User:Hoary/Archive14

Please do not edit this page.

Deletionists with senses of humor, now that's nice edit

With that and the death threat[1] I think we've established just what kind of person I am.[2] KP Botany 04:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Aw, that's OK. Always pleasant to read. Incidentally, the huge majority of changes to my user page aren't made by me; they are, or are in reaction to, incoherent remarks that appear to be about gayness, etc. ("I'm gay": Who, me or Mr Eleven-Year-Old? If the former, it happens to be untrue; but either way, why would anyone care?) Hoary 04:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

FA Harry S. Truman edit

		The Golden Wiki Award
		For your exceptional contributions to article quality on Wikipedia, especially on getting Harry S. Truman to Wikipedia:Featured Article status. Rlevse 22:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well well. I'd been starting to feel guilty about not having continued work on it, and was thinking that it surely should soon be ready for FAC. I'd no idea that it had been proposed there. Congratulations! -- Hoary 14:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Elvis Presley edit

Hi. I'd like to request your guidance in getting the Elvis Presley article up to par for a 'featured try'. Any help you can offer and observations would be great. Thanks. --Northmeister 03:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

One immediate observation on my first look at this article in months is that 141 is still vigorously "contributing", still obsessed with Nick Adams and tittle-tattle, and still unwilling or unable to add edit summaries. My enthusiasm for any involvement in the article thus remains minuscule, as does my expectation that it would get to FA without an dreadfully tiresome whinefest by 141 about alleged "censorship" by "fans", etc etc. -- Hoary 04:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

True, I am afraid. I'm not sure what to do but gain a consensus from many for the articles coverage of topics, look, affirming to wikipedia standards etc, thus bypassing one editors 'gyrations' to use an old word from Elvis' early years. Your experience and the work you did on the Truman article to help them out, would help us out there. Of course I understand if the one editor so mentioned gives you pause - in the very least I could use your input and observations (on my talk if thats necessary) pertaining to how far we have to go or where we could improve the article. Thanks. --Northmeister 13:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries edit

Well, technically that's minor. KP Botany 04:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Mowatt edit

I'd forgotten about this. If you feel inspired to re-start the discussion about whether we should have that article, you should go ahead. Jkelly 15:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

But but but there's already been a discussion. It was stopped by some hush-hush "OTRS" manoeuvre. I don't know the secret handshake for OTRS, so haven't a clue what happened. The article can be ignored, and a "fresh" (hollow laugh) AfD can be started: Are these the only two options? If they are and one takes the latter, what are the chances that it too will be spiked via "OTRS"?

Incidentally, one comment (not mine!) in that aborted AfD was Merge and redirect to Marina Ogilvy (which contains most information here but lacks the citations). But [[Marina Ogilvy]] is no more. -- Hoary 23:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the old discussion is stale, and starting a new one has the advantages of both not being stale and satisfying those people who are particularly concerned with proper XfD process being followed. I can say with reasonable certainty that there won't be any OTRS-mandated "courtesy keep" this time, and would be happy to leave a little note somewhere for the closing admin that the fact that there was last time shouldn't be taken into consideration. On the other hand, I'm not really keeping up to date on en:'s increasingly arcane XfD rules, so maybe there is a better way to handle this. Jkelly 20:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

gender edit

Thanks for your edits, which improved it; however, I didn't accept all of them. I've left "sex" as a replacement for "gender"—so you don't mind the clash with the title? I've been told that "sex" is used by biologists, etc.. and "gender" by social scientists. I'm not fussed, though.

Unsure about the impersonal "you" and (as Sam added) "one".

Tony 10:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Heqwm edit

If you can, please don't respond to Heqwm in the AAVE talk page. If he potentially will read up on linguistics, talking to him will only delay that. If he won't read up on it, there's no point in responding. Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right. -- Hoary 07:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Seriously seeking Hoary edit

Are you still out to get me? Tidalenergy 09:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

(And when did I stop beating my wife?) I have never been out to get you. What's up? -- Hoary 09:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You're married!Tidalenergy 08:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit request edit

Hi -- I wonder if you would be able to assist with a little copyediting? I've nominated Beyond Fantasy Fiction for FAC; at the nomination page there's been a request for an outside copyedit. I recall you were very helpful on my first FAC, Ace Books, so I thought I'd ask. It's quite a short article. If not, no problem; I know good editors are always busy. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 11:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's refreshingly short (apropos of which, it got some FAC comments that I'll describe charitably as incoherent). As you'll have seen, I ran through it once. I think there's more to do, but right now I'm too sleepy to do it -- partly because I've wasted too much of the day elsewhere in the defense of dispassion against truthiness.

There's one thing I don't like about the article but didn't fix (?): the explanatory links from bibliographical information within the footnotes. With rare exceptions, I limit links from bibliographical info to (i) those automatically generated from ISBNs, and (ii) links to etexts or web pages of what's listed. Thus I wouldn't say

John Clute and John Grant (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Fantasy. New York: St. Martin's Press. p. 110. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |airdate= ignored (help)

but instead something more like

John Clute and John Grant (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Fantasy. New York: St. Martin's Press. p. 110. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |airdate= ignored (help)

(if necessary linking to clute and/or Grant in some supplementary explanation). But perhaps this is merely a personal preference. (There are also other, link-irrelevant oddities in that note, but I'll tackle them after I've got some sleep.) -- Hoary 14:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the work so far, and for any more you have time for. For the links, I'd say switch them to whatever you think is best. I don't have a strong opinion on that stuff; I tend to copy whatever was on the last article I worked on. One reviewer systematically changed all my citations to the format you can see in Ine of Wessex; I have since started doing them that way too, since it's slightly simpler -- it puts all the {{cite book}} records at the end, in a reference section, and simplifies the footnotes themselves. As for the comments at FAC, well, I don't always agree with everyone, but I find if I try to make everyone happy it surprises me how often it ends up improving the article. So I try to just stay quiet and go with the flow. Thanks again! Mike Christie (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're asking me for my opinions on footnotes: the bibliographic templates are designed for lists of references and at best look bizarre within footnotes, and it's shoddy practice (even if common WP practice) to refer generally to entire books that are hundreds of pages long as the sources of discrete facts written up somewhere or other within those books. So I'd like to make a thoroughgoing revision of your footnoting. It wouldn't take that long, and I'd do all the work -- except that I don't have access to any of the materials and therefore of course do not know the page numbers. Does this interest you, and if so can you provide the page numbers? (Or is each of five separate references to The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy vol 3 really to p.549?) If you do have the page numbers, I'll forge ahead; if not, I shan't. -- Hoary 00:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have the page numbers. I'll look through as I go down the list but I suspect those numbers are all correct -- I do try to reference to an accurate page number every time. I think the reason is that these are encyclopedia entries, so of course everything about Beyond if found in one place, under the Beyond entry. Taking them one by one:

Tuck: all p. 549. The entry is written by Tuck himself; if you want the entry identification, it's under Beyond Fiction, in the "Magazines" section of the encyclopedia. The page numbering is continuous across all three volumes, if that matters; in other words this volume starts on p. 531 (after some prefatory material numbered with lower case Roman numerals).
Ashley, The Time Machines. All from an online copy at Google Books: search for the author and title and it'll pop up. I've ordered a copy for myself but it hasn't arrived yet.
Clute/Grant, Encyclopedia of Fantasy. All from p. 110. There's another quote that maybe could be worked in: "Today the magazine is remembered more for what it stood for than for its individual contents, and there is much excleent material still to be rediscovered." Also p. 10. The entry is titled Beyond Fantasy Fiction, and is written by Michael Ashley, credited in this book as "Mike Ashley", rather than "Michael".

I think the page numbers are clear for everything else. Does that answer the question? Please do go ahead and make any changes you think are necessary; I appreciate the help. Mike Christie (talk) 02:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you're done. Thanks for helping, both with the footnotes and the copyediting. Not sure if this one will make it through FAC, but I appreciate it regardless. Mike Christie (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a question about one of the changes you made -- I had some facts cited to the original issues. You've moved those to the online index, which I think is generally an improvement. However, there are three facts which I think can only be cited to the issues themselves, not the index: the direct quote from Gold's editorial; the way the title reads on the masthead and table of contents, and the fact that it printed the fiction in two columns. If you agree, I'll return those to a separate footnote to the issues themselves. Mike Christie (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course. Actually I don't quite understand what the problem is, but I think it's highly likely that I made some goof or other. Incidentally, in what's now note 9, Malcolm Edwards describes it as... really should have an article title. -- Hoary 13:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I made the changes -- if you're curious, the problem was that for example I quoted Gold from the July 1953 issue, but it wasn't cited to the 1953 issue, just to the index -- which doesn't have the quote, just a listing of the editorial title. So I reffed a couple of things to the actual issues. I did fix the Malcolm Edwards note too. Looks like I picked up another support on the strength of your copyedit, so it may pass now -- thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you edit

If I had known you were an administrator I would have sucked up appropriately instead of threatening to kill you and sending you vomit. KP Botany 03:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Me three. Tidalenergy 08:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Trashorama edit

