User:Hoary/Archive09

on Martin Perreault

You wrote: Photographer whose main (perhaps only?) claim to notability is tastefully photographing his improbably curvacious girlfriend (who also has a WP article: Bianca Beauchamp) in latex or bikinis or whatever for magazines of the kinds that I suppose come sealed in cellophane (no evidence supplied) and websites. Mentions of and links to the latter abound. No independent verification is supplied (WP:V) for anything but the websites, there's no hint of notability per WP:BIO, and the article (the interests of whose contributors seem limited to Perreault and Beauchamp) has a whiff of promotion about it.

Now don't tell me you don't suspect what I (and probably Martin too) found disparaging. If I had any doubts at first, your way of pointing out my unwanted omission to sign proved otherwise. You don't play fair.
Never mind; to show what I mean: improbably curvacious girlfriend and magazines of the kinds that I suppose come sealed in cellophane immediately caught my attention that you might have some problem with the work they do. Why to use the improbably adjective, why such subconsciously dishonoring way to refer to the magazines he published in. Obviously you don't mean just any magazines as many are packed in cellophane, like National Geographic over here, and there is nothing wrong with them. You just wanted to covertly point out they are erotica/porn magazines, but not to mention it aloud. A abject way how to voice an objection, similarly as the surplus comment in parenthesis – ‘’ perhaps only?’’
I briefly scanned your talk page at noticed it's not a first time somebody sees your comments offending. I have no interest to immerge into an argument with, I just felt you deserve me reply - because there is a slight chance you are not aware, how your words and actions act. [shrug] ... posted at 16:14, 6 January 2007 by Rikapt

I think we might all be slightly more sympathetic if M. Perreualt had not posted his vanity here in the first place, :: and had not then resorted to meatpuppetry. Moreschi ^Deletion! 16:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply at Moreschi talk page. -- Rikapt 22:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You're discussing this AfD.

1. "Improbably": it seemed appropriate. The photos seem to emphasize her bust, which is considerable. I suppose bust sizes follow a normal distribution (bell curve). On a conventionally arranged graph (size X-axis, number Y-axis), hers would be along the right-hand tail: there's improbability for you. (Hmm, if statistics had been presented to my earlier, teenage self in those terms, I'd have paid much more attention.)

2. I don't know where "over here" is, I'm afraid. Where I happen to be, National Geographic is seldom sold and offhand I don't know about it, but the huge majority of magazines are not cellophane wrapped.

3. You have a point; I could and perhaps should have said directly that they're porn magazines. But while indirectness is no help to comprehension, I don't know how it's disparaging.

4. "Perhaps only": the article struck me as unclear, suggesting that Perreault was notable in other ways but not clearly saying how.

5. You're right, it is indeed not the first time that somebody has taken offense at my comments. Perhaps I should work harder at avoiding any risk that people will be offended, but my time and energy are limited. -- Hoary 07:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, "over here" is Czech Republic. And contrary to your place here many magazines are sold cellophane wrapped - being it about computers and computer games, movies, cars, fashion, traveling, women's magazines, men's magazines. Generally except erotic and porn magazines any other that at least occasionally adds some attachment (CD, DVD) or wants look "upper class". But this is not the matter of the discussion.

The porn magazines themselves are not anyhow disparaging (not mentioning majority of them are erotica not porn - which is IMHO a difference). But the way how the sentences is constructed it implies he was not found worthy for "any better".

So as while your explanation of the "improbable" adjective is logical it don't disprove it's surplus. When talking about grass do you also always add it's green and how short it is cut? I don't think so. I dare to say you added the word to indicate Martin's girlfriend underwent a breast augmentation and this way to gain support from those who are against such. But without making it obvious (similarly as in the case of porn magazines).

