User talk:Douggers

/Archive 1: Discussions from 2007.

		WikiProject Japan Barnsensu Award
		For your ceaseless editing, creating and translating of Japan-related articles - especially Gifu related articles - I award this Barnsensu to you, Douggers. You are a valuable asset to WikiProject Japan. Keep up the good work. Brian Adler (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, Douggers. You deserve it. (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the award and the comments. m(_ _)m Recognition creates a nice warm feeling on a cold January day. Douggers (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could use some recognition where I live, then. It's about 2°F outside right now, and the breeze isn't helping any. <shiver> ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Recently you commented at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Wikipedians in x prefecture. Although the debate started as a discussion on whether to rename the category, it later broadened to encompass upmerging the categories to Category:Wikipedians in Japan. I have left the debate open a little longer because the suggestion came quite late in the debate and I am not sure if all participants had seen the suggestion. If you have an opinion on this upmerge, please comment at the debate above. Thanks for your time. Hiding T 11:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits based on Yōrō-ritsuryō changes in Nara period in the political 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 changes 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 changes.

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) 19:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for not explaining my moves more clearly when I made my edit. To a certain extent, I'm not against redundancies on Wikipedia. Each article is related to some other article, so it makes perfect sense for some information to be shared. However, the information about Iwase Province that was place in the Mutsu Province article seemed to be a complete cut and past of the exact same information (along with all of the {{nihongo}} codes and bolding). There was no context relating it to the rest of the article, so it didn't flow at all and seemed very jumbled. (There's no mention of Iwase Province or Michinoku Province anywhere else in the article, which made the information seem useless. I've since learned the relationship between Michinoku and Mutsu, but the article itself has to show why the information is all connected.)

I would not be against the information being reincorporated into the article, as long as it wasn't a direct cut and paste of the information and as long as the flow of the information can be easily understood. If you need help with that, let me know. Douggers (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't wrong -- not at all. In fact, what I'm taking away from your words is that I was doing something wrong. Because of your feedback, I begin to appreciate what I did was inadequate when I used cut-and-paste to bring this information from somewhere else.

Of the things you wrote, the independent clause I most needed to read was this one: "the article itself has to show why the information is all connected." Aha! I almost get it.

I anticipate that I'll be doing a lot of this sort of thing in 2008, and while I'll be making all sorts of mistakes throughout the coming year, maybe I'll manage to avoid this one a little bit more frequently than would have been the case without your analysis. Thanks. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still make plenty of mistakes, too. Don't feel bad. ;-) I'm glad I could help. Douggers (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone else nominated it, but I wanted to let you know that I just approved Gifu, Gifu as a Good Article. I've left comments on the talk page, but I also noticed (after I finished the GA review, strangely) that it had been to FAC and was rejected. Alas, the peer reviews didn't seem to offer much advice, and I worry that I haven't been too helpful either. =) As I say in the GA review, I agree with one commentator elsewhere that more independent sources would be good – but you would know better than I how easy those are to come by.

Anyway, good luck with the article and let me know if you have any questions. – Scartol • Tok 00:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update! And I do appreciate your comments because it atleast gives me a direction to go in. I haven't worked on the article much recently because I didn't know what to do. Douggers (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent edit to Inaba clan. In that context, wonder if I might invite you to take a look at the introductory section of Sakai clan. Maybe the fudai status information needs to be moved up to the top? If there is a way to improve this introduction, it will help me do better when I write about other clans in future.--Tenmei (talk) 02:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll take a look at the Sakai clan. I don't think I know enough to help make a common structure for clan pages, but I'll see what I can do. Douggers (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Flag Art Exhibition in Gifu requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Cricketgirl (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm commenting on your talk page. Douggers (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your comment. I tagged it with the "companies, organsations, etc." tag because there isn't a speedy tag for exhibitions or events. It was tagged so quickly because I was patrolling Special:NewPages - if you like, you could use {{inuse}} to keep people off it for a bit longer while you develop it. I hadn't realised it was the first exhibition of its kind - if you wanted to put in a little bit about that, I would happily remove the CSD template. Thanks, Cricketgirl (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC). PS sorry if you get this twice - gremlins in the computer.[reply]