Over the past few weeks I've discovered a slew of publisher sock puppet accounts created for adding scientific journals to Wikipedia articles and multiply linking them in Wikipedia--a dozen, maybe a couple of dozen socks, and hundreds of edits, doing the SEO for their bosses. See User:DGG's page for updates. I wanted the socks blocked, every single one of them, even though they had only edited one day, in order to send a message to the publishers. I always wanted the current active sock blocekd. I think I was called a troll. As far as I can see, the sock puppet publishers won, and they showed they knew it by throwing up a whole new slew of spam links. David's taking care of it, though. And, I, in defiance of the administrators who think the publisher socks, who've been doing it since 2004, are Wikipedia's best friends, am reverting every single one I find. And this, apparently, is what makes me a troll. KP Botany 03:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

(And I've just now been told to fuck off. Aw. . . .) Yes, I saw a bit of the linking. It didn't make sense to me. I mean, it didn't look like spamming (as it was to so many different things), but I couldn't work out what the hell it was. Maybe some innocent soul who gets a really, really big kick out of citation-stuffing. I thought I'd just let this enthusiasm burn itself out. Maybe that was too hasty. Well. do keep me up to date, and maybe I'll then do something. (If I haven't already stuck my head in an oven, of course.) -- Hoary 14:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that better than or worse than my sending you vomit? Vomit's such a tangible thing, you see, compared to a mere fuck you. I tell people to fuck off left and right, I tell people to fuck off day and night, but vomit, now that's special. David's dedicated to talking to them. He reminds me of MrDarcy--too nice for Wikipedia's good, but both capable of using brains in addition to diplomacy. So, I'll let you know what inteteresting comes up. I'm on vacation now, sorta, so I won't be watching them for a while, and they're wathcing me looking for the chance.... KP Botany 05:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Vomit was a most memorable tribute. Gold, frankincense, myrrh: same old same old. But vomit, now that's an entirely different kettle of aspic. Yes, I shall treasure that vomit on my user page. And yet I don't want to belittle a fuck you. Linguistically, they're remarkable. Quang Phúc Ðông (said to be of the South Hanoi Institute of Technology) published a learned paper on them, titled "English sentences without overt grammatical subject", one that still packs a punch when you encounter it in Studies Out in Left Field (recommended). -- Hoary 08:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Phouc (as I've always called him, oh, and pronounced "Fook," by the way) is one of my heroes. I was thinking about him the other day when reading an article in the New York Times about the Chinese preparing translations for the Olympics. I used to collect Asian translation gems from electronics inserts. KP Botany 03:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for "grown ups"? edit

here you say that "Wikipedia is for grown ups". What does this mean? Does this mean that non "grown ups" can not read wikipedia? That they can not edit wikipedia? Non-adults both edit and read wikipedia and as far as I know there are no prohibitions to their doing so. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

He was responding to the antics of another user who had added the highly intellectual words "farts and poo" to somebody else's comment. Such behaviour is generally considered childish, so yes, such childish behaviour is not allowed on Wikipedia. Mature behaviour naturally doesn't consist of such language. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 19:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

He didn't say "Wikipedia is for Grownup behavior", He said "Wikipedia is for grown ups". I know the vandals edits were childish. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what the sentence was referring to: the childish edits in question. If such behaviour would be considered childish, then thus, the exact opposite, mature, or "grown-up" behaviour is definitely required on Wikipedia. We are talking about behaviour here, not assumed age brackets. If you are already aware of Wikipedia's policies, then I must ask, why this curious debate regarding semantics? ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 20:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I was asking Hoary, since he never used the word "behavior". If he meant "grown up behavior" and not literally adults then I agree. However if he meant that Wikipedia is meant for adults opposed to non-adults then I would disagree with this. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear what he meant. Leebo ^T/C 20:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd also think it can be fairly easy to assume that the term used was in reference to the childish antics in question, instead of any particular age brackets, as the antic in question was cited immediately prior to the sentence. As far as I am aware, the user in question did not reveal his age. Therefore, yes, the term was indeed referring to the user's edits. A term's context depends on its source. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 20:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent answers, 巌流先生. But just in case there's any lingering ambiguity: Children (as well as those in their second childhood) are welcome to contribute to WP, as long as they behave more or less like sober adults. Childish 25-year-olds aren't welcome; conscientious 12-year-olds are. (As for reading WP, anyone can of course do this in any way whatever.) -- Hoary 00:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

pre-dinosaur edit

Palaeoconservatives!!! I love it. Hoary, you do have a witty way. But on a serious note, at least one antagonist is so upset that he's listed me twice in one day on some Wiki-etiquette list; and he's having a proper go at Sandy, too. Phew. We'll keep standing as much as they want to blow the house down, but it's sickening. Tony 15:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

People who call others Nazis shouldn't throw stones. >Radiant< 15:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

- That's a fascinating link. Actually Tony doesn't call anyone a Nazi, but he does call somebody crazy. That's very naughty of him. But apropos of rule-breaking, I am most alarmed by:
 
 >Radiant<
 
 The outermost part, with , is well-formed; but the multiple opening of is tag soup (quite aside from the fact that is deprecated). Here's the way to do it: >Radiant<
 
 Seems a huge waste of bytes, though. Still, your sig wouldn't suffer much prettiness diminution by simplifying to: >Radiant<
 
 Actually I'd just write >Radiant<. The radiance of your text can still impress. -- Hoary 01:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

For your new category edit

How bout this then. :) Gwen Gale 15:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

But unfortunately it must be a painting.

Oh dear, I'm going to have to pull out the art books. Though the richest period isn't represented so well in my extremely uneven collection (which includes a whole book on representations of Europa, but next to nothing on a great number of painters whose works I enjoy, let alone those I don't). -- Hoary 23:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks edit

As Thursday night is Friday night in the Arab world, I was thinking of hitting the Hilton for five or six. In return I offer an axe; this will aid in wading through the reactionary shit that the suggestion of a gender neutral guideline has provoked. Goodness, last I checked it was 2007. Marskell 17:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested... edit

...in my current conversation with the ever interesting Geogre: User_talk:Geogre#Singular_they. I'm not asking for a tag team, but you seem to be familiar with most of the style guides so perhaps you have a comment. Marskell 13:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Marskell, my thanks again for the splendid implement that you kindly gave me. I intend to carry it with my on trips to the mustiest of libraries, on the off-chance that I might be accosted by the irate ghost of the ghastly Mr Strunk.

A long time ago, I first encountered Fowler's MEU. A lot of it was reasonable and reasoned, and even wittily expressed. I then found Gowers's Plain Words, again fairly reasonable and reasoned, if stolid and rather quickly boring. I then promptly lost my interest in such stuff, although I did find very enjoyable American Tongue and Cheek, a book that debunks American prescriptivist twaddle. Six or seven years ago this enjoyment was almost reignited in a chapter on "language mavens" in Pinker's The Language Instinct; but really, discussion of misunderstandings of language is feeble stuff beside discussion of what language really is, and so this is not one of the most gripping chapters of Pinker's excellent book.

And that's it. I still have the old family copy of MEU, I have The Language Instinct for prescriptivism-unrelated reasons, and I may even have American Tongue and Cheek somewhere too. I have a copy of an edition of Chicago that predates its silly addition of advice on prose. And I have several dozen intelligent books on language. Reading a book on language by somebody like Jackendoff is wonderfully tonic: one's reminded again of just how silly is the talk of the alleged decay of language at the hands of barbarians who confuse number, who "split infinitives", etc.

I feel sorry for Tony, who has wasted a lot of time over this; but I confess to having enjoyed the sight of highly literate and otherwise intelligent and articulate people uttering the silliest nonsense. The business about the immutability of number is daft. Scissors and remains are very different English nouns that are syntactically plural for no obvious semantic reason; Spanish uses a third-person pronoun (with third-person verb agreement) for a second-person referent; etc. We're even told in all seriousness that anything that ever was a mistake still is a mistake: since in Shakespeare's day lexical verbs could be inverted in questions (Know you ...?), the first ever incidences of auxiliary do (Do you know ...?) must have been pointlessly prolix at best; and by this logic any auxiliary use of do in a question must be wrong (by contrast, Do you your make-up? would be fine).

So no, I don't have the style guides. And Geogre's writing on his talk page is hilariously old-fogeyish; if I added sensible comments there I might dampen his ardour, considerably reducing the entertainment; or on the contrary bring on an infarction.

Uh-oh, it's bed time. Tomorrow I'll see if I can find Tongue and Cheek. -- Hoary 16:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

...I confess to having enjoyed the sight of highly literate and otherwise intelligent and articulate people uttering the silliest nonsense

That's what I said, in so many words, to Tony :) Gwen Gale 16:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Re tendentious conversations—no, I can't say I thrive on them. The occasional diversion is fine, but visiting user talk should never become the main reason to log in. Indeed, my option three is probably an invitation to reams of wasted kb.

The non-negotiable comment was indeed a gas. In the second language environment that I inhabit, speakers have taken up 'equipments' and 'staffs' (workers)—negotiating the oddities of English just fine. If 'equipments' is standard in 50 years, will I mind? Of course not. And don't forget that in 50 years India will have near the same influence on the language as the Anglosphere—won't the prescriptivists have their shorts in a knot then. (Other items I like: "I am paining" and "I am having a flu"—the continuous actually makes more sense.) Marskell 15:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The good news and the bad: I've found my copy of American Tongue and Cheek and it's even better than I remember: a marvelous guide to the pomposity, ignorance, wrong-headedness, and sloppiness (or even dishonesty) of these self-appointed "language experts". Claims of both the alleged illogicality/wrongness of singular they and the alleged defects of AAVE are dealt with, among much else. I'd already realized that there was little chance of singular they being dealt with intelligently (or even ignored) in any putatively relevant guideline while its own article (which I'd just glanced at) was a mess; it was only this evening, however, that I started to go through it and realized that it was and remains grotesquely prolix and repetitive. I don't understand why it deserves an article at all, but if it's adjudged to deserve one, then it should get one that enlightens people: as the article stands, it seems designed by and for some obsessed minority.