It's interesting how you lack time to check or notice how your words in your mother language (or one you are quite fluent at) could be understood by others, still you have enough time to examine the contributions of your opponents. Just again it seems pretty insincere to me from your side. -- Rikapt 22:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

(i) But the way how the sentences is constructed it implies he was not found worthy for "any better". I had not realized that. (ii) When talking about grass do you also always add it's green and how short it is cut? I don't think so. Right, but grass is commonly green while breasts aren't usually huge. (iii) I dare to say you added the word to indicate [...] You are of course entirely free to fantasize about my motives. (iv) It's interesting how you lack time to check or notice how your words in your mother language (or one you are quite fluent at) could be understood by others, still you have enough time to examine the contributions of your opponents. I don't think of other contributors as my "opponents"; I try to examine the meaning of what's said in articles, and the way it's expressed. (v) "over here" is Czech Republic. Ah, now you've got me interested. Where are you? I'm happy to say I've visited your country and its predecessor three times, though I can't claim to know it well. (I'm particularly sorry never to have visited Brno.) -- Hoary 04:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

(i) & (iii) This is usually the reason why such sentences are constructed as they are - to say exactly what you did here. Of course I have no chance to prove the contrary. (ii) While true, why to mention it where it have no relevance? Why haven't you also mentioned he makes (most probably) the photos with digital camera, in a photo studio (etc.)? Again it implies you used it with some agenda - but of course, easy to deny that. :-) (iv) I always thought people defending a different stance in a (possible future) discussion are called "opponents" without any negative connotation. (v) I am from and live in Prague - a place you most probably visited if you been here three times. I don't know what all places you visited here, but I am not sure Brno is that interesting at first row (definitely is if you would be here for longer time) - unless you are a motorbike fan or like to attend big fairs. Culturally I think it lacks a little in comparison to Karlovy Vary for example. But Brno's citizens would probably prove me wrong. :-) -- Rikapt 12:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Prague, yes, I've been there twice. The second time, it was a wonderful place, except for the groups of drunken oafish tourists. The first time, well, my memories have faded quite a bit, because it was some time ago. How long? Guys in black leather half-coats prowled the streets in Tatras, and this guy ran the show. ¶ Any comments on this AfD? -- Hoary 14:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah tourists can be annoying, I always promise myself I will not behave this way when going abroad - and of course I do. Regarding your the other AfD - you see there might be a problem. I don't think that many articles should be deleted from Wikipedia. From a pure scholarly encyclopedia it changed into a general knowledge source and thanks to a high number of contributors and the principles allowing it to be edited by almost everybody it still keeps a high standard of information value (I heard many saying it's better then before). The article of discussion definitely needs rewriting, the whole structure of the text I find poor. But why not to keep it (then). By my opinion it's the another beauty of this system - some nice evolutionary processes almost automatically apply. A uninteresting article is never accessed and thus never repaired, but it doesn't matter so much because nobody cares. It just dies in insignificance. Rikapt 10:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[Bouncing back to the left] I understand the main thrust of what you're saying and I'll concede that it has a certain attraction, but I disagree with it. First, though, some brush-clearing. As far as I know, Wikipedia has never been a scholarly encyclopedia, let alone a pure scholarly one. (Have you confused it with Nupedia?) A general knowledge source has to be reliable or it's worthless; I have a very high opinion of some articles in WP and also of certain areas but have a low opinion of others. Adolfo Farsari is a fine example of an article that will be of interest to very few people. The last time I looked at it, Elvis Presley was ghastly, despite being of interest to many (and yes, I mean a non-vandalized version of Elvis Presley). If there's a general correlation between degree of interest in articles and the quality of articles (I really don't know), exceptions abound. So, for deletion. I largely agree with this by User:Geogre, except that I'll take it further: I do sometimes propose to delete subjects as well as articles. I proposed to delete Perreault not only because of problems with the article as it stood but also because I didn't think he (yet) merited an article; once you have a lot of articles for people of this degree of notability, you'll generate many more of them, as people will come to think of WP as a classy version of MySpace and the like. When thousands of photographers have articles, tens of thousands will want them; half of these will insert jpegs of their work, all of which will take server space that will have to be maintained and paid for. ¶ Incidentally, when I say rather apparently harsh things about Perreault's notability, I'm not judging him as a photographer (let alone as a person). I'm judging him according to his score on conventional measures (with which I'm not entirely happy). Photographers whose work repels me can do well at these. In that other AfD, Jan Saudek was mentioned. What I've seen of Saudek's work I thought was ghastly, but I believe he deserves an article. And for what my own opinion is worth, Perreault's work shows an excellent use of light; he's still young, and could well go far. ¶ I've found my book on Karel Cudlín; really good! ¶ No, Prague is the only city I've been to whose very centre is intermittently overrun by foreign oafs. (Definitely not Czech. Surprisingly, a certain romance language.) They weren't aggressive or violent, just very irritating. The reason seemed simple: alcohol is too cheap. Still, without a Czech tradition of cheap alcohol the world would lack Švejk, so I shouldn't complain too much. -- Hoary 11:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on the most part of what you wrote (including the dislike in Saudek's work :-) ), but with two objections.
