User:Hoary/Archive17

Marilyn Monroe

Hi Hoary, I was very impressed by this comment which conveys exactly what I've been thinking about the lead section for Marilyn Monroe. With this in mind, I have rewritten the lead section, and have also added a fairly lengthy comment to the talk page explaining my thought processes. If you have time, I wonder if you could please have a look. I would be interested in your comments. Rossrs (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. And again I seek your comments. Regarding the comments about expanding Monroe so that "icon" does not exist solely in the intro, and being on a similar wavelength etc... I have cobbled something together here in my sandbox. When you have a moment, I wonder if you could take a look. It is very rough, but I think it covers a few important points, specifically an early mention of the new Marilyn Monroe "industry", plus this quote, which I appreciate and which is applied directly to analysis of Monroe: "Stereotypes, cliché and icons are all shorthand that do our thinking for us". Nicely put, in my opinion. I'd like to see this type of information replace the lengthy quote farm, reduce the too-detailed copyright legalities at the end of the article, and reduce the extensive individual "husband" sections. I hope you don't mind but I would prefer you look at it before I consider taking it to the article. The talk page being a bit of minefield at the moment. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You've tried hard.

I'm very sorry but I can't summon any enthusiasm for this kind of thing. I looked at one source you cite. In it, one Finlo Rohrer (of "BBC News Online entertainment staff") makes various assertions but they turn out to be unexplained or unsupported. It boils down to something like "in terms of mystique, Monroe's the greatest"; but he gives no more than anecdotal evidence in support of this. The whole affair merely looks like something churned out to fill space. I don't see how it's worthy of citation in an encyclopedia article.

To say that Diana, Princess of Wales and Monroe were compared as two public figures whose "lives were taken over by our collective need for myth" seems to have got it very wrong indeed; unless perhaps the article (which I can't be bothered to look up) is talking about their posthumous "lives", but even this seems odd. Seeing the number of old books about Di going very cheaply indeed in used bookstores suggests to me that the population needing myth about her has declined considerably.

on a more basic level, Time noted that "Diana's eyes, like those of Marilyn Monroe, contained an appeal directed not to any individual but to the world at large. Please don't hurt me, they seemed to say." They seemed to say to the addled writers, that is, perhaps in response to finding from some focus group that gush such as this would increase sales. To me, this drivel says hugely more about Time than it does about Mrs Windsor or Monroe.

She also stated that, "In dying young and beautiful "first", Marilyn achieved the dubious honour of becoming the dead woman to whom other glamorous women who die young would be compared" (my emphasis). No evidence presented for that, either. Maybe it's true, I dunno. Seems an uninteresting "honour" to me.

A more specific warning: If you write that a film taken on the set of The Misfits was sold for tens of thousands, one or other of a great number of usernames will pop up to insist on the huge cultural (?) significance of the alleged Monroe blowjob film. (This may not be entirely unrelated to the announced release of a schlockumentary about the alleged murder of Monroe, produced by the person who claims to have sold this blowjob film that nobody other than himself has seen. See the sorry Talk:Death of Marilyn Monroe.)

I have very little time for all the guff about how this or that anglophone pop singer has bleached her hair and fancies herself as Monroe. To me it says little more than "Look how desperate people are for publicity, and how unimaginative they are in their stunts." But the stuff about India looks more interesting.

I'm surprised that you don't mention the commodification of Monroe by Warhol, or the grotesque image of her by Weegee.

Scary to see that one of the writers you quote is Ian Buruma. He's written a lot that's excellent (about Japanese war shame, about anglophilia, etc.); what's he doing here? -- Hoary (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. You've given me a lot to think about. One thing I noted as I tried to find anything to go with the whole "icon" thing is that even when it's used by something supposedly more reputatable that a fan-blog, it's still unsupported. I've read through so many articles that started off hinting that it would offer something of substance and then dissolved into the usual rehashing of gushy statements. I suppose what I was trying to convey is that she is the subject of a lot of mindless blathering, and that she's invariably described as an "icon" (or "legend" or whatever) because that's easier than attempting to explain what that means. The only writer I've found who tries to go further than that is Churchwell. So when a comment looks empty it usually is, but I was writing about how she is talked about, not whether it's supportable or true. I don't know how to write about the hoopla without quoting drivel, because that is what most of the hoopla is based upon, but I think the hoopla is notable. "They seemed to say to the addled writers, that is, perhaps in response to finding from some focus group that gush such as this would increase sales. To me, this drivel says hugely more about Time than it does about Mrs Windsor or Monroe." Exactly. But it also confirms that Monroe can be talked about in this way, and people lap it up because they think they worship her. Also if a particular writer "gets it wrong", which I'm not disagreeing with, my point is really that the writer said it, with supposed legitimacy.