You've given me just the implement I need to tackle that article. Can you think of any reason (apart from demands on me by the "real world", etc.) why I shouldn't use it? If you have a similar implement, can we knock back some beers and get to work on the thing together? -- Hoary 14:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, if I had hacksaw to go with the axe I've passed along, I'd certainly wade in. Unfortunately, part of being in this second language environment (Mid. East) is a lack of access to a good library. After the obvious stuff (Harry Potter et al.), the bookstores proceed on a random checklist basis, as near as I can tell. I really ought to have a style guide, as part of what I'm apparently doing here is tutoring and editing. But it's at such a level that simply being a native speaker is sufficient.

I'm armed with google, of course, so I can try to help. (What has principally motivated me in these discussions are memories of my greatest teacher holding forth on the subject.) Marskell 16:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

And who might they have been?

As for the lack of a good library, I feel your pain. ("My" library is only intermittently good.) ABE was a fine resource till recently, when airmail prices from the US seem to have gone up a lot. Still, I got two books via them just yesterday. Yes, even if you throw in a rather excessive airmail charge, the total for this should be palatable. -- Hoary 23:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hoary, I had meant to reply again (I'll get back to you on who the teacher in question is). And I'll make sure to get on the right side of Rapture when somebody finally gives me a date for the event. Of course, you've already told me God himself approves of singular they, so my to-do list is that much shorter.

But it's a fad, you see. GNL is a thirty year-old fad. Why do you think Cambridge is one of the top two in the UK and top ten in the world? By following fads, of course. That the legal profession uses it, I've just been told, counts for nothing. Of course not—it's a fad. Apparently the UN doesn't count for much either, as no one was jumping at my link. Along with Peacekeeping and World Heritage Sites, GNL is just another fad in the hands of that lot. Marskell 15:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

User warning. edit

This was one of the most laugh out loud section titles I could have imagined! The user's now been blocked BTW. Nice one !! Pedro | Chat 11:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:DragonflySixty7? Is this some video game or a copy of admin User:DragonflySixtyseven? KP Botany 23:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ooperhoofd edit

Remember when Doceiras criticized Ooperhoofd's responses as cryptic in the discussion thread?

Once the discussion on EN wrapped, I too felt that Ooper's responses were not helpful, but I wanted to communicate this in a civil manner. I want you to read User_talk:Ooperhoofd#French_MOS-JA - I wanted to bring my concerns about Ooper's responses in a civil, calm, kind manner. WhisperToMe 16:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read all that stuff.

Other than those in the tourist trade (who stand to make money), people don't much like being addressed in a foreign tongue. It's customary at least to greet them in their own, even if this is whatever Babelfish fondly thinks is the equivalent of "Pardon me for writing in English, but very unfortunately I can't express myself in [language]".

But I think that this point has already been made.

Of course the French decision is utterly ridiculous. But an outsider is less unlikely to change it if they write the Babelfished derivative of "I'm very surprised by the order. The kanji make the order look Japanese, but the order is not Japanese. I fear that people who do not know about Japanese may be misled." (I'm avoiding pronouns as I'm assuming that Babelfish wouldn't know what they referred to, and could get genders, etc., mixed up.) -- Hoary 08:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Bratislava edit

Hi. You have recently commented to the Bratislava candidacy and now I'd like to discuss points raised (better here because I don't want to clog up that candidacy page). 1. It may be true, but from the featured articles I've seen, most have Geography as 2nd or 3rd section, always after History, so, in my opinion, it is OK as it is now. 2. I'm not very sure what do you mean here. To the dating, it is clearly said they come from 2001 census and may not be correct right now, that's for sure. But do you mean that I should simplify, remove or spin off these data into their own article? But I admit that Demographics sections are usually the most boring. 3. Although personally I would use only metric equivalents for some reasons, I guess who are keen supporters of imperial units would only swear that they can't understand how much is that. 4. I think this particular is OK, I don't have reason right now to delete it. But I admit that there is a chance of some facts repeating. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 08:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I must admit I very rarely examine such WP articles. But in books, geography usually comes first. (What would later become the city was a convenient fording point, and therefore prehistoric peoples did such and such, etc.)
I think the precision is bogus. Do you reproduce this bogus precision, saying to yourself and the world that you're faithfully transcribing what has been authoritatively written, or do you do some rounding? Would the latter invite the charge of "OR"? (Sometimes it seems that any use of a human brain does.) I dunno.
Yes, you're screwed by the stupid MoS. I find it hard to believe that literate US, Burmese or Liberian people don't understand the metric system fairly well (which isn't to claim that they're as familiar with it as they are to feet and the rest), and particularly that those US, Burmese or Liberian people wanting to read about Bratislava are so baffled by metric units that they need a translation for every single figure. But a vociferous faction in WP is deeply conservative and deeply suspicious of nefarious foreign attempts to bring the US into the 19th (let alone 20th or 21st) century. So right, there's nothing you can do.
Did you print out the whole thing? I haven't done so and (sorry) don't have any immediate plans to do so, but experience tells me that dead-tree reproduction makes a lot of oddities stand out.

Good luck with it. -- Hoary 08:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the location commonly determines the history of the city, what is a particularly good case for Bratislava. But, I think the order is solid right now and if I would swap these two, I would need to change layout as well.
Sorry, but I still don't understand your point. I don't know what precision has to do with this one, when it's no estimate. Rounding could produce some inaccuracies I'm afraid, and some would think I'm making original research.
True. I could remove imperial measurements, but sooner or later someone would re-add them again, so in principle there's nothing I can do.
Well, I'm not fan of printing articles like this (according to preview, the article as it stands now would equal to 15 pages) and I believe inaccuracies or repetition can be found by ordinary means anyway, though some probably are "invisible" to me, as I'm one of the major authors of this one. Some copy-editing suggestions (if any) would be welcome, though. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 11:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

2. (a) For religion in particular: I cannot believe that any census can ascertain religion (or atheism) meaningfully for the very young, the very ill, the mad, the severely retarded, the comatose, the senile, etc. (b) For censuses in general: although a census can claim whatever degree of precision it likes, I cannot believe that any census has an accuracy of better than one in a thousand. These figures imply an accuracy of one in a hundred thousand. (c) Again for censuses in general: numbers such as this will change day by day. However the census itself takes days. Another reason why exact numbers are meaningless.

3. Oh no, it's worse than that. If you took out a lot of the olde-worlde measurements (let alone all of them), the article would fail in FAC.

-- Hoary 14:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

2. It's obvious that numbers like this change every day, and they differ when that census was done six years ago. So to conclude, what should I do? Round them, delete them, move them?

3. So let's leave it as is.

PS: if we will agree on some point, regardless how, we could post some notice on the FAC page. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 15:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

(pardon for such edit) Well, while I was debating here, user:Tankred has gone into action and reworded Demographics and re-ordered Geography. Please check if this was done to your satisfaction. Cheers, MarkBA ^t/c/@ 17:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well... edit

At this point I no longer care. The vandal's obviously a little kid, and the vandalism wasn't really that bad, and a ridiculous amount of time has been wasted on it. However, it was my first day back to reverting some vandalism, and it was apparently not the world's greatest idea on my part. I posted a vandal to WP:AIV, User:68.111.80.179. The user had three prior blocks for vandalism on his block log, the last one for 72 hours, with a warning that a subsequent vandalism would be for a longer period of time. User:DexHexer blocked the vandal for 24 hours. I asked why he blocked the vandal for only 24 hours when the prior block had been for 72 hours.[3] What followed could only happen on the web, and would probably invovle me and an en.wiki administrator, as it did. I did not post the vandal's IP in my post to DexHexer's page, and did not realize that he patrols Wikipeida blocking hundreds of vandals, and appearently DexHexer thought I was asking a generic question, and didn't bother to ask what I was refering to, though it's hard to see how he'd assume with such a specific question that I was speaking generically, and DexHexer proceeded to provide me with technical answers about a blocking script he is using, which bored me even more than the original vandal.