Firstly I truly believe Martin Perreault has passed the mark of notability (see my arguments in the AfD thread). What I meant by referring to scholarlity of Wikipedia - tough useful in most cases in a general knowledge encyclopedia some too strict and limited guidelines can't be every time met.
Secondly the doubts that the article was created with (self)promotion (ala MySpace) in mind are completely irrelevant.It’s perhaps caused by a mistaken perception why people come to Wikipedia and what kind of information they expect to get. I believe the great majority of users (if not all) come to Wikipedia to find information on subjects they already know something about and they just wish to find (more) information at one place in a condensed way. They don't come to search for completely new things or to use Wikipedia as a kind of search engine. Naturally I have no statistical data to prove that but find it logical and highly probable (well and this is how I and people around me use Wikipedia). -- Rikapt 09:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this message. Well, in the meantime the Perreault article has been deleted. Of course this is what I intended, but its deletion doesn't delight me. ¶ Guidelines are only that, guidelines. But there seems to be a general understanding that articles should meet guidelines in spirit if not to the letter. It seems that a number of people didn't think that you'd managed to put this across for Perreault. Of course that doesn't mean you or somebody else can't succeed later; as I've said, I wish Perreault well and hope and expect that he'll eventually make a larger mark. (Unfortunately there's little money in photography whose verifiable notability is more obvious; I'd guess that one reason why Perreault does what he does is that it pays the bills.) ¶ As for what people want when they first come to Wikipedia, I really don't know. I can make some guesses, but they're no more than that, guesses. Perhaps there's some academic study about the matter. -- Hoary 08:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: I'd guess that one reason why Perreault does what he does is that it pays the bills. You know I don't look him down because of what kind of photography he does, nor I think he is a less artist because of this. And I also don't think money is the reason why he choose this career. From what I heard the opposite is truth, profit arrived just much later after they started to shoot together with Bianca Beauchamp. Actually I would find it far more defective, if the reason why he makes erotic photos of his girlfriend would be money primarily. I don't want to accuse you of anything but try to think for yourself if the genre of Perreault's work didn't play a role in your nomination. -- Rikapt 17:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You know I don't look him down because of what kind of photography he does, nor I think he is a less artist because of this. Neither do I. Actually I would find it far more defective, if the reason why he makes erotic photos of his girlfriend would be money primarily. I wouldn't. I don't want to accuse you of anything but try to think for yourself if the genre of Perreault's work didn't play a role in your nomination. It certainly did, but the role was indirect. The genre isn't one that lends itself to books, solo exhibitions, or any of the criteria listed in WP:BIO, or to discussion in newspapers, etc. Again, the relative obscurity doesn't mean there's anything wrong with Perreault's photography or genre, let alone with him as a person. An acquaintance of my wife's is a specialist in the photography of food, particularly hot, steaming food. The average person sees his photos on the packaging of instant noodles. But I don't think he even has a website: people in the advertising world know of him or know people who do know of him. That's his livelihood, of which he's a master. However, he doesn't (yet) merit a WP article, just as most people (of course including myself) do not. Another friend of my wife's (and myself) is a commercial photographer who also makes time to work on one longterm and entirely noncommercial project after another. One has resulted in a published book (already mentioned in an article on WP about somebody else) and a solo exhibition; the second has resulted in solo exhibitions: it's on the strength of these exhibitions, etc., that he might get an article later (though I'm wary of writing it myself precisely because he's a friend of mine). -- Hoary 03:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The limiting scope of WP:BIO guideline was one of the two arguments I tried to defend the article with. (The other being that even by these standards Perreault is notable - e.g. own book and inclusion in a prestigious, although in limited oudiance, anthology.) In certain human activities you don't get a public acknowledgment or a review in an well known magazine (perhaps better to say widely known) - the often tag of a reference provided as trivial creates a suspicion it was dismissed just because the author does not know the source. Anyway we failed to convince others the article should stay, despite we accepted it was not written perfectly and together with Observer31 tried to improve it. I just wonder to what degree we failed due to the high standards set for Wikipedia articles (so often not met in many other articles) and to what degree thanks to the fact people don't like to change their opinion. But there is no more bitterness in me and I stay faithful to Wikipedia :) . -- Rikapt 15:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