Thanks for your quick response. I've expanded the article and included sources for statements that denote is notability, so could you please give it another look? Thanks! Douggers (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the speedy tag because thanks to your quick expansion - I'm still not totally convinced that it's notable, but I'm convinced enough that had I come across the article in this state on the new page patrol, I would have marked it patrolled rather than tagging it. Thanks for your courtesy and quick action! Have a nice day.... Cricketgirl (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Douggers, and thanks for creating Mino Thirty-three Kanon. Wondering if there's a reason for a single rather than a double "n" in "Kanon"? It's 「かんのん」 in the Japanese Wikipedia article at 美濃三十三観音, and conventionally (with some exceptions) "Kannon" in English, at least in my experience. Fg2 (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason is that I'm an idiot. I've moved the page and I'll fix the links. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Douggers (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's spelled many ways, so it's hardly idiotic! Fg2 (talk) 10:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you are proposing the deletion of References to other works sections of some articles about Mishima novels. I understand that the collection of trivia is discouraged, but these references (which I compiled) are not trivial and provide pointers to relevant articles which are otherwise difficult to find. This is quite important, as the translations contain errors and distorted names. Xanthoxyl (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It still doesn't explain why these works are important. As of right now, it still just looks like a random list of books or quotes or whatever that came up during the story. How do they contribute anything to the books? If you can show how the information is important, I could possibly agree to keeping them in. Douggers (talk) 11:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read these books, you would realise that they are certainly not "random lists", but quite pared down, and their significance is clear to anyone familiar with what is referred to. To give some examples:

Kiyoaki and Honda go the theatre when it is showing Lion Dance (about two rival generals of the Kamakura period) and The Rise and Fall of the Taira, the first of which parallels the contrast between the two friends and the second of which symbolises the end of an era (i.e. the world in which someone like Kiyoaki could thrive, according to Mishima). In the same way, when Kiyoaki and Satoko play with the Okura cards, the poets Minamoto no Shigeyuki and Onakatomi no Yoshinobu are chosen by the author with the deliberate intention of revealing their characters. The name of Leopardi is brought up because of his "nihilism", the Monster representing the author himself on the margins of an idyllic world.

The Buddhist texts mentioned in the article on The Temple of Dawn are central to the story. Mishima spends dozens of pages discussing the theory of reincarnation and how it has been reflected on by various thinkers, all of which ties in with Honda's desperate attempts to manipulate karmatic threads. Given the hugeness of the Buddhistic corpus, it is fairly important to point out the specific texts that are being referred to.

Similar considerations apply to Runaway Horses. Japanese nationalism is a complex subject, and Isao's rejection of Kita Ikki and fascination with Wang Yangming (for example) tells you a lot about his worldview. And Hagoromo is the defining "legend" behind the conclusion of The Decay of the Angel, in which Kiyoaki-Isao-Ying-Chan is seen as the angel who dances for a short while for the fisherman who has taken the robe (i.e. Honda).

I have to admit I have baffled and hurt by the hostility of your tone. I was quite careful to make these lists as short and to-the-point as I could, eliminating anything which could be considered "original research". Xanthoxyl (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the books. In fact, I've read most of Mishima's works. Please do not assume that I choose random Wikipedia articles to edit. Also, I'm not saying that the information is not important; rather, I'm saying that you don't explain the importance, which makes it seem random.

In your above comments, you said, "their significance is clear to anyone familiar with what is referred to." The thing is, most people on Wikipedia are not familiar with the topics covered in the articles. That's why there needs to be more context. Explanations like the ones above make good points and that's the type of information that I think should be added to the articles.

I'm sorry if you find my comments hostile, as that was definitely not my intent. I just don't agree with the current layout of the articles and I wanted to get some consensus, or atleast an idea of what other editors are thinking, before making changes. I have absolutely no problem with stepping back and letting you clarify those sections or somehow working them into the articles. Hopefully, we can reach some agreement on how to improve the articles. Douggers (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your patient reply. The reason I was defensive is that I have been troubled in the past, looking at some articles' histories, at how casual deletions made at random for vague reasons can wash away large amounts of useful information, and I was worried that something similar was happening here. Sorry for my rudeness.