My mantra will now be, "I will not revert vandalism, I will not revert vandalism, I will not revert vandalism, I will not revert vandalism, I will not revert vandalism, .... KP Botany 23:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The truly irritating thing is getting other people to something about vandalism. Doing it yourself is a major bore, but also much less of a bore, as the curtest of explanations will suffice. The way forward for you is therefore clear:

-- Hoary 01:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Turns out the punk admin had much more going for him than I gave him credit.[4] KP Botany 01:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ice-sorting edit

Up till now we've usually sorted Icelanders by first name in articles that consist mainly of Icelanders but by last name in more general categories (like, say, "1903 births"). Haukur 08:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Er . . . well you're Icelandic, and I'm not; and you know about Iceland, and I don't . . . but I'd be inclined to sort them all in one way. Indeed, if you don't do so then some bot is going to go through them all, sorting them all in whatever its programmer thinks is the or right way, or (if it notices contradictions) throwing up error messages or whatever. Let's keep it simple, and (as long as others don't kick up a major fuss) let's get it right. -- Hoary 08:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't personally object to sorting them all by first name (indeed, that would be my personal preference). I'm just pointing out that the situation I described has been stable for quite a while (the occasional bot-mistakes notwithstanding) and I fear we may get objections. Haukur 08:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Then let's argue against those objections. (A problem may arise if people find othat other reference books in English mis-sort Icelandic names: a vociferous minority of en:WP editors seem very certain that (i) en:WP should not rise above the mistakes of other works, and (ii) en:WP should not challenge the misunderstandings of its American readers.) -- Hoary 13:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. This is an argument I'm not keen on having so I say we tread gently and move slowly. Haukur 13:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In my Iceland-ignorant way, I have no references books in any language that deal much with Iceland. Not even a "Lonely Planet" guidebook. Perhaps you could list a few that get it right. (Or do they all get it wrong?) Anyway, it seems nuts to recognize in his article that (say) Ragnar is the primary name of the man but elsewhere to pretend that this is instead Axelsson. -- Hoary 13:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Some books written in English on Icelandic topics following Icelandic naming conventions throughout. Example. Some follow Icelandic naming conventions for the medieval period but not for anything post-reformation.Example. Maybe there are some who treat patronymics as surnames even for medieval people, I don't know. Haukur 14:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

To me, the first option seems simple and (as it respects the reality of Icelandic names) sensible. So gather a few more English-language books that use it, present these as precedents, and go with it. -- Hoary 14:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I do approve of using Icelandic naming conventions throughout and now that you've formalized a guideline there's no way to get the sugar cube back out of the tea. The only concession I'm talking about is sorting Icelanders by last names in categories that consist mostly of non-Icelanders. I think there is a reasonable argument for this (I can elaborate on it if you'd like) and I think it's a reasonable concession to make to those who favor using the last names. Haukur 16:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

A related point has just come up on the relevant talk page. Could you possibly respond there? As I point out, I'm an ignoramus. -- Hoary 00:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Takashi Oyama edit

I saw this on the PROD list, and thought I'd see if you had anything to add, since I know you have contributed to a lot of articles about Japanese photographers. Neier 10:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up.

To me, fashion photography largely means something that provides a livelihood for photographers and that even lets them "buy" free time in which they can do interesting, frock-unrelated work. I'm definitely no expert.

Great "references"! I can't find anything about this person (for which very minor claims are made). I'm not rushing to remove the PROD template. -- Hoary 13:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious whether you've ever heard of the Nakayama Fashion Guide, or if you know when the Osaka Photography Academy opened. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't even guess what the "Nakayama Fashion Guide" might be. Offhand I don't know about any photography schools in Osaka: I'm sure that several existed, but my sources would name them in Japanese, not in English.

The article smells to me of a private joke. It's also puffed up with trivia: It's utterly uninteresting that somebody was friends with a baseball player or a (ridiculously misnamed) karate teacher. If it's really true that this person existed and took photos of Monroe, my response is still "So what?" As long as the writer of the article can't be bothered to explain, let's not waste any more time on it. Later, if somebody can demonstrate convincingly that Oyama existed and that his photos were or are notably published or exhibited, Oyama can then get an article. -- Hoary 00:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Random Smile! edit

WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-WarthogDemon 01:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

THANKS!! edit

Hi, now with your final touch I think the article look good.NGL 07:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Email edit

Hi Hoary, just wondering if you got the email I sent you? --jjron 08:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I received one message, thank you, and replied to it three days ago; did you not receive that, or are you wondering about a reply to some second message (which I haven't received)? -- Hoary 09:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC) PS I've just sent my reply a second time. -- Hoary 09:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, didn't get it; better check my junk mail... OK, the second one is in my inbox. And now found the first one in my junk mail folder - I wonder why it filtered the first one into there. Right, hopefully that's sorted. --jjron 10:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, because what I write is junk? (Another possibility is that the "From" line is in a sense a fake: I'm not actually using that dot.com in order to write my messages.) -- Hoary 10:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd sort Hoary the same way. Then there's always my reason: I'm clueless about why or how something winds up in my junk e-mail folder. Every once in a while one of my technical list serves goes dead in discussion. A few days and hundred messages later I find out I've somehow sent it to junk e-mail. KP Botany 05:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigrid Lidströmer edit

Hey. I assume Sigrid Lidströmer was mainly written by Nike George at User:Nike George/Draft. Please make a dummy edit to the article and credit him. The terms of GFDL require attribution, which is why cut-and-paste is a bad thing unless you would be the only author of the page. Thanks, Prolog 02:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You're entirely right. I've just now made the edit that you recommended. -- Hoary 03:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It didn't take, so I did it again. -- Hoary 03:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Curiosity Question edit

When did you become an administrator at Wikipedia?

Artisol²³⁴⁵

03:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't remember. -- Hoary 03:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Here you go. -- Hoary 04:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Another question: why do so many people tend to come and vandalize your pages? Not just you specifically, but other editors, most likely the well-known hard-working ones.

Artisol²³⁴⁵

—Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I might guess, but I don't know. You could try asking here, the talk page of the person who's most recently exhibited symptoms of some sort of obsession with me. -- Hoary 04:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

David M. Spindel edit

Hi Hoary, I was just wondering if the article (David M. Spindel) you commented about at Sixstring's talk page looks the same, or is it a different one? I ask, because I was helping him (He's a relatively new editor) keep it long enough to add more info, but I do not want to enable a copyvio. I didn't notice that it looked copied when I went to the website you mentioned. thanks, R. Baley 18:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for being concerned about this kind of thing. No, the new article is quite different, and not problematic. (The old one stank of advertising: if I hadn't deleted it as a copyright violation, I'd have flagged it for its tone.) -- Hoary 23:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. Take care, R. Baley 00:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

71.60.63.183‎'s list edit

This is an interesting list that Crazytales deleted. It could be a who's who of influential admins taken from some site like Wikipedia Review. What makes it especially interesting is that most of these admins never interacted with this IP -- leading me to believe that this was a knowledgeable troll and not just the kiddie vandal I'd made him out to be. It's also interesting that he never reset his modem to change IPs -- again, another possible indicator of a troll and not just another everyday vandal.

Oh well, he's gone ... for now. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I rather liked the list, as it claimed that Hoary was a sockpuppet of, inter alia, Hoary. Meanwhile, it has never occurred to me that I was an influential admin. When I do voice a would-be influential opinion, it's usually shot down (or perhaps these shootings-down just stay longer in my memory).

Maybe he's just too "challenged" to change his IP number. If I either had more energy or could write Spanish, I'd watch his doings at es:WP. -- Hoary 03:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Solution... edit

Hi Hoary! Thank you for all your wise advices. I have come up with a hopefully good solution - is to allowed for me to just write a "redirect ---> LL" on the femmage-page? Then, if someone searches for the word they'll come to the source. Could I just do this? I haven't done it, since I wanted to ask first and avoid causing of illfeelings...Nike George 07:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a redirect seems an acceptable idea. -- Hoary 09:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, done. Now for something else...will write something completely different.Nike George 18:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Frederick Russell Burnham edit

Could you take a gander at this FAC? Rlevse 13:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly! But not immediately, I'm afraid. -- Hoary 13:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Argument? edit

I wonder if you might want to take a look at this?

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Questioning use of -tenno suffix

A different approach to dispute ...? --Ooperhoofd 14:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks edit

For rv'ing the vandalism on my user page! -- But|seriously|folks 18:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

FA Bratislava edit

Hi Hoary. I don't know if you're still watching this FAC, but could you look into the changes and express your opinion? Regards, MarkBA ^t/c/@ 12:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Shall do, but I'm afraid you'll have to wait a few hours. -- Hoary 14:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. I just hope it won't close in the meantime, because I already asked two other but there has been no response so far. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 16:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Tzeli Hadjidimitriou edit

Hi Hoary, I've been trying to find references and sources, the work is not finish yet, still I would like, if have you have time, for you to give a look at it to see if I'm on the right track. I've been reading around to see how to write a biography correctly, still it seems I got some details wrong. For example I thought I had to have an infobox, apparently I was wrong. Thanks, --Dia^ 15:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look within the next 24 hours. (Meanwhile, no, the article certainly doesn't need an infobox.) -- Hoary 15:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The Hamsters edit

Well I asked for that I suppose :)

Now I have to dig out the back issues of Kerrang! I'll have to delete the Noel Redding one as it was announced by Redding at a gig he was playing with The Hamsters. I have pics of it but not quite sharp enough for lip reading :P. I could do with your advice on presenting the first quote though. It was made live on-air when Bob Harris was doing a Hamsters back to back feature. I have the show on Minidisk somewhere, so do you think an audio sample would cut it as a reference? I'm buggered if I can remember the date of the show though. Cheers. ---- WebHamster 01:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I fear that most of the quotations are "unencyclopedic" even if sourced. I mean, how encyclopedic is it to present even exquisitely sourced statements that this or that band (song, Biblical prophet, gossip column, casket) is the greatest? When in doubt, cut!