on Slemon

From a reliable source seems Slemon just recently married an American so would he consider himself South African as well as American? Also, his show in Birmingham was a shadow show of one in South Africa in that they explored the same piece and that piece was simultanelously created and exhibited on two different continents thus creating more dialog of what the premise of contour could be considered. Artsojourner 07:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I really have difficulty understanding what you're saying here. I've a hunch that you intended to ask me whether he considers himself American as well as South African. If so, my answer is that I really don't know. If you're referring to what I did about his categories within this series of edits, yes, I deleted both "American artists" and "African artists"; I did so not because of anything I read in the article but instead simply because he's also categorized within "New York artists" and "South African artists": the latter pair make the former pair (and also plain "Artists") redundant. I hope this helps. -- Hoary 07:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Order of Sir John Franklin

perisheth not. See Special:Contributions/86.130.131.138, whose edits I've just reversed. Choess 02:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd a thunk that nitwit would have got a life by now. Thanks for pruning this new outbreak of his silliness. Meanwhile, certain articles previously frequented by him remain on my watchlist; I shan't name them as doing so may help to highlight the articles that are not. ¶ The whole thing is particularly silly from my PoV as I have infinitesimal interest in the "genuine" peerage of the 21st century: they have no political power, and their only remaining power seems to be that of somehow impressing the gossip magazines and the (congenitally?) servile/deferential. -- Hoary 02:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Stick

• Thanks for the stick! It'll go great with my teddy bear. [1] ;) JuJube 07:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

65.31.159.181

Thank you for this comment. I have to say, though, that if he made a valid edit to Dave Baksh, then it is - as far as I can tell - the only non-vandalism edit he has ever made to Wikipedia.  :) Wittyname 08:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk

Please see WP:TPG regarding changing talk, which should not normally be done, as it creates a false impression of the dialogue. If it has to be changed, strike through:

<s>text to be struck</s>

and make it clear what has changed. Thanks. Tyrenius 04:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean this? It's merely a stylistic improvement to my own comment, and I clearly announced that I'd made the change. Or did I sleepily commit some faux pas elsewhere? -- Hoary 06:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Farsari

Hey, if you feel that some of my edits were not so positive, please do revert them. I'm all for the wikispirit and I don't claim to know anything about the subject myself (except for what I learned reading the article) so it would not surprise me all that much to find that a couple of my edits were not so good. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 03:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Hey there! So I figured I might beg for your help again, this time on my new FA try, The Turk. I know a few sections need a little help, but I figure i'll try to get a bunch of input before I hit the torture chambers this time. If you have time to take a look, i'd really appreciate it. Hope all is well! --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy new year yo'self! And a very interesting-looking article, I must say. The "real world" is making considerable and irritating demands on my time, but I plan to go through the article as soon as I can. -- Hoary 07:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand all too well. Thanks for whatever help you can toss my way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