I will try to revise these sections next week so they are more coherent and no longer in bullet form. Xanthoxyl (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem. I'm looking forward to the changes. Douggers (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that you created two articles with identical content? Enigma ^message 06:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not aware of that. Which two articles? Douggers (talk) 06:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Douggers. Could you please look at the Rolex? Rolex seems to me to be leader of spam, while the article talks about fetish-watches, and does not mention the rolex-messages at all. I should greatly appreciate an independent point of view. dima (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I do not feel that I know enough about the topic to contribute anything useful to a debate. Douggers (talk) 06:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, do your job. Perhaps, in wiki, I am only receiver of the rolex messages... dima (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've noticed that you've added a lot of this list recently (mostly because of your great contributions concerning shrines in the Gifu area), so I figured I would run this past you. I've been toying around with a completely new, revamped look for this list. I've finished an example section for Hokkaidō so far in my Sandbox. I thought I would run it by someone before I went all out to clean-up, add to and reformat this very long article. Any opinions are welcome! --Torsodog^Talk 17:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Douggers, the reason I named the Mount Mikuni article (Ishikari) is because I believe there is more than one mountain in Hokkaido with the name Mikuni. Granted for the time being this isn't a problem, but it is something I will have to address when I get that far. As far as using the mountain range vs the prefecture or town to disambiguate, I find it makes much more sense to use the mountain range. Mountain are often located on borders, so which name do you use? You end up with both and get article names like this one I did Mount Kamui (Niikappu-Kasai). You have to do this, because a prefecture will often have mountains with the same name; think of Kamui, Tengu, Aka, and Maru. If you look at Mount Youtei, it borders on 5 towns. Luckily I have only found one Youtei so far. :-) Hopefully a mountain range does not contain duplicates. (Though I do have counter examples: Toyoni and Kamui in the Hidaka Mountains and there are two Yokos in the Yatsugatake Mountain, which I could subdivide by volcanic group.) I would be interested to hear your thoughts. imars (talk) 05:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about moving the Mount Mikuni (Hokkaido) article without discussing it first. While I understand your argument for putting the mountain range down, people know locations better than they know mountain ranges. Yeah, that can create long titles (see Mount Kanmuri (Gifu, Fukui)), but it's still my preference. Again, though, I'm basing this off of the Japanese articles, so I really could go either way, I guess. Douggers (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bold edits are part of wikipedia so I have no problem with you making the change. That's what the undo button is for (grins). Doing what the Japanese articles do is a fair starting point. I still think though when we have mountains like Mikuni, we may run into difficulties. Let's wait and see where it takes us. imars (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good plan. Douggers (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just come across your article on shukuba, and on each of the various individual stations. How many have you done? How many are left to do for the Tokaido? the Nakasendo? other major roads? (<--Rhetorical questions. You don't have to answer this.) I'm just amazed at how much has been done when I wasn't looking. I remember, I guess it was a few years ago now, when I first edited the list of the 53 stations; at that time, the Tokaido article itself was in need of cleanup, and there were no articles for any of the stations, let alone for separate concepts like shukuba and ai no shuku.

In any case, I just wanted to drop you a note to acknowledge your fantastic work. If you didn't already have a barnsensu, I'd give you one for this. Keep it up!! LordAmeth (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I took care of the Nakasendo and the Tokaido some time ago. I completed the Nakasendo within the past two years and the Tokaido within the past one. As for other major roads, I haven't done all of the shukuba for them (I'm not as interested in those roads), but I have added some articles for major roads, too (see Edo Five Routes#Other routes). I haven't worked on any of it too much recently, but maybe I'll get back to it. Thanks for the recognition. Douggers (talk) 06:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Junko Sakurada, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junko Sakurada. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Northwestgnome (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is The Cro-Magnons. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cro-Magnons. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that you edited some volleyball articles. Some players articles, most of them looks outdated. I would like to improve players by country. Could you please choose a country to contribute with? Please take a look on Yekaterina Gamova, Hélia Souza, Serena Ortolani and Kenia Carcaces for a model to follow. Please can you please improve some volleyball players with infobox and some addons? References are very important. Let me know. Oscar987 22:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I don't think Karasu River is a good name for the article as there are dozens of rivers called "Karasu" (some much bigger than the Japanese one) -- take a look at Karasu (disambiguation) for a list. In fact, Karasu River should probably be a redirect to Karasu (disambiguation). I'd suggest you move your new article to something like Karasu River, Japan or Karasu River, Gunma or whatever. --Macrakis (talk) 03:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I moved it to Karasu River (Gunma). Douggers (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Douggers! I noticed the new Tokaido template, thanks for that. Just some suggestions: "Tōkaidō" in the title links to a disambig page but should probably go to Tōkaidō (road). Also you used modern prefectures, wouldn't it be more natural to replace them with the (Edo period) Provinces of Japan? bamse (talk) 09:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it should link to Tōkaidō (road). Also, I agree that it should list the stops by province, but I was in a rush when I made it and didn't give it too much though. I'll clean it up today so it matches the Nakasendo template. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Douggers (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Love Letter (The Blue Hearts song) coverart.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. Skier Dude (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Douggers,

I thought you might like to know that I've used a couple of your images on my website:

http://www.unmissablejapan.com/events/ukai

I've acknowledged them by making them back to the original pages on Wikipedia/Wikimedia.

They’re great pictures – thanks very much for making them available,

cheers,

Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Komaba (talk • contribs) 16:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have a discussion up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Membership Roll? which concerns users who display <tt>{{User WikiProject Japan}}</tt> on their user page.

If I can get consensus, I would like to list you all under Category:WikiProject Japan participants. As of now, you will not be listed unless you switch to the other User box <tt>{{User WP Japan}}</tt>.

And if you really do not want to get listed, would you still mind switching to the other User box and use the feature that suppresses listing?
If you don't want to be listed, replace {{User WikiProject Japan}} with {{User WP Japan|nocat=true}}, or on your {{Babel}} replacing your |WikiProject Japan| with |special-boxes={{User WP Japan|nocat=true}}|
Thanks. --Kiyoweap (talk) 10:01, 13 April 2015 (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) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]