Not apropos of the Hamsters: Sometimes when I'm bored and want unintended amusement I look at an article about a one-time idol of middle America. Look at this crapola fix (late-night and sleepy, so I could have missed something). I was almost sorry to delete mention of an "iconic and legendary career", wahaha. ("Iconic" and "legendary": Two favorite words within truly bad Wikipedia writing.) -- Hoary 01:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes you're probably right, they do seem a bit PR-ish. I'll nuke them all. Actually they were in there from a very early draft that I never really gave much thought to (I haven't spent much time on that article recently). Thanks for the heads up though, and for helping out with Solkaige. ---- WebHamster 01:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

BWAH edit

Thanks for catching that typo. It's late and I should be asleep, but got caught up in trying to straight this one out a bit. You know you're in trouble when persuant is the only word you can think of for...what was it? Anyway, thanks for the smile. -Jmh123 07:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating edit

Great page --- thanks for the entertainment. (I don't get out much since the back problem) Tidalenergy 08:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to learn that the page went down well.

[Cough]

Er, which page? -- Hoary 11:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

UM -- this one! Ha!Tidalenergy 03:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Wolverine tom-foolery edit

OMG. Tony (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup templates edit

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "unreferenced", "fact", "cleanup", "Merge"etc., are best not "subst"ed. See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 08:03 16 October 2007 (GMT).

I quite agree. I'm surprised to receive this warning. Where did I perpetrate this particular gaffe? (Perhaps I was sleepy.) -- Hoary 08:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC) .........PS Ah. -- Hoary 10:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Harry S. Truman edit

There is a discussion that you might want to weigh in on, Talk:Harry_S._Truman#The_.22Roswell_Incident.22, thanks. WikiDon 05:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Japanese photographers edit

Hi. Thanks for your note. Yes i happened to come across the polbot adding all these photographers and thought I might check one out. Well this is what wikipedia is all about building it together in phases. Unfortunately I am always very busy with film and music related articles but I always try to work on other articles. I'll try to expand a few from time to time. Now logic tells me there are quite a few Japanese photographers!! Regards baldy ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 10:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll add the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject History of photography/Japanese photographers in my notebook. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 10:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

RC edit

No good deed goes un... After doing the work to restore a disambiguation page, then rewrite and correct this article on a subject of no interest to me, and having had all those ugly tags posted on my talk page, I just now see that the article was @#!&% redundant anyway! But thanks for your intervention on my behalf. Pinkville 01:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Can the "new" article [RC (writer)] be speedy deleted? Pinkville 01:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was an economical solution. Thanks. Pinkville 11:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

As for the existing article, I wonder why it doesn't just start The sun shines out of Robert Cohen's -- er, no, forget it; we have three hundred Japanese photographers to busy ourselves with. -- Hoary 13:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I used an SPF 30 while reading it. Pinkville 17:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks edit

AngelOfSadness talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Cheers for the user talkpage revert :D AngelOfSadness talk 13:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Personas in the SCA edit

As a player in these Current Middle Ages for over a third of a century, I feared that the use of the term "persona" in the Society for Creative Anachronism was idiosyncratic enough that a separate link on the dab page was called for. I gather you disagree. --Orange Mike 15:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the brief explanation provided suggested that the use was so near to that in the persona article itself as not to need any further explanation. (And of course WP is not a dictionary anyway.) -- Hoary 05:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:A-paintings-Ego.jpg edit

Thanks for uploading Image:A-paintings-Ego.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Many thanks for your kind and personal attention to this matter. -- Hoary 05:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

padded notes & references edit

What are your thoughts on this edit? Pinkville 02:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Moderately evil. Can you come up with any good reason why the article shouldn't have bog-standard references? ¶ Incidentally, do you have any (probably English-language, US) resources on this bloke? I have some quasi-specifics on his time in Seattle, but they've been katakainized or translated into Japanese, and I don't want to apply guesswork to them. -- Hoary 03:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Beato Refs - all bells and whistles, signifying nothing (Macbeth II). Re: Fuku, because I'm a tasteless anglophone, his name was bound to stick in my mind, and I'm pretty confident I saw something about him in one or another of the books I have access to... I'll have a gander. Pinkville 11:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep an eye on my "contributions" over the next five minutes or so; look for another Italianish name. -- Hoary 11:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note edit

Remember that hoaxes aren't valid speedy deletion candidates, since there's always that vague chance that they mightn't be hoaxes in the first place. That was why I'd Prod'ed Kingsley edwards. I won't contest the deletion, though, since the article was clearly not long for this world anyway. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please. It was not only a hoax, it was obvious garbage. Here we go (and sprinkle "[sic]" to taste): Kingsley James Edwards is a best selling novelist for such books as "Me, Myself And The Wookies", it's sequal, "Me, Myself And The Ewoks" And "Pilot Harris And The Yellow Greenness". / These books sold thousands copies each and are loved by middle aged men all over the world. Kingsley also owns a fanclub for The Pope and sir Paul Mcartny. / 'Me, Myself and The Wookies' was a best selling novel, based on actual events, written and sold in 2004. Here is an extract from his thrilling true story. 'The Wookies, big, tall and strong lifted me 5 ft into the air, i was scared, very scared. He then hugged me and I wondered, When will he kill me? But then I remembered, my special pumpkin juice and i sprayed it into his eyes. He was blinded and I ran, ran for my very existance.' You can tell that this should have been a No.1 selling novel. Yes, and I can tell that this article was written by somebody with a mental age of 11 at most. Perhaps the fact that the article was first created by this remarkable username merely indicates the depth of somebody's affection for this real-world author. Fine. Then somebody with a mental age of thirteen or above can later come along and create an entirely different article, since the most charitable interpretation of this one is that it's a crock. Speedy deletion doesn't prejudge the fate of a different article created on the same subject. You and I and dozens of other people here who have mental ages of fifteen or above waste way too much of our time in the delicate handling of the effusions of a lot of people who are very childish indeed. My life's too short. If I see something purporting to be an article but having a closer resemblance to doggy-do, I shall delete it. For me, this is one of the few places where "BOLD" and "IAR" converge. ¶ The only regrets I have about this particular event is that a look at the edit history shows some truly bizarre edits by me: blanking, unprotecting, etc. The idea was of course to delete, recreate as a blank, and protect, in view of our little friend's willingness and ability to come up with one username after another. -- Hoary 11:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree with you, that this was a case where the article needed to be deleted. It's just that the reason for deletion you gave was "Hoax", which technically isn't the right thing to have done. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Preity Zinta FA edit

Hi there. The Preity Zinta article has recently achieved A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User page vandalism edit

Many thanks for the early catch and revert of the vandalism to my user page. It seems we (or maybe it's just me!) may have ruffled some immature feathers :) ---- WebHamster 13:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes? I was starting to get the opposite idea: second childhood, as you might say. Or anyway that Plymouth was a special place, populated by very special users. What could be more lamebrained than vandalizing somebody else's user page and not managing to spell "paedophile" right? Next perhaps we'll be told that "countless" means well under a hundred. -- Hoary 15:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

27,000 studeents [sic] edit

Drake Circus

Next time you want to vandalise real and accurate facts remember there are real p0eople affected by your vandalism. Real people who have post graduate IT skills and can pinpoint any online IP (proxy or otherwise) and there real shopkeepers and pubs with large nasty security guys all of whom along with 27,000 studeents your trolling has pissed off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.171.40 (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"27,000 studeents", every one of them riled up about my "trolling"? Wow, if I really were a troll, I'd be thrilled to bits at all the attention.

Now, if I were some super serious person, I could get you clobbered for uttering threats. But they're not threats: you're just full of wind. Please emit the flatus somewhere else. -- Hoary 16:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

With this kind of massive unpopularity, you should run for president. Pinkville 01:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not very good at keeping a straight face as I talk about my "Faith". (Incidentally, have you read Taibbi, Spanking the Donkey? Hunter Thompson [at his best] meets Thomas Frank, and highly recommended for understanding those odd news media south of the border. And I learn that he has a new book out.) Oh well, there's always "ArbCom". Wise words on that, and also sage advice for me in this tense times, on Uncle Giano's talk page. -- Hoary 01:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

But when publicly speaking about your "Faith", you could visualise beer, for example - or whatever it is that VP Dick visualises. No, I haven't read Taibbi, and though I have seen most of the peculiar film Spanking the Monkey I don't believe the latter has anything to do with the former. I'll check him out (i.e. Mr Taibbi). And let me consult the Book of Giano... Pinkville 01:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Message moved from your userpage edit

Hi Hoary, I removed this message I think was intended for your talk page. Cheers, Ariel♥Gold 17:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice edit

Nice, I made a serious move to do "Jesus is Coming", but what a break! Director Edward Donato, kicked ass! He had more vision that anyone I've ever worked with... With very little money. Have you seen "Jesus Is Coming?... I'm so proud! Wait until it hits the real DVD market! I love his photography. He gave me several prints, I had no idea they would cause so much attention... I thought he was just like any other wise ass in L.A. - Ron perlman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.127.140 (talk)

Well, IP, your edit history certainly makes it clear that you think Edward Donato is a star. If his prints caused attention, where is this attention? Googling fails to show it up. -- Hoary 00:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Allegation of "theivery" edit

This is dismaying stuff, IP. By "THEIF" I suppose you mean "thief". Where is the evidence of theft, or of spamming? With evidence, WebHamster should be censured or worse. (Incidentally, I'm wondering why it is that your rhetorical style and your spelling seem curiously familiar.) -- Hoary 01:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC) ... message posted by me on 86.140.179.222's talk page, bounced back here

http://www.thehamsters.co.uk/images/cowell.gif

next question?

i see you refuse to answer that question but instead simply deleted it. Why ask if you are not prepared to deal with an answer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.179.222 (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh hello, IP. You certainly do get around!

So, you've provided me with the URL of an image. What's your point? Are you saying that this image has been illicitly copied to WP? If so, where? Provide the link.

You say: i see you refuse to answer that question but instead simply deleted it. You've lost me. What's the question? Give me the the diff showing me deleting it.

Autosigning comments is so easy, anyone can do it! You just hit the "~" key four times in a row. -- Hoary 01:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding picture on LL edit

Hi my dear helper, Hoary!

Could you plaese see my talk page, for further details regarding a littlse discussion over a picture, perhaps you have a solution, as always! Thank you! Nike George 21:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Some "bot" raised objections to the use of two images. I happened to notice the objections shortly after they were made. While I wasn't keen to delete one of the images, I couldn't think of any compelling reason to keep it, so I didn't bother to do anything about the complaint. Some time between then and now, the image was deleted. As for the second, I could think of a compelling reason to keep it and I announced this on its own page (thereby answering the complaint) and deleted the template(s) that complained about it.

What that means is that you don't have to do anything soon. One image has been lost and you can't get it back; the other is safe from any threat of deletion.

If you want to replace the deleted image, you'll have to make it small before uploading it; you'll have to provide copyright information about it while you're uploading it; and (if it's conventionally copyrighted) you'll also have to provide a "fair use" justification on its talk page for every use you make of it. -- Hoary 21:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I understand. If I find a picture to load up, I will make it smaller, and add all info on it. Thanks! Nike George 17:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Drake Circus to AfD? edit

After Googling around and finding nothing about it I'm thinking of nominating the Drake Circus article for AfD as it doesn't appear to have any degree of notability. The fact that it contains part of the Uni and an old church/war memorial which in themselves don't confer notability. Additionally it is only a sub-district. So what do you think the chances are of it going through? Likewise would my nomination be construed as bad faith/and or trolling? ---- WebHamster 13:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

How about looking through the recent history of the Plymouth article for people who seem well informed, and asking them for comments? (But perhaps you've already looked and such people don't exist.) -- Hoary 15:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sod it, I'm sick of all the trolling, circular arguments, deliberate obtuseness etc. I've sent it to AfD so other independent editors can take the decision. The talk page will just fill up with diatribe without actually achieving anything, at least something will come of an AfD one way or the other. ---- WebHamster 19:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Henrik's RfA thanks! edit

Thanks for supporting my RfA, it closed today with a final tally of 39 supports, 1 oppose and 1 neutral. As always, if you ever see me doing anything which would cause you to regret giving me your support, let me know. henrik•talk 18:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Expert editors/New draft edit

Subject says it all. (btw, this is the too-bold-for-his-own-shame anony who had to create an account in order to create a page) CanIBeFrank 06:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Geoeg edit

Hi Hoary. Question about Geoeg (which might be moot now that you gave him a block). What do you make of his removal of material with the qualifier that Mike Godwin Ok-ed it? (There's a discussion of this [Mike Godwin's talk]. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I find this claim of Geoeg's farfetched. MG could and I think would have deleted it himself. If it were true and for some reason or no particular reason MG didn't delete it himself, Geoeg could have linked to MG's comment.

Deleting the comments isn't really that big a deal. But this fits within a long and dreary pattern of vindictive and childish behavior. A three-day vacation seemed about right to me; during that time Geoeg might have calmed down and decided to resume in an adult fashion. -- Hoary 13:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of this user, I have extended his block indefinitely as last nights escapades are the final straw. This user has been on their last chance for some time. Please feel free to reverse this action if you disagree but I hope that you will agree that for a limited SPA this user's contribution is more disruptive that we can tolerate any longer. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Three days seems an adequately long block to me. If it weren't persuasive and its expiry had led to a resumption of immature behavior, I'd have doubled or quadrupled it; and again; and again; and then the indefinite block. So I disagree with your extension, and on balance I suppose it might better be reverted. But I feel curiously unenthusiastic about having anyone (you, me, others) tampering with the indefinite block. Meanwhile, Geoeg is of course free to appeal it. -- Hoary 13:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I would absolutely agree if this was the only issue on the table but this user has been consistently trouble since they began to edit. They have already acquired an extensive block log and their failure to respond to an RFC on their behaviour plus the RFAR shows that they are unable to function in a collaborative environment. Plus they constantly edit war and disrupt with their behaviour. For me, the night before last was the final straw and this is why I indefed. I fully understand that you do not agree with this and were I looking at this in isolation I would absolutely agree with you. I appreciate your willingness to let the block stand. I just felt that you deserved a slightly more detailed explanation of my reasoning. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, fine. (Anybody who's worried can ask Mikegodwin, but I'm not worried.) -- Hoary 23:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Zhanliusc's survey edit

Take a look at this post on AN/I. FYI. Happy editing, KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 10:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thank you for alerting me. As a gesture of good faith -- Isn't "good faith" a ghastly WP cliché? I'm heartily sick of it -- I refrained from deleting any more once I saw that. But the longer I thought about it, the more certain I was that his methodology is ghastly. Particularly once you consider how admins' user pages are often looked at by (the hell with "good faith":) apparently aggrieved and immature people: those whining about how the vanity pages they've just created have been deleted, etc etc. We'd be doing him a favor by halting his research while he rethinks his methods. -- Hoary 11:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL. No worry, like I said on AN/I I don't much care either way about the survey since I wasn't invited, and to be honest I haven't even read any of the "spam" messages. I just happened past the post on AN/I, and then saw one of your reverts on my watchlist. Just wanted to let you know was all. Cheer. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 11:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Aw, come on, let's admit it: we're both miffed because neither of us was invited. But really, it's seriously flawed in a stunningly obvious way. I can hardly believe that the researcher's supervisor okayed it; and if the supervisor really did okay it then somebody else with thumbs up/down power over the thesis could (indeed should) damn it at a later stage. -- Hoary 11:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I read your proposal on his talk page, good idea, but right now I'm just too damn tired to even try to analyze it further than I already have, I've been forgetting to sign my posts, making stupid typo's like "Cheer"(s), et al. Problem is I've over tired (if there is such a thing), with an overactive mind that won't let my exhausted body sleep. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 11:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You and me both. It's 9 p.m. here, I haven't eaten for nine hours, I can't eat for another hour, I have to do lots of work by 10 a.m. tomorrow. -- Hoary 11:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw you reverting the invitation of Zhanli to some of the admins for a survey. I checked the links and there was nothing harmful. It all seemed okay to me. Why are you against his survey? --Thus Spake Anittas 13:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see this; you may wish to add your comments to it. -- Hoary 14:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did, but I'm not so sure that constitutes as spam. How else would he advertise for his survey? I would have done it differently; perhaps contacting the editors via email. Right now, anyone can take the survey, not just admins. I think it should be up to the admins that received the message to decide whether they want the message to remain on their talkpage. You never know, but some of the may be interested in the survey. --Thus Spake Anittas 14:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

How else would he advertise for his survey? / I've told him on his talk page. ¶ I would have done it differently; perhaps contacting the editors via email. / That too would be spamming. ¶ Right now, anyone can take the survey, not just admins. / Indeed. ¶ I think it should be up to the admins that received the message to decide whether they want the message to remain on their talkpage. You never know, but some of the may be interested in the survey. / Yes indeed. You're free to point this out here. -- Hoary 14:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestion on his talkpage is reasonble. --Thus Spake Anittas 16:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Zhan Li USC Survey edit

Hi there,

if you would like to, please can you comment on my response to concerns about my survey attempt here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Message_from_Zhan_Li_regarding_Survey

I am contacting you as you were part of the original discussion.

thank you very much Zhan Li Zhanliusc 21:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Again, I wish you all the best with your research and don't want to stand in its way. -- Hoary 01:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

RE:Thank you, but... edit

Sorry about my 'removal of vandalism'. I had presumed it was. Oh well. =) σмgн gσмg 08:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion requested edit

Please see User_talk:Tony1#Simple_syntax_question_-_use_of_pronoun_after_though_in_subordinate_clause. Tony (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Gaijin Smash: Notable? edit

Once again, you beat me to the punch. The article has "AfD consideration" written all over it. Best, J Readings 19:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In case you would care to vote or comment, I started an AfD for this article after checking several search engines for notability issues. See: Article for Deletion: Gaijin Smash Regards, J Readings 22:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes edit

Thank you for your excellent answers, 巌流先生. But just in case there's any lingering ambiguity: Children (as well as those in their second childhood) are welcome to contribute to WP, as long as they behave more or less like sober adults. Childish 25-year-olds aren't welcome; conscientious 12-year-olds are. (As for reading WP, anyone can of course do this in any way whatever.) -- Hoary 00:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

One of the most admirable pieces of text I've yet seen while editing WP. Thank you. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 02:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks edit

Thanks for devandalising my user page! -- But|seriously|folks 04:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. But I suggest that you remove "vn-9 This user's page has been vandalized 9 times". This kind of thing looks like an invitation, or a sign that you appreciate vandalism. And of course it recognizes past vandalism. Much better, I think, to arrange things so that these nitwits' activities have zero lasting impact, so that they'll have nothing whatever to gloat over. -- Hoary 04:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Voigtlander "Write-up" External Link on Rangefinder Camera edit

Hi there, I am requesting permission to add my recently created "Voigtlander Rangefinders" write-up to the external link section of the page. The URL of the page is [5]. Cheers, Matthew. --Fotodudenz (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Your question seems an innocent and amicable one, and I don't like to have answered it rather sourly at Talk:Cosina Voigtländer. In addition to what I wrote there, another sour note: it's a little odd that you'd want to add the same link to a page on one brand to the Camerapedia-scrape on that brand, and to the article on rangefinder cameras. How about one or the other (exclusive or)?

Well, that little matter aside, I have an R3A and various lenses including the 15mm among those that you mention. I rarely use the 15mm because I usually find the results irritate or bore me: I think it has to be used either very imaginatively or very scrupulously. (Your page suggests that you do better with your 12mm than I with my 15mm.) Last week I ran a roll of Pan F through the Bessa with the Canon 50/1.4 on it with pleasing results -- though hardware had little to do with it; I was just lucky enough to have complaisant models. -- Hoary (talk) 11:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Your recent vile edits edit

Considering that I think Hoary and The Minds Eye are one and the same person, this is dubious in and of itself. Hoary is the first to note he has many problems with others on here He doesnt play well with others. I will contact Wiki about your vulgar behavior if I must I ASSURE YOU http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Instructions_for_users_posting_alerts Artintegrated (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You've lost me. What "is dubious in and of itself"? I'm the first to note that who "has many problems with others"? Anyway, go ahead and contact whoever about my "vulgar behavior" if you wish, but you might also care to tell me where or how my behavior has been vulgar. -- Hoary (talk) 10:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

PS I've just noticed this extraordinary edit of yours. I don't know what might have prompted you to write it, but I suggest that you calm down. -- Hoary (talk) 11:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hoary, being googled daily here in NYC is bad enough but when the top google is wiki and they have to read your vile mannered statements it is downright embarrassing. Why cant you keep your statements neutral I dont understand you at all. I do know you have Karma and that your intentions are negative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.158.237 (talk) 08:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't make head or tail of this one, IP. Perhaps you could rephrase it more clearly. -- Hoary (talk) 10:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you edit

Someone vandalized my Userspace! But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you! You can thank others by using {{subst:Vangel}}! Ariel♥Gold 10:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Coffelt article edit

I know the guy a little. I knew he just started designing clothing for AKO (Andrea Katz Designs). He was just asked to design her new menswear line. www.akonyc.com is the site for her designs. Nothing about him on her site yet. Maybe the site will add something soon about his work with her. He is in one of my art groups here in NY. OneMarkus (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it can at times be irritating that Wikipedia refuses what it rather oddly terms "original research". I too know a lot about some subjects that I can't and don't write. Well, stay on the lookout for the kind of evidence that WP does accept, and then add it.

Bass Article edit

Interesting how you seem so concerned with the Bass article. Seems you spend so much of your time kvetching on the Japanese photography section and hit the Bass article again You must really like the work. It is truly awesome work and I can't fault you for that. Kudo's for your help with it. I know she would be likewise appreciative if she only knew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OneMarkus (talk • contribs) 20:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy that you're happy that she'd be happy . . . or something like that. But I'm puzzled: what's this "kvetching on the Japanese photography section"? -- Hoary (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

OH. LOL SO confusing that the Japanese want everything inverted I suppose. It would drive me to wits end day after day reverting it over and over and over etc; OneMarkus (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You're continuing to mystify me when you say that "the Japanese want everything inverted", but as long as you're laughing out loud I suppose you're happy and so all is well. -- Hoary (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

She has a new video on youtube that you may be interested in. It is a Butoh performance piece called "Working Proof" for Space One Eleven this past February 2007. 67.101.159.82 (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)OneMarkus (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Youtube is Flash-based, isn't it? Or anyway it requires some plug-in that I don't have plugged in. My problem here is that I'm too lazy to read up on how to switch this stuff on and off once it's installed ("plugged in"). The last time I had Flash installed, I hated the experience: for every one thing that I wanted to watch, there were at least five inoffensive but pointless animations (I'd rather have a blank space with an invitation to get the plug-in) and at least ten very irritating animated ads (replaced by less irritating static ads, unless I get Firefox to zap them too). -- Hoary (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pint! edit

--Paularblaster (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Violation of WP:NPA by User Chanakyathegreat and WP:CIVIL by User Nikkul edit

User Chanakyathegreat has violated WP:NPA. Plaease see this [[6]]. He commented about me 'Ota crap is a fanatic Christian fundamentalist. More religious than the pope. His version is to spread Christian propaganda. He has started multiple articles with links to fundamentalist Christian websites. He need to be banned and all the edits by him reverted'.

User Nikkul had violated WP:NPA. He commented 'This user's intentions are obvious'.

They are objecting my edits in Anti-Christian violence in India, Religious violence in India. Please read these articles. I have given enough citations on the articles. What I am doing is to depict the religious situation in India from a neutral point of view. But what they are trying to do is to ignore the religious violence which claimed many lives, caused human rights violation. And for my effort to bring the true fact in light, user Chanakyathegreat called me 'fanatic Christian fundamentalist'. I am very much offended by his comment. I humbly request you please do something with the User Chanakyathegreat. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to state that noting that a user is not neutral ddoes not constitute a personal attack nor is it against wiki policy.

This user has made it seem like Hindus are the criminals behind all incidents. There is no mention of Hindu killings whatsoever, not much is verified by evidence.

- * His article Anti-Christian violence in India starts off with "In India anti-Christian violence is widespread." There is no neutrality in his work.

- *Look at his addition to the Human rights in India page [7] for the Communal Violence section: "Conversion in India has become hard Due to anti conversion laws which were made by hindu nationalist and extremists.To propogate ones religion other that Hinduism and sikhism is an activity which could cause Death as most citizens and many government officials are always 'conspiring to kill' as tha free press of india states" with no sources whatsoever. This is soo pov and irrelevant

I hope you can teach the user to verify all claims like the ones above before inserting them on wiki Nikkul (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the sentence 'In India anti-Christian violence is widespread.' which is not present at the current version a reference was provided. On which basis Nikkul is claiming 'this user has made it seem like Hindus are the criminals behind all incidents'? The sentence user Nikkul is showing "Conversion in India has become hard Due to anti conversion laws which were made by hindu nationalist and extremists.To propogate ones religion other that Hinduism and sikhism is an activity which could cause Death as most citizens and many government officials are always 'conspiring to kill" is not added by me, but by IP user 122.169.51.217 See this link [8]. I wonder how Nikkul can make such false claim? And Nikkul is violating WP:CIVIL by making such false claim.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

singular they edit

Shhhh, don't say anything and probably no one will notice. Tony (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

art edit

hmmm. Pinkville 15:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC) A conjoined triplet? Pinkville 15:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

All rather sad, but Andrew647 is responding in an exemplary way.

Absolutely. Pinkville (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"Spurious" is a strong word. Better avoid it unless there's an RfC or similar and you're prepared to back it up with diffs. -- Hoary (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Very foul day. But I've apologised at the appropriate spot. Pinkville (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

And sorry to you for dropping you in it. Pinkville (talk) 03:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No, fine. I, um, could see where you were coming from, too. But retracted (struck) like a gentleman.

Now, apropos of foul days — no, I'll spare you. And indeed the last few haven't been bad. But every damn "weekend" seems to be gobbled up by this or that chore. Moan moan. -- Hoary (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanking you edit

Thanks you for your warning message on User Chanakyathegreat's talk page. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Scruggs and Nova Scotia edit

Why did you delete the information from Nova Scotia? Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 14:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I remember, my sole edit to the article was this one, in which I deleted the sentence The American photographer Virginia Scruggs keeps a home and studio in Nova Scotia. I infer that it's the erasure of this "information" that you're asking about.

If this were not Scruggs but instead somebody as highly regarded as Bruce Davidson, I wouldn't have touched the sentence. And if it had been somebody I'd never heard of but who gets an article in WP, such as -- pause while I fish around in Category:American photographers -- Gregory Crewdson, I'd have been surprised but I might have left it.

Scruggs is a different matter. The article on her was deleted a few hours ago (see its AfD) for lack of verifiable notability. For all I know, she may be an excellent, underrated and noteworthy photographer; but despite requests for evidence of notability, all we've been told of is her supply of one portrait for one book, and her one-seventeenth part of one exhibition. I judged that readers of an article on Nova Scotia hardly need to be told that An American photographer who once participated in a joint exhibition and who supplied one portrait for a book keeps a home and studio in Nova Scotia.

Why do you ask? -- Hoary (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Artsojourner mentioned concern about deletion of the artist's page, and I just want to hear both sides of this issue. I came into the discussion after the information was added to Nova Scotia, and I wanted to know more. I don't have any problems with deleting the information. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 16:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Typo edit

([9]) Thanks. No idea how I managed to be so cack-handed, but glad you swept up for me. --Dweller (talk) 09:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No big deal. Or anyway I hope it isn't, because your stray character is the kind of thing I often perpetrate. And that's when I happen to notice it; no doubt I often do it without noticing it. (Eh? There's a "Show preview" button? Well well, I never noticed that before!) -- Hoary (talk) 09:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Photopreneur vs. Suzuki edit

Here's one for you to consider... Pinkville (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

WtF?

Unlike photographers, a photopreneur is not solely motivated by making a living from digital images but rather being part of a social system with shared attitudes and beliefs around the broader connections between photography and forms of social participation that are linked to the display, distribution and dialogs around images and imagery.

So this assumes that photographers are solely motivated by making a living from digital images. I'm acquainted with a number of photographers, of whom at least two have articles here; to the best of my knowledge (aka "OR"), both of the latter are fully professional (they don't just make money off photography, they make all their money off it) neither uses a digital camera and neither even seriously scans his pictures, though one does so casually for his own website. And I think it's unlikely that either is solely motivated by making a living from images: if he were, he'd have gone into the wedding photo or similar business. Although neither obviously appears to be part of a social system with shared attitudes and beliefs around the broader connections between photography and forms of social participation that are linked to the display, distribution and dialogs around images and imagery (so far as I can comprehend this), I can think of plenty of photographers who are/were, from Domon to Karsh.

I've had my fill of AfDing. Your turn?

Or we could just let it rot. (For now, at least).

I don't suppose you have any time or energy, but if you did you could do worse than apply twenty oh all right ten minutes of it to this old fellow. -- Hoary (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to slap an AfD on this teratologue... In fact, I'd pin the AfD tag more often if I didn't have to reacquaint myself each time with the rules and procedures involved... I'll look in on the old fellow today as well. Pinkville (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I will get back to Suzuki Shin'ichi... Other matters got in the way today, but as soon as I can (I'm away from the Library for 10 days, but I know that there's a decent bit of info on the older, better Suzuki - by the way, we'll need a disambiguation page for the many folks with this name, won't we...) I'd be happy to add what I can to this start. Pinkville (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought instead of making "Shinichi Suzuki" itself a disambig page. But that seemed a little naughty at this point. Let the two (!) photographer articles gain some more sinew and meat first. No doubt dozens of 19th-century-Japanese-photography freaks hereabouts will have noticed the two articles and will be rushing to contribute their knowledge; it should only take a week or so before these are looking GA-ish. (True, they don't have the cognointellectual significance of Pokemon/Dragonball/Final [don't we wish?] Fantasy, but even so....) Hoary (talk) 06:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the complications of his name... Yikes! I can't recall well enough how it all works out - I need Bennett et al... Pinkville (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I like where these Suzukis are going! Pinkville (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Right! At this rate, they'll both be FARC by the end of the year. Anything useful in the hefty "balloon" book? (Hm, I think I'll buy myself the next copy I see of that. There's some good stuff in it, I suppose enough to outweigh the decapitated heads and suchlike torturekitsch. I particularly liked the series of self-portraits by a photographer whose name eludes me. -- Hoary (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The Elder is merely mentioned (as a student of Shimooka) in the "balloon book". But it is a very good little book. I believe the photographer you're referring to must be Yokoyama... the guy who created 写真油絵... (The cover photo is by Yokoyama as well). Pinkville (talk) 13:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yokoyama, that's the man. -- Hoary (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha... I forgot to check the diff link until just now. I may be slow... but I'm... thorough. Pinkville (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Way to go! -- Hoary (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I slapped a prod on the article, citing the biased POV in the text. I also blocked the author, since it was a role account for a P.R. firm, boldmouth.com, which has a history of linkspam. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC) (son of a news photog)

You're just way too fast for me Orangemike! Thanks. Pinkville (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well done indeed. And do pop in here more often! -- Hoary (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

helio edit

Does this reference to heliography make sense to you? Pinkville (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It does indeed.

I'll try to remember to look the word up in the OED. -- Hoary (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

But then these would be two very different things bearing the same term: heliography... Or am I particularly slow today? Pinkville (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't need a weatherman to -- uh I mean you don't need to bone up on lexical semantics to realize that one word can be used for more than one meaning. Helio, not-so-elusive word element; graphy, blazingly obvious word element: hardly surprising if various people stuck them together for various purposes; especially if, as it seems, none of those uses became common. (As he's actually photographing the sun, it's obvious that Yamazaki's use is very different from Niépce's or the heliotropic one.) Sorry, I still haven't got around to looking in the OED. -- Hoary (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Right - and I saw that you added the additional meanings to the article. Back in heliotrope (instrument) (and the reason for my original question), should the phrase a second mirror for communicating with the instrument station through heliography, a form of language... be adjusted to something like a second mirror for communicating with the instrument station through heliography, a signalling system...? Pinkville (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I was bold. -- Hoary (talk) 14:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

But the meek shall... Well, that seems unlikely. Pinkville (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Pre-Meiji Period: Use of Japanese era name in identifying disastrous events edit

Would you consider making a contribution to an exchange of views at either of the following:

As you may know, Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management came up with entirely reasonable guidelines for naming articles about earthquakes, fires, typhoons, etc. However, the <<year>><<place> <<event>> format leaves no opportunity for conventional nengō which have been used in Japan since the eighth century (701-1945) -- as in "the Great Fire of Meireki" (1657) or for "the Hōei eruption of Mount Fuji" (1707).

In a purely intellectual sense, I do look forward to discovering how this exchange of views will develop; but I also have an ulterior motive. I hope to learn something about how better to argue in favor of a non-standard exception to conventional, consensus-driven, and ordinarily helpful wiki-standards such as this one. In my view, there does need to be some modest variation in the conventional paradigms for historical terms which have evolved in non-Western cultures -- no less in Wikipedia than elsewhere. I'm persuaded that, at least in the context of Japanese history before the reign of Emperor Meiji (1868-1912), some non-standard variations seem essential; but I'm not sure how best to present my reasoning to those who don't already agree with me. I know these first steps are inevitably awkward; but there you have it.

The newly-created 1703 Genroku earthquake article pushed just the right buttons for me. Obviously, these are questions that I'd been pondering for some time; and this became a convenient opportunity to move forward in a process of building a new kind of evolving consensus. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Gong edit

Here's a little gong for your (ongoing) tireless work on Japanese photographers.

Pinkville (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so I'm now sentenced to back-breaking work wading through mud under the delirium- and melanoma-inducing Asian sun. Thank you, Pink!

The work's ongoing, yes; tireless, I dunno. I think I'll slack off a bit as the demands of the real world are again intensifying. ("Festive season"? Er, no. Forget about festivities.)

Moan moan moan. . . . Hoary (talk) 07:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

But the reward for a hard day's work bending over a paddy of mud in the hot sun is... a wee bowl of the stuff you've been planting. I think I'll soon be able to flesh out some of those pesky stublettes. By the way, the rice planters reminded me of a very interesting article I read a couple of years ago (online) about Japanese porters/bearers and their pre-Meiji quasi-union... some long-standing (as it were) pretty progressive features to their association... Do you know anything about this bit of history (I haven't been able to find the article for some time...). Pinkville (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

172.206.82.17 edit

Hi. I suspect that this is a sock of banned User:Nick thelot. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reversions. I start to feel sorry for these fools. And as long as they're vandalizing user and talk pages they're pretty harmless. -- Hoary (talk) 07:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

And I don't even wear my cellphone to bed edit

First the Swiss allowed train-loads of Jews to be moved by the Nazis through their patch; then they cooked the international finance rules; then they cook WP articles. Hmmph.

I have a short film of a high official of one of the biggest Swiss banks, incredibly, admitting to collusion WRT > $100bn stolen by a dictator. I have a mind to post it on You-Tube. That would be letting off a big bomb, wouldn't it? But I don't want my holiday ruined next week by pesky journalists. Tony (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so wait a few days... and then bloody well post it!!!! :~) Pinkville (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a Swiss thing. I've found similar flatulence in at least one article about a Japanese watch company.

The great majority of the article on Omega is devoted to name dropping of the celebs (till I edited it, the "world famous personalities") who wear this or that wristwatch. (Should WP readers give a shinola?) There's no distinction among (a) those who wear them as they've got loads of money and can't think of anything better to spend it on, and (b) those who wear them because Swatch pays them to do so.

Watch-drooling is hilarious. Consider this discussion. I'm not completely happy about picking it as the authors seem an amiable bunch and candid about what they find (and about their own snobbery); what snobbery they do have is about the watches and not about which Hello! magazine cover model has been spotted "sporting" this or that. In this thread, they approach some dirt-cheap Chinese mechanical watches in a good-humored way. "Knight Watchman" awards one of the watches (or its feelgood factor or whatever) pluses and minuses. And he really does award it pluses, too. He concludes by suggesting that you chuck it into the trash. (Yes, yes, of course he's mostly joking.) Keep reading, and you find that both Knight Watchman and garwal actually tested these watches, and both found that they were bloody good. They even admit that to each other (and good for them). But there's not much of a suggestion that they're going to reconsider their general prejudices. After that brief interlude, it's back to the serious business of discussing the relative virtues of the Orient "Mako" and the Seiko "Prospex" or whatever they're called.

My uneducated guess is that talk such as this is well below the Olympian heights of those who concern themselves with Rolex and Omega, let alone Audemars Piguet and the like. What would Thorsten Veblen say? -- Hoary (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Buon Natale e buon anno! Giano (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas edit

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 04:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism heads-up edit

On December 30, 2007, User:Hoary/Archive14 was linked from 4chan, a high-traffic website. (Traffic)

All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

Someone has been posting the following message on 4chan: Please go to [URL] and click "Save."

Just thought you should be prepared -- RoninBK _{T C} 02:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. (I'd never even heard of "4chan".) -- Hoary (talk) 03:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)