How goes it? Looks like real life has been kicking your ass as much as mine. My hell is pretty much done, though, so I was curious if you had any other input regarding The Turk before I toss it to the jackals. I have one thing I still have to clean up per AnonEMouse, but did I miss anything? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, while I've been busy I've checked in now and then and, as usual, discovered various pages on my watchlist corrupted by [people with the mentality of] preteens, and I also found myself dragged into a time-wasting "debate" with a know-nothing at the talk page of AAVE. This has all meant that I've lost sight of the Turk. Now that I return to it, I have to say that I still have one strong personal objection (an objection that probably won't be shared by most people): that although a great number of the citations are obviously of small and discrete parts of books, they are made out to entire books. The WP referencing system that you use is one that works well in, say, the natural sciences, where credits are typically given to concise research papers in their entirety (since it's usually not any particular information provided within the research paper that matters, but instead the advance in knowledge represented by the paper as a whole). When applied to entire books or to the humanities, let alone to entire books in the humanities, it sucks. The obvious solution to this will require much tedious work: looking up the information that's within those books and replacing the small number of notes that exist now with a larger number of notes that specify page numbers. Can I interest you in this? I can't do much of it, as most of the works won't be in "my" library, but I'd help a bit. And if you did do this, I'd certainly put more effort into other aspects of the article. -- Hoary 00:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand your frustrations all too well. If you feel that it's absolutely necessary, then I'll take however many hours it will take tomorrow night to do it (although the notes section will be a friggin' bohemoth), but if it's not necessary, it's not going to be worth the time. Regardless, I have most of the sources handy at this point, so it's just finding the energy to do the legwork if need be. What other sections are you considering trying to fix up? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Do the right thing, BDJ. But don't do it tomorrow night. Start it tomorrow night. Tomorrow night, just choose one book; do that. Another night, another book. You do that, and I'll help the article. ¶ My employer, whose LAN I am now using for this totally (in its institutional PoV) useless purpose, would not be happy if I spent a lot of time looking at the Turk before I attended to various overdue deadlines. But a quick look tells me that it is overlinked. One clear example: human. I mean, how many readers are likely to think "Yes, human, just what does that mean?" A grotesque (tongue in cheek?) example is aperture, which leads to a page that I find fascinating but that is of no explanatory value for the use of the word apropos of the Turk -- other perhaps than for those people (children? those for whom English is a second language?) who simply don't understand what aperture means, for which purpose either a link to a dictionary entry or (much better) use of a simpler word like opening would be more helpful. ¶ I'll continue to be pretty busy, but I'll find time to help with this article (of course after its notes have been redone by Teethgrittedly Drawn Jeff). ¶ In general, don't rush. Kroger Babb was nominated a little too early for its own good. Contrast that with Adolfo Farsari, where Pinkville labored over every clause, indeed every morpheme, before nomination, after which all went pretty uneventfully. -- Hoary 03:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

AF&Co. FAC

Hi, if you can tear yoruself away from the ongoing Perreault saga, have a gander at the introduction to the Farsari article that I've expanded slightly (in response to ExplorerCDT's comments. Please fix what ain't not broke! Thanks. Pinkville 04:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. It seemed a little sausagey, what with all the commas; so I repunctuated a bit and cut a bit, I hope for the better. -- Hoary 07:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Much less sausagey! Pinkville 12:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Rossier

Hiya, Mr. Rossier has been languishing here for about 2^1/2 months. Do you think it makes sense for him to be presented on the main page (or is he just too esoteric and insufficiently Finally Fantastic)? Pinkville 16:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Finalfuckingfantasy SUX! Rossier ROX! Let's plot something [cackles evilly]. -- Hoary 22:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Pierre Rossier II: The Revenge of Albumen was a first-person shooter game first developed in Switzerland in 1855, but significantly reconfigured and then relaunched in Japan in 1859... Pinkville 00:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

RfB

I'm glad you asked that question. It gave me a chance to respond to one of my opposers in a constructive way. I was so sure that people would like my new approach, and I put so much work into it, but, well, it got shot down pretty quickly. It's a little disheartening, but if I had made it less wordy it might have had a chance. Oh well. I'm appreciated here still, which is what matters to me. Grandmasterka 05:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Green

Hi

Thanks for the feedback regarding Anthony Green (footballer) I now think that I have corrected this.

Sorry, just new and still learning.

Take Care. Mick

Mick4839 13:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw you making some mistakes but I was sure you meant well. (I've made plenty of mistakes too in my time.) I'm glad it's working out.

I've fiddled with the article a little and I hope I've improved it. Please note the "hidden" question/comment (which you'll see when you edit the article). All the best editing this and other articles. -- Hoary 14:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Your email problem

Greylisting is probably to blame. And you are right to worry that if the confirmation email doesn't get through, others may not either. I suggest you set up a separate email account for Wiki purposes elsewhere. I can try sending a Gmail invite to your spam protected address if you want. Respond on my talk page if I can be of any further assistence. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Scarlet Page

Hey Hoary, I see you PRODed Scarlet Page. I'm just curious as to why we wouldn't just send that article to Speedy Delete since its the recreation of a previously deleted page. TheMindsEye 16:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought of that option too, but using my magical superpowers (the silver lining to having to carry a mop and bucket) I was able to view the previously deleted page and I thereupon realized that the new page is not merely a re-creation of the old one. The two pages are so close that I think they'd be regarded as substantively the same and therefore that speedying it wouldn't arouse much of a complaint. However, the fact is that they're not the same. Moreover, it was me who started the first AfD; if I were the person who speedied the article the second time around it might look as if I, personally, had some obsession with zapping articles about this person. If the PROD is removed and nobody else sends the article to AfD, I shall; and if it gets to AfD I think the AfD process would be finished early. If all of this seems a waste of time -- and I'd agree! -- perhaps one of us could alert Mailer Diablo (who closed the first AfD) to the existence of this new article; he may wish to speedy it. -- Hoary 02:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Margaret Spellings / Fred Levine / Linda Christas

Hi Hoary. Thanks for chiming in on Margaret Spellings. This hasn't happened, but I wanted to give you a heads up on dealing with Ronald Bernard (the real name of the guy who posts Linda Christas spam on Wikipedia under dozens of names). His general modus operandi is to come on as Sockpuppet A, toss names around and provoke a screaming match, and then come back as Sockpuppet B pretending to be a "voice of reason" and suggest a compromise that's exactly what Sockpuppet A wanted in the first place. Sooo... I know you were actually more polite than the post deserved, but be careful that he doesn't provoke you. He's going to try. Thanks! - Richfife 17:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

How tiresome this sounds. But I don't recall the name Christas. Google took me to this page. She sounds hugely non-notable (a common feature to what's spamvertised, of course). Still, I'm glad that I was of some help. -- Hoary 13:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. =) While looking at your user page, I noticed there was a bit of old vandalism by 66.231.39.116 that MichaelLinnear missed on cleanup. -- Gogo Dodo 19:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, that IP seems to have developed quite an obsession with me. -- Hoary 13:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Wood Badge

I am the main writer of a GA called Wood Badge. I'd like to get it to FA but before that would appreciate the input of fine copyeditors such as yourself. I'd truly appreciate it. Rlevse 12:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, perhaps you're confusing me with somebody else. I'm just a plain old copywriter.

I'd like to help, but I think I'll be too busy. Just today, when I'd hoped to attend to other stuff, I wasted hours (or so it seemed) here. Grr. -- Hoary 13:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope, SandyGeorgia and I think highly of your copywriter skills. Thanks anyway.Rlevse 13:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, but my bed calls me. (Meanwhile, can I interest you in African American Vernacular English? Expertise is not a requirement; just a clear head and a hogwash detector.) -- Hoary 14:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'll work on AAVE, but can only go so far. It needs some work, the big items being the major contributors need to agree on how to approach the subject, what AAVE is, and the article's focus.Rlevse 15:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! As for me, the "real world" is imposing some fearsome obligations and deadlines. Back later. -- Hoary 06:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've gone through it.

Someone should print out the article and go through it with a red pen, removing various repetitions, some but not all of which I've noted in SGML comments.

Beyond that, I don't quite know what to say. It's a long time since I was briefly a scout. I couldn't take all the mumbo-jumbo (as it seemed to me) seriously, ridiculed it in front of the others, and was invited to leave. (I quickly and gratefully took the invitation. Joining the scouts had been the idea of my parents, who were worried by my unsociableness.) As I look at the article, it all comes back. Traditions, rituals, significances, meanings -- but once you cut away all this stuff, what is there left? In a sense, it seems worse these days: Part of the transformative power of the Wood Badge experience is the effective use of metaphor and tradition to reach both heart and mind is far from the most conspicuous example in the article of a kind of mixture of pop psychology (verging on "self-help", ugh) and corporatespeak. Maybe (i) this is a problem of the article, and Wood Badge has a clear and worthwhile meaning that can be found among all this stuff; or maybe (ii) there's just a fundamental incompatibility between (a) scouting and (b) myself (repelled by, uninterested in or occasionally blackly amused by rituals, uniforms, hierarchical organizations, etc.). Very likely it's (ii). I've tried to be restrained in my edits (and SGML comments), but all in all people wanting outside help in improving scouting-related articles would be better asking editors other than myself.

But I wish the article the best. -- Hoary 03:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. It's always good to get the opinion of someone not close to the topic as people have trouble seeing clearly when they're close to things (their favorite topics, their own kids vis a vis other kids, etc). Best regards.Rlevse 03:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Blah

Incoherent? I think it was very direct. You asked me why I removed my signature. I said, if you really need to ask that question, you are mentally disabled (in so many words). So, given that you have less mental faculties than I attributed to you I'll tell you what I ment. I don’t want my signature there (as if that “wasn’t” obvious. Wikipedia has no rules proclaiming that my signature has to be on every post.)

Also, don’t mess with other peoples talk pages… ever. Revert articles all you want, and be a rat-bastard by doing so (Read the wikipedian rules… they DON’T want you to revert over badly worded information… but to try to incorporate that information, and only if highly unsuccessful, to remove it. Unfortunately, everyone ‘loves’ to revert stuff that ‘seems’ false.) but don’t go into other peoples talk pages and revert self vandalism. There are moderators for that, if I am not ‘allowed’ to do it, they will intervene. It is that simple.

Yes, you did correct yourself, but the primary argument is that 'you' shouldn't have been the one reverting it in the first place.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.241.212 (talk • contribs)

Hoary is an administrator, the closest thing Wikipedia has to a "moderator". If he is editing your talkpage, it is likely for a good reason. Any more of this insulting badgering and this IP address will be blocked. Jkelly 06:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah but you have to remember that I'm a rat-bastard administrator. (And shouldn't this section be titled "Bah, humbug"?) -- Hoary 07:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Requesting an official mediation to help resolve the dispute

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/African American Vernacular English, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.Wikidudeman 00:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Commons Picture of the Year competition

Voting is now open at Commons to choose the finalists for Picture of the Year 2006. The voting page is at Commons:Picture of the Year/2006. All editors having at least 100 edits either here or on any Wikimedia Wiki are welcome to participate. --MichaelMaggs 07:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Enormous thanks for you intervention the other day. [2]. Kind regards, --Joopercoopers 12:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

AAVE

Aach! I was indeed guessing, albeit educated guesses. I looked in a very comprehensive bibliography of sociolinguistics texts. It only lists that one Smitherman text so I assumed that that was the one. With the other three, I assumed that the work being cited was the sociolinguistics classroom text book because that was something they had in common and the other works cited for them didn't seem to have anything to do with AAVE.

• The other works by Romaine that this bibliography lists are Pidgin and Creole Languages and Communicating Gender. According to what's available at my library, other possibilities include Bilingualism and Sociolinguistic variation in speech communities
• The other works listed for Coulmas is Conversational Routine and "Linguistic Ettiquette in Japanese Society (in Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice). Another possibility is sociolinguistics: the study of speakers' choices.
• Trudgill I'm a little more confidant of, the other works listed are Sex, Covert Prestige and Linguistic Change in the Urban British English of Norwich, The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich, Accent, Dialect and the School, Sociolinguistic Patterns in British English, Dialects in Contact, "Norwich Revisited: Recent Linguistic Changes in an english Urban Dialect" (in English World-Wide), and The Dialects of England. Other possibilities include on dialect: social and geographical perspectives and applied sociolinguistics.

Anyway, as you suggested I've removed the possibly erroneous sourcing. If you'd like, you can look up some of those sources and check which one is correct for each author. I'd do it myself but my library has been under construction for quite some time now and the books are stored far away so there's really no way to browse them. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ough! The conversation's getting pretty heated. I'm sorry I just reverted you without really saying anything. I think that, although Ebonics and AAVE have different connotations, they refer to the same phenomenon (the speech of african americans). It is for this reason that Jive (dialect) redirects to AAVE. I don't want to have an edit war with you since we are pretty much on the same page so I think we can appeal to the decision of the (utterly inappropriate) afd. Any information that you put on the ebonics page can go to the AAVE page. RegardsƵ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey hey, let's get into an edit fight. I'm 184cm tall and I hope I have the advantage in reach, though you definitely have the advantage in youth. Yes, any info that's put on the ebonics page can go in the AAVE page. But should it? I think that it's better not there, as it's specific to the term ebonics. [Takes off boxing gloves.] The good thing is, you and I can argue about it, and we may persuade each other; unlike any attempt at an argument with, well, I shan't name him. As I've said, I think "Ebonics" might be better as a disambig, and for there to be a separate article on "Ebonics (language group)" or similar for this fringe linguistics notion. (NB when I say fringe, I don't mean to class it with pseudoscience and other total bull: I do see at least slivers of sense in it, though it's very dodgy.) -- Hoary 10:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Turk

I still intend on finishing that up and getting it through the FAC, so any comments you have, leave them at the Turk's talk page so I can be sure I catch them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If our intentions aren't the same, they're at least highly compatible. The Turk is going to be a featured article. This may take longer than it should, but it's going to happen. -- Hoary 14:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Probation?

Hello, Hoary. I was under the impression that due to the arbitration by Wiki admins., User:Onefortyone was on probation from editing celebrity biographies? I am just curious because more dubious information about the sexuality of actor Nick Adams was very recently included in his biography. Perhaps this probation is expired? Thank you. ExRat 04:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, I'd almost forgotten about this gossip-obsessed editor and the very minor figure of Nick Adams. This says He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research. If you think he has done this, please investigate this to make sure that he has done it; when you're sure he has done it, please inform some administrator other than myself. Not me, because this user likes to portray me has having some personal grudge against him, or having some sort of bias or something.

I'm sorry I've paused in my work on Johannes Pääsuke. I'm hugely more interested in his work than in the work of cogs in the Hollywood machine such as Adams. (Meanwhile, I have no interest in Pääsuke's sex life, if any.) I'll return to the article some time. -- Hoary 04:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Surprisingly, I don't have much of an interest in the American actor Nick Adams either. In fact, I am possibly sure I have never seen any film he acted in. I was just more dismayed at the "gossip obsessing" details that have been constantly placed into the article.

As for Pääsuke, I can assure you, he led a very boring/Estonian (or at least very unpublicised) sexual existence ;) Thank you once again. Proosit. ExRat 20:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've never seen a movie with Adams, either. Still, I suppose Nick Adams deserves an article. (I really doubt that Stephanie Adams [see immediately below] does.) And if Adams has an article, it should be a decent one, not merely a recreation space in which one or two editors can indulge their obsessions. So do please bring any stupidity there to the attention of an admin. -- Hoary 23:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

FA for Agrippina (opera)

I'm thinking about an FAC for this one in a short while: perhaps you could spare time to tell me how far off the article is as regards prose standards and referencing, in particular? If so, that would be much appreciated. Cheers, Moreschi ^Deletion! 10:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll look at it. Meanwhile, could you turn your critical attention to this silliness? (Feel very free to disagree with me!) -- Hoary 11:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams

Hi, the Stephanie Adams article seems to be again in dispute. See this section on my talk for instance. Don't know why they used my user talk, since I only edited that article a few times (did not even had it on my watchlist) but hey.. You seem to have edited that article for a long time, so I hope you are more familiar with the whole (long) story there. Since I am not, could you have a look? Garion96 (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes. Stephanie Adams (acting through her "Press Secretary" or other personages who all seem to have a curious resemblance to Stephanie Adams) gets most upset at any suggestion that she's less than a notable author, spokesperson, etc etc etc. For some reason, she has J Wales's cellphone number; and for some reason, he won't change this. When she gets upset, she rings him up. So if we think our Great Helmsman deserves uninterrupted sleep, we must avoid anything that might upset Stephanie Adams.

Did you see that some joker added her to the category of "metaphysics writers"? She thereby joined ranks with Sartre and Hegel. -- Hoary 23:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I missed it since only recently I added the article to my watchlist again, but yes, I saw it. Interesting... Thanks for stepping in. Garion96 (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hoary, thanks for the clarification and help posted to my Talk. As a new user here it is much appreciated. Heading off to dispute resolution now.

As for the edits on the Stephanie Adams article, someone suggested that it be closed to anonymous edits. Seems like a good idea to me. Many of the reverts and all of the attacks on me have been posted by anonymous using IPs that trace to particular IP block in Manhattan. Perhaps restricting the article to signed edits only would help. Sean Martin 23:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A list of the "anonymous" IP addresses: http://www.richardsramblings.com/?p=556 Richard D. LeCour 18:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)