As for the anglophone pop singers, I agree, and I don't think for a minute that it's a sincere homage to Monroe. I think it's more likely that they know it'll be written about and it'll "work" for them, but the interesting and perhaps unexplainable point is why do they choose Monroe and why does the public buy it over and over uncritically? Nobody references Jayne Mansfield or Carole Lombard, but Monroe is so easy to rip-off. I also think that the media referring to someone as Monroe-esque is lazy shorthand, and to me the point is more about how that lazy shorthand is still recognizable. Instead of wasting words describing the appearance of say, Gwen Stefani, they just say she "channels" Monroe and know that readers will be thinking "oh, I know what that means. sexy blonde. got it." Saves the journalist doing their job and actually writing about Stefani, and in the process the Monroe "legend" grows.... Maybe some of the goodwill that is extended to Monroe spills over to Stefani and co. Maybe it's a deliberate attempt to "channel" some of that goodwill. I don't know. To me it's Monroe being broken down into components and recycling them, because the stereotype is so entrenched. I can't find anyone to actually comment on the situation and the reasons behind it, just example after example of its presence. I think it would be inappropriate to write about it in the article with such cynicism, but again I think its proliferation is in itself notable. Next year, there'll be another pretty girl, doing a Marilyn routine, and the media will sell it to a receptive public. You can almost bet money on it.

The India stuff is interesting but I couldn't find much about it, (not surprisingly the two women look nothing like Monroe, and the Aborginal actress even less) and I did think about Warhol as well, but he commodified a bunch of people, Presley, Garland, Elizabeth Taylor. His "Taylors" I think, are right up there with his "Monroes". I don't suppose he was aware the Monroe stuff would "stick" the way it did so I don't think he was exploiting her any more than he was exploiting the others. I don't know. I found an interesting example of Warhol prints being used by some fashion designer, which is another recycling exercise. Monroe interpreted by Warhol who is then interpreted by the designer and then slapped on the back of Naomi Campbell, of all people. Interesting but not noteworthy. Where do we go from here? Have I set myself an impossible task? Rossrs (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Within minutes of writing my comments above, I was in bed; and in the seconds before falling asleep I reflected on whether the sourness of my comments had been justified. Sleep arrived before any conclusion. Anyway, before saying more, an explanation of one little place: "one or other of a great number of usernames will pop up to insist on the huge cultural (?) significance of the alleged Monroe blowjob film"; for "usernames", read "usernames with short editing histories", or more bluntly "sockpuppets".

I see your point about presenting an extraordinary level of gush in order to demonstrate that Monroe brings it on. Still, I'm unenthusiastic. The part of the world where I happen to live may be atypical but I'm sure there's much less obsession with, gush about and commercial use of Monroe than Audrey Hepburn. One of the keywords of this blather is "incomparable", but comparisons are needed and a social psychology (I'm tempted to say social psychopathology) of celeb recognition/obsession, if such a subfield exists, ought to be able to produce them, based on data rather than recycled idées reçues.

