance tags except the category one (by accident), just made them look uglier, but I did solve one of the issues mentioned. Also, if possible, could you reconsider using templates like that on my talk page? I am not new to Wikipedia (I have had an account longer than you have), and my edits did not need to be "reverted". elvenscout742 ( talk) 01:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC) reply

How long you've been editing at WP is of no consequence. The message did not say your edit had been reverted; it said, "your removal of this template has been reverted". In addition to removing the improve categories template, you did break the Multiple issues template, thereby exposing its code. Consider the message a reminder to be more careful, as it is intended. -- gråb whåt you cån ( talk) 09:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is " Prosimetrum". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 12:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Not certain why you were not notified of the above, as I was on my talk page, but I thought it best that I pass it along. Tristan noir ( talk) 15:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello Bagworm, in reponse to my edits, you have assumed that an additional source is required for "new assertion". However I believe the etymological connection is properly supported by the added source (now shown as [5],[6]) and is not a separate assertion.

Also, I hyper-linked "reliability" and "quality" because of their specific and contrasting meanings, i.e. engineering/manufacturing "quality" as design-based fit to expectations or specifications, typically something does not work at time-0 when the customer opens the box, etc. The broader sense of quality is also elaborated in the book "Zen in the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" (by Robert Pirsig). On the other hand "reliability" in an engineering sense refers to performance or degradation over time (field failures, from the viewpoint of a manufacturer). Perhaps then I should have specifically hyperlinked to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_%28business%29 , and to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_%28engineering%29 In any case, I think that these are significant to the article assertions and are not "common nouns". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cielovista ( talk • contribs) 22:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC) reply

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gogyōshi (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. elvenscout742 ( talk) 01:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Hey Bagworm, I noticed when you previously posted this article for deletion it wound up getting no substantial contribution from anyone other than you and the article's creator, and even though there was no reason to keep it and the creator's arguments showed only a lack of knowledge of how search engines work, the result wound up being "no consensus". Do you know any way of expanding the scope of these discussions other than posting them to the respective WikiProjects? Thanks! elvenscout742 ( talk) 05:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi Bagworm. I noticed you were the one who added the "etymology" section to the article Tanga (poetry). [4] The article appears to discuss a neologism without any sources, and so I have nominated it for deletion here. I suspect the self-publisher Allison Millcock to have invented the word, but I am not sure. Could you perhaps shed any light on the issue? elvenscout742 ( talk) 08:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply

The edit you refer to is over four years old, and I'm afraid I can offer no insight into it now. I've added my delete !vote at the AfD. -- gråb whåt you cån ( talk) 11:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply

I didn't consider the publications' mutual relative importance, or who writes for them. I noted that the section was titled "Periodicals regularly publishing renku in English". Like the other two defunct journals I removed, this description didn't seem to fit the Journal of Renga & Renku. It is apparently still in print, but while it was started in 2010 it has since had only two issues, with a third due for publication sometime next year. This doesn't seem regular to me, but if you want to change the name of the section and reinstate the link I wouldn't mind. elvenscout742 ( talk) 00:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Let me get this straight. I edit Kirkup's page to describe the poem more accurately, making it clear why it was censored. You revert my edit as "unsourced", so I source it to the poem itself, which is already cited elsewhere in the article. And now you're telling me the poem itself isn't a valid source?

We're not talking about some historical event here, where maybe eyewitness testimony isn't the best thing to go on. We're not talking about a work in some other language or in archaic, easily-misinterpreted English. We're talking about a poem one page long in modern language, already linked in the article, and you're telling me it's somehow gauche to say what's in it? There was absolutely nothing speculative or OR about my edit. If it's unacceptable, so is the current version, and indeed any version that describes the poem at all.

The article currently gives the false impression that Kirkup was being picked on by oversensitive censors, when in fact he was jumping up and down screaming "censor me". That is relevant to the subject. No, it's not a huge deal, but I don't see why it's a huge deal on your end either. ~ CZeke ( talk) 18:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi CZeke. You've been contributing to the project for over 6 years. You must surely be aware of WP:PRIMARY: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." On this basis, the poem itself is a primary source, so clearly not a valid source. You say the poem "is already cited elsewhere in the article"; can you please point to what assertion it is supporting? In any case, we're discussing the James Kirkup article. The interpretive information you are keen to add, should (if properly sourced) more appropriately be placed in the article The Love That Dares to Speak Its Name. -- gråb whåt you cån ( talk) 20:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC) reply

		The Mediator Barnstar
		Having contributed to the original AFD I became decidedly involved. I tried to stay out of all the subsequent rubbish and haven't really followed the follow-up. Having only now read through some of the history since, I am decidedly impressed by your measured mediation, good faith attempts at compromise and ability to be involved without getting " involved". Let me know if you ever consider an RFA - I'll be there with bells on. Stalwart 111 01:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the encouragement, Stalwart. -- gråb whåt you cån ( talk) 09:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shūi Wakashū, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Waka ( 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) 09:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Lukeno94: " Because you'd pretend that any IP edits weren't actually Hijiri. And you know full well that you'll do that"
Drmies: " There's nothing wrong with Luke's good faith"

Jeez, I'd laugh at the absurdity of the above, if it wasn't so sad. But it kinda sums up this topsy-turvy world. I've taken some time away from Wikipedia, and come to the conclusion that life without the stress of this kind of nonsense is... better. I love the idea of Wikipedia, but the practice has become something quite different. It has developed a 'system' which can be learned and played, and which by its nature favours those who have learned its tricks. I've been editing quietly and productively for many years, sharing my knowledge and improving here and there, in no big way, and have had very little occasion to have anything to do with its 'admin' pages. Along comes an editor, new to the area I've been working on for years, removes knowledge that has long been incorporated in articles, rubs everyone up the wrong way, utterly abrasive and not interested in collaboration or consensus, but displays enormous energy and stamina, and by manipulating the system gets his way. And so it goes that you drive away editors who simply want to contribute without being combative or learning the tricks of the system.

• Please respect this retired user's request not to edit this page further.

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply