Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
In user Elvenscut742 has removed mention of four periodicals from the 'History' section with the summary: ''Removing reference to non-notable, self-published (via Lulu) "journals"''. This user has repeatedly asserted that certain periodicals are "self-published" and has been challenged on more than one occasion to explain the difference between a 'self-published' periodical and any other one, but has on every occasion failed to do so. It has also been repeatedly explained to this editor that all periodicals are in effect 'self-published' but he seems entirely unable to grasp this simple fact. Which printer a publisher selects to print their publication is of absolutely zero relevance. The editor, in addition to repeatedly displaying the depths of his ignorance of publishing, has now shown that he has no knowledge at all of the Japanese and Australian journals, reference to which he has removed from the article. The edit summary clearly indicates that the edit was based on ignorance rather than fact and should be reverted. --] (]) 13:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
In user Elvenscut742 has removed mention of four periodicals from the 'History' section with the summary: ''Removing reference to non-notable, self-published (via Lulu) "journals"''. This user has repeatedly asserted that certain periodicals are "self-published" and has been challenged on more than one occasion to explain the difference between a 'self-published' periodical and any other one, but has on every occasion failed to do so. It has also been repeatedly explained to this editor that all periodicals are in effect 'self-published' but he seems entirely unable to grasp this simple fact. Which printer a publisher selects to print their publication is of absolutely zero relevance. The editor, in addition to repeatedly displaying the depths of his ignorance of publishing, has now shown that he has no knowledge at all of the Japanese and Australian journals, reference to which he has removed from the article. The edit summary clearly indicates that the edit was based on ignorance rather than fact and should be reverted. --] (]) 13:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
:Agreed. User Elvenscout742 has unilaterally removed similar references to periodicals from the body of various articles and removed ELs to various articles based upon the same flawed (or tendentious) arguments about "self-published" and/or "non-notable" sources. I would cite, apart from the current article, his recent removals of similar materials at ], ], ] and ]. In each instance, he has demonstrated his broad miscomprehension of modern publishing and his apparent ignorance of the contents of the specific journals that he has removed. His campaign, across a number of articles, has become disruptive and counter-productive.] (]) 18:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 01:53, December 25, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry
It seems that a lot of the information in this article comes from material that is self-published on Lulu. I have tagged these citations as dubious for this reason. While I don't doubt that tanka in English exists and merits its own article, there must be less dubious sources out there. MET Press has a history of putting out some rather questionable material (see User:Elvenscout742/Jeffrey Woodward critique). elvenscout742 (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
User Elvenscout742’s POV regarding “the amount to be merged” carries no particular weight. His opinion, as cited by the IP above, is not supported by the AFD recommendation nor does it accurately reflect the results of the RFD discussion.Tristan noir (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Material on English Misplaced Pages must be (1) true, and (2) verifiable. The rules for notability regarding inclusion of material within a larger article are different from those regarding stand-alone articles, but my past arguments still stand. It is not my "POV" that Jeffrey Woodward unilaterally invented the concept of "tanka prose" in 2008 (possibly 2007), or that you are trying to promote Jeffrey Woodward's works on Misplaced Pages, or that so-called "tanka prose" has never seen coverage except in minor, non-notable publications. Please refrain from adding misleading or offensive material to Misplaced Pages. Also, please stop making personal attacks against me on talk pages. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
"Self-published" journals - an oxymoron
In this edit user Elvenscut742 has removed mention of four periodicals from the 'History' section with the summary: Removing reference to non-notable, self-published (via Lulu) "journals". This user has repeatedly asserted that certain periodicals are "self-published" and has been challenged on more than one occasion to explain the difference between a 'self-published' periodical and any other one, but has on every occasion failed to do so. It has also been repeatedly explained to this editor that all periodicals are in effect 'self-published' but he seems entirely unable to grasp this simple fact. Which printer a publisher selects to print their publication is of absolutely zero relevance. The editor, in addition to repeatedly displaying the depths of his ignorance of publishing, has now shown that he has no knowledge at all of the Japanese and Australian journals, reference to which he has removed from the article. The edit summary clearly indicates that the edit was based on ignorance rather than fact and should be reverted. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. User Elvenscout742 has unilaterally removed similar references to periodicals from the body of various articles and removed ELs to various articles based upon the same flawed (or tendentious) arguments about "self-published" and/or "non-notable" sources. I would cite, apart from the current article, his recent removals of similar materials at Renku, Haiga, Index of literary terms and Haibun. In each instance, he has demonstrated his broad miscomprehension of modern publishing and his apparent ignorance of the contents of the specific journals that he has removed. His campaign, across a number of articles, has become disruptive and counter-productive.Tristan noir (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