Shall we take time out to look for clear-eyed academic study of sleb recognition/obsession? -- Hoary (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps that's best. I don't know where to look, but I'm sure some academic study exists. Also, funny you mention "usernames with short editing histories" having encountered one so very recently, but the predictable outbursts stimulate discussion. There is an up-side. Rossrs (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

School of Medicine

Thank you for your cross-reference to my Talk page. It seems clear to me that another WIki-page has been embroiled in the war between the Wiki-cabal and the (alleged) meat-puppets, to the point that people are already, on an AFD, calling in the troops to make sure that their "side" is the one that wins. Is it any wonder that, weekly, Wiki's reputation sinks lower ? -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 07:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Notice of discussion – Talk:Eric Robert Rudolph

This is a friendly notice that a discussion is underway here regarding a topic in which you have previously expressed interest. You are invited to participate in this discussion in order to improve it. I apologize if you did not wish to receive such notices. Groupthink (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Blytheswood House

I agree. In which case the image needs moving too. I don't know how to do that. 91.104.52.22 (talk) 10:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment

You were thorough in the analysis of the college of medicine article, do you have time to comment on this [1] Totallyconfused (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

A Question

Hi there Hoary; I'm back after a rather lengthy wikibreak following this, but I see that User:Exiled Ambition continues to churn out articles at an amazingly high rate, and continues to use the "Samurai Wiki" as his sole source 99% of the time. What, if anything, can be done? I'm getting tired of trying to plug in the appropriate kanji, fix the grammar, add other citations (where at all possible) and so on. If there's nothing that can be done, that's fine too; I just was hoping that some kind of decision would have been made on this. -Tadakuni (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

In a word, ugh.

The webmaster asked that the content of his site should not be recycled. In itself, that request can be ignored, I think. (This would not excuse plagiarism, but that's a rather different matter.) It's the reasons that he gave for not recycling that are persuasive.

As for alternatives to that website, in view of the difficulty our friend has in understanding the simple stuff that we say, I regret to say that I have no reason to believe that he'd understand books. I do think that a sizable percentage of people just aren't cut out to write encyclopedia articles. Nothing necessarily wrong with them: although I think I can write articles, I know I can't throw or kick balls to or away from other people or work up any interest in third parties doing the same, that I can't get any serious interest in the supernatural, that I'm an impatient and lousy cook, that I have a very dodgy sense of direction, etc etc. -- Hoary (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah.....ugh. I've tried to be reasonable and offer constructive help, but you're right, I have to wonder if he's really understanding what we say. Oh well, can't say I didn't try to help... But have a look at the bottom of this discussion. I wonder if Torsodog will do it...? -Tadakuni (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You've been way more patient than could reasonably be expected.

But imagine if he really were the student that he claims to be, and that you were a professor of his, stuck with him for months, perhaps years.... Perhaps it's even true. If it is, Wikipedia is doing the profs a big favor by providing a channel (sewer) for all that logorrhoea. And on that happy thought, I'm off to bed. G'night! -- Hoary (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. Good night! -Tadakuni (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Speaking ill of me behind my back without any rational reasoning to justify the wrongs of Samurai Archives is sort of annoying, and as I have stated on my talk page, Samurai Archives will be a source that I will continue to use in consideration to its credibility, and other reliable references from professional writers such as Sturnbull will be utilized afterwords. I'm certain that you can comprehend the importance of taking advantage of a database that credible and easy to access, so I will leave it at that. Goodbye Hoary, Tadakuni. User:Exiled Ambition 13 July 2008 (EST)

I'm not justifying any wrongs. Let's see what you're continuing "to use in consideration to [sic] its credibility". After posting the comment above, you went off to edit Maeda Matsu. This is sourced to (i) "Sengoku Jidai Database: Maeda Matsu" (no details of publication, no URL) and, in defiance of every participant other than yourself in this discussion (let alone this one), (ii) SamuraiWiki. And it's written in your inimitably tortured prose: maybe you can understand this, but others can't, so somebody such as Tadakuni or LordAmeth will have to look at the article, throw out its content, and start afresh.

As you seem intent on wasting other editors' time, I suppose you'll have to be blocked. -- Hoary (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Speaking ill of you, Exiled Ambition? Let me tell you something- I have no more patience for dealing with you. I have tried to compromise and be helpful for well over a year; that ends now. All you want is to keep using the one source that you have access to, no matter what anyone says. And don't even get me started on your pseudo-intellectual gibberish, which needs to be corrected in every article you write.

Hoary, I don't know how Exiled Ambition can be blocked, but I think it would be in Wikipedia's best interest. He's gone beyond stepping on toes, he's starting to cut them off. -Tadakuni (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to have your say here. -- Hoary (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Enough impulsitivity: try looking at this situation with a rational standpoint for at least a minute, my fellow Wikipedians. I no longer use SamuraiWiki via the discussion I had formerly with administrators such as Mangojuice, and for this reason I have utilized Samurai Archives, which is highly credible in all respect and is no different from any published title -- they are both aggregated information. I have already taken advantage of secondary references such as Sturnbull's works and GoogleBooks, and I of course intend on investigating further with such a cause for the sake of bettering quality in the articles that I write. There is never a problem for using Samurai Archives the way I have been showing, as it should always be treated as an initial reference and expanded upon forthwith, unless of course you are not able enough in your linguistics to use a single source without avoiding plagiarism rights initially. Please support me in this, as nothing beneficial could ever come about when you consider emotion over reason. Thank you. User:Exiled Ambition 14 July 2008 (EST)

agree

that the Myspace site is poorly designed and looks especially bad on my Windows at home where no slide shows ever load, (for some reason looks ok on a Mac) well, I could but no need to elaborate on the basic bad taste&kitch of Japanese pop culture that we have to accept as is. also agree on the point that I could avoid extreme comparison in order to gain respect or whatsoever but some just behave like hypocrites by taking extensive action on this article but not being interested in doing the very same edit to similar articles maybe because they're, opposed to me, fans of Coldplay & the rest. sorry for regurgitating your words but I really seek an official decision about the linking because I only linked myspace after making sure other artists have it linked here in wikipedia, some have even links to all versions of their multiple myspaces. Plus what I think it's good about linking myspace is that it's giving pple the direct chance to sample songs for free (at least I see no "Buy This" button on it).Tsurugaoka (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No, really, I don't mind at all that you reproduced my messages. As I've said, I've been puzzled by your insistence on keeping the link; but I've also been puzzled by others' insistence on getting rid of it. All in all I think it was a wise move of yours to get a more or less "definitive" answer to whether or not it could/should be added. Let other people do the hard work of arguing, and let's sit back and see what their conclusion is and then get to the more interesting work of editing. (Sorry that I have nothing to say about Adeyto; indeed, I've been very busy so I've had little to say about anything for the last couple of weeks.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Hoary, thank you very much for enduring the insanity, and also for doing all of that stuff with regards to Exiled's actions, which I brought up above. Hopefully this will be a new beginning. -Tadakuni (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I hardly did anything that you didn't also do. Poor Gwen then had a stunning introduction to polysyllabic non-communication.

Now I suppose the denizens of WPJ can get down to the business of deleting EA's non-articles. -- Hoary (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

She dealt with it rather well, and swiftly.

As long as we're on the topic, how would one go about deleting said articles? -Tadakuni (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

For a start, any that are substantially plagiarized should be so tagged for speedy deletion, or (if you happen to be an admin) summarily deleted.

The problem will come with those that don't seem to be substantially plagiarized but that (a) depend on dodgy sources or (b) are only intermittently comprehensible or of course (c) both. I believe that to have no article on a given topic is better than to have a bad article (where "bad article" is defined to exclude perfunctory but honest stubs and the like), and I greatly resent any feeling of obligation to fix up the results of others' large-scale laziness, stupidity, dishonesty, arrogance, etc. So if dozens of non-plagiarized articles written in polysyllabic gibberish were to be listed at AfD on the grounds of unfixability, I'd unhesitatingly vote to delete the lot (without prejudicing the fate of later, unrelated, lucid articles on the same topics). However, I may be in a minority here. It's better to bring this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan and see what others have to say before setting off any big event at AfD. Sorry but the "real world" beckons and I'm in no mood to start any such discussion today. -- Hoary (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin; though this incident makes me wonder if I should figure out how to become one in order to help better maintain WPJ-related stuff....thanks for explaining, Hoary.

Regards,

-Tadakuni (talk) 01:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky, etc.

Hiya, If you're interested in pursuing the Chomsky discussion any further - and your insights and knowledge would be greatly appreciated - I have created a sub-page for it and other lengthy discussions that have no direct bearing on Wikipedia.

In unrelated news, I had a close look at that Gomez character, and I can't see any reason not to send the article to AfD. Should I let your request for references linger a little longer on the chance that the creator may have some life-saving resources? Pinkville (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Pink, I'm taking a little break from AfD-ing self-serving flatus by the unnotable. Could you have a bash at it?

There's more of the similar listed up in the "questionable articles" section of you know where. I've found a rich source of this to be [broad] Category:Photographers.

I got another book by Nagano Shigeichi the other day. Great stuff, in my minority opinion: for the masses, no doubt he's much less "transgressive" and significant than people such as this. -- Hoary (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Awk! Gwen Gale (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sed! Hoary (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, it was my intention to do the AfDing, recognising that you've had more than enough practice. But I was wondering if the tag you left should have a little more time to (perhaps) spur the article's creator (to furnish what I'm sure doesn't exist)....

As for Knes, there is something beautifully twisted about a photographer who has regularly collaborated with Butt magazine being represented by a gallery called Crone. Pinkville (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Rolex

Well done Hoary. Your arguments were clear and helped to correctly frame the debate. They also saved me a lot of time. It would have been a very onerous task for me without your intervention. Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to have been of some help. -- Hoary (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winifred Whitfield

Think we should report this since it was an article for pay? I'm tempted to do so myself, but I just wanted to get your opinion since you started the afd. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 17:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"Report this" where? -- Hoary (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

On the deleter of Welsh placenames

Vandalism still continuing. Have sought assistance. Yawn. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Good work! I didn't intend to conceal anything by not mentioning the earlier debates, rather I was overtaken by events. But if the debate continues, you will notice that User:Ddstretch holds extremely firm views on this matter! Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm staying as far out of it as I can, though I must say I'm extremely disappointed with User:Jza84 as an admin who I'd previously had a large amount of respect for. One of the problems seems to be that some people think the pages are only read by people in England.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Vince Bell

Haha I didn't see this was by the same writer! Gwen Gale (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit clash!

As penance (?), could you possibly put Kilpeck on your watchlist? (See previous section.) It's a tiny village that's the site of a superb romanesque church, and it's one of several editorially troubled places just on the English side of the Welsh border. Historically, it has not been unambiguously English, and it is generally agreed that its Welsh name is of note. (For example, the church's official guide to itself mentions and explains its Welsh name.) I can imagine that there could be a good reason for deleting the Welsh name, perhaps because it's mistaken (that the authentic Welsh name was something else). But no good reason is ever adduced by one or more nitwits who, using a succession of IP numbers, insist on deleting the Welsh name from this article and a group of others. I could of course sprotect the lot, but I think I'd rather be patient a little longer and nail the perp(s). -- Hoary (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Tab clicked ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Splendid. -- Hoary (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Tsugaru clan

Hi Hoary, your thoughts would be appreciated here. -Tadakuni (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation. I said a little, but I'm very underinformed. -- Hoary (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

All the same, I appreciate it. Thank you. -Tadakuni (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Palazzo Barbarigo.gif

Hi. I just saw this log entry. I'm wondering what you are intending to do with it... The image itself no longer exists on the WM servers -- it was deleted in the era when deleting images was permanent. Thanks. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Right. I tried to explain in this edit, but perhaps was too sleepy to do a good job of it. Anyway, the subsequent redeletion was the right thing to do. -- Hoary (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, didn't see that one.  :-) Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

the Vatican rag

My dear Hoary—With your entertainment in mind, I can recommend a short grab of Internet television. The chief child-sex-abuse apologiser has finally returned to Rome, leaving us in peace after a week of singing, dancing and guitar-strumming jollity in the streets that would make you vomit—Woodstock meets 13th-century evil. The ABC's weekly 15-minute program Mediawatch (available for another few days) is an exposé of the appallingly bad media in this country, and includes matters Catholic this time. You can view it by clicking on the program title hereTony (talk) 11:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing this, my son, when I get to a computer on which Flash and the like are installed. (I keep all of this stuff well away from my own computers). Now please spend a righteous and godly Saturday.

I must say that I do rather enjoy using our Official Office Computer to surf around Youtube. Recently I've been exploring the oeuvre of Julie Brown, a name I'd only previously known as attached to "Homecoming Queen's Got a Gun". -- Hoary (talk) 00:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC) .... PS I have taken Your name in vain in the section immediately below. -- Hoary (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

the state of the Wiki

From today's main page: The former was the first time in history that a book was launched simultaneously as a film and a CD-ROM interactive video game... now I know we've reached the zenith of civilisation. This is just a random observation, but notice that the article, while not terrible, is not terribly well written and suffers from overly enthusiastic linking... I suspect there's no way of keeping up with FAs and (worse) articles for the Main Page. Pinkville (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Gibson. Years ago, somebody was pushing Neuromancer on me; he was salivating rather alarmingly and in order not to prolong this I accepted the grotty looking paperback and later attempted to read it. All I remember is that I couldn't get through the first five pages. Was it impossibly boring or atrociously written or both?

Yes, the article is indeed rather horrible. Yet it has its pleasures. I particularly enjoy the mostly-unnecessary photos, with their goofy captions. Sample: Gibson is renowned for his visionary influence on—and predictive attunement to—technology, design, urban sociology and cyberculture. Image captured in the Scylla bookstore of Paris, France on 14 March 2008. "Renowned" is surely an understatement for "revered" or "adored". But I'm lost with "predictive attunement". "Image captured" is a bizarre way to say "photo taken". And I'm happy to be reminded that Paris is in France: there I was thinking that it was in Liechtenstein.

I made one small effort toward fixing this mess; I wonder how long it will take before some stickler for polysyllables reverts it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps rashly, I've made a couple of comments in the talk page.

I've had my differences with Tony in the past but they've been minor. He has a fine detector for bullshit as well as for crap prose. Perhaps he should be given a substantial salary to help out Raul and Sandy.

Anyway, if this what "FA" means, I don't want to write a "FA". -- Hoary (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The caption you mentioned is certainly a keeper, but how about this sentence: He commenced writing a blog in January 2003, providing voyeuristic insights into his reaction to Pattern Recognition, but abated in September of the same year due to concerns that it might negatively affect his creative process.? Now, that's poetry. Though it may require a fair degree of predictive attunement to parse... I confess to having made a couple of earlier stabs at improving the thing - one a question of timing, the other, the more amusing example, being an ultimately failed attempt to better a section heading that has ended being this, anyway. I agree, regarding Tony, 'cuz this is sad. It's bad enough that FAs should read like this, but Main Page articles? I don't want to spend all of my time on the Main Page review (I once spent a lot of time & energy helping to improve an already very good FA on the I.G. Farben building before it went to the MP, and similarly spent some time on a Montreal professional wrestling FA... with lesser results), but clearly more editors are required. Pinkville (talk) 02:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't start a blog and pause in writing it, you commence it and abate it. And these are voyeuristic insights: blimey, does that mean that he was wanking as he wrote it? Negatively affecting his creative process; ah yes, the old notion that if you want to perform at your best you should retain that particular body fluid.

I've a horrible suspicion that Gibson's admirers are writing him up in the same turgid way that he writes up his own Deep Thinking. Or anyway back in the era when I attempted Neuromancer I usually managed to get through novels to the end and almost always got through the first twenty pages (a particularly arduous feat for Beloved); I didn't get that far with Neuromancer.

But enough of that junk and of Fleabitten Articles. Today I added new gimmickry to WP:HOP. Do you dig it or do you dig it, baby? -- Hoary (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC) ..... PS I'd hoped it was the end, but perhaps it isn't. I guess it's original research to point out such facts as that 1982 plus eleven does not equal 1991. Head over to Gibson's natter page and see for yourself. -- Hoary (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Before cyberspace, Gibson had reluctantly rejected jismspace... I'm quite sure that his admirers are writing him up in an appropriately ennobling fashion... oh dear. I have a number of theories about science fiction, as a sort of aficionado of the genre, but time, space, and (undoubtedly) my reader's interest, are lacking... And the natter page is striking - your contributions being entirely correct. But on the subject of Gibson, I must abate.

Your added gimmickry is hep - I dig it big time! Pinkville (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

But daddy-o, are you hep to this jive? -- Hoary (talk) 03:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Got red-linked by the Reds again, eh? I've had a peek at this ongoing thingee... in fact, my politics are anarchist (in the Rudolf