User talk:Spokechieves

Shinto shrine and Hokyointo

Spokechieves, all your edits have been undone by me and other people yesterday. Before you delete referenced stuff (do you know what it is?) you have to discuss the subject with other editors and give proof of what you say. From your edits, it's obvious you don't understand what I am doing (and don't know the subject: the Hokyointo in Kamakura is important: so says the Nihon Rekishi Chimei Taikei).

文明一八年（一四八六）鎌倉を訪れた万里集九は「梅花無尽蔵」に「指六郎之五輪於路傍」と記し、「鎌倉志」も由比ガ浜にある五輪塔をいい、「明徳第四　癸酉霜月日　大願主道有」と切付けてあると伝え、鎌倉の史跡として注目されていた。

If you want to delete that sentence, tell me where it says (book title and page) the Hokyointo isn't important. I give place and page of my statement. I undid your work as vandalism. I will do it again if you don't stop. Learn the rules before editing.

Same thing for Shinto shrine: My picture makes a point. Yours doesn't. Please stop changing it. urashimataro (talk) 07:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hatakeyama Shigeyasu's grave is not important though Hōkyōintō is important. Hatakeyama Shigeyasu's grave is not an important cultural asset either. --Spokechieves (talk) 08:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will not get into an edit war. I will look for arbitration. urashimataro (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spokechieves -- The constructive value of fuzzy logic seems to be arguably useful in the context of urashimataro's reasonable comments? --Tenmei (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hakozaki-gū

Spokechieves -- As you know, there is not yet article about Hakozaki-gū in the English Wikipedia. Perhaps we can work together to fill this void?

As a better context for our modest dispute about the status of the Hakozaki Shrine, I hope you've noticed that I've demonstrated good faith in creating the initial text of a "rough draft" article about the Usa Shrine; and, if so, I hope it persuades you to believe that I'm prepared to continue contributing in that same vein.

Please see my fuzzy logic comments at Talk:Iwashimizu Hachiman-gū. --Tenmei (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warning

Spokechieves -- I have now taken the time to review your recent contribution history; and in the context you alone create, it becomes clear that I've been too generous in my assumptions.

NO -- I'm persuaded that your edits are merely WP:disruptive; and up till now, I simply failed to rise to the bait.

NO -- I'm compelled to acknowledge that the time and thought that I've thus far invested were mis-spent, wasted. I have limited resources of time and good will, and they have now been drained. This changed perspective is informed by the history of singular choices across a range of edits, (e.g., here).

When I reviewed the tenor of your contributions at Hōkyōintō, I was struck by the failure to moderate your edit summary comments in a manner which acknowledges WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:CIV. This is not an encouraging story of missed opportunities. Rather, your serial contributions in this one context caused me to worry.

I see that your edits at Shrine (e.g., here) and Iwashimizu Hachiman-gū (e.g., here) are cut from the same cloth; and this caused me to look askance when I confronted your curious edit at Ema (Shinto) (e.g, here). For me, that edit became a kind of

tipping point (sociology), in sociology, the moment when something previously unique becomes common ...?

tipping point (climatology), a point in the evolution of the earth's climate leading to irreversible change ...?

tipping point (physics), the maximum stable slope of a bulk granular material, such as sand ...?

See, e.g., The Tipping Point (book) by Malcolm Gladwell.

In sum: Your contribution history encompasses too many provocative gambits. The arc of your serial edits becomes indefensible. The heedlessly inflammatory edits at Heian period (e.g., here) and at Japanese art (e.g., here) may be construed as unremarkable when viewed in isolation;but in the broader context, any hopes for a constructive explanation are shattered.

NO -- The cumulative metastasis becomes overwhelming; and I see no other choice than to assess your edits as WP:vandalism. In a context informed by Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace#Warnings and notices, you should consider this to be a serious Level 3 vandalism warning from amongst the following menu of unwelcome options

Level 1 – Assumes good faith. Generally includes "Welcome to Wikipedia" or some variant.
Level 2 – No faith assumption

Level 3 – Assumes bad faith; cease and desist

Level 4 – Assumes bad faith; strong cease and desist, last warning
Level 4im – Assumes bad faith; strong cease and desist, first and only warning

Please reconsider the effects of what appears to be a deliberate strategy. --Tenmei (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the personal attack. Please discuss the article.

In Wikipedia of an English version, the fact that it is "Usa > Iwashimizu > Hakozaki >Tsurugaoka" (Japanese version, Article in Japan that is origin) is not reflected at all. Why? Why??? Why do not you not try to admit it?. I worry that erroneous findings of fact spreads to the world. --Spokechieves (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand the fact of "many major 1st rank shinto shrines > 2nd rank shinto shrines> 3rd rank shinto shrines > Tsurugaoka hachimangu etc.". The act of advertising Tsurugaoka hachimangu will come into view to you if this fact is based. --Spokechieves (talk) 08:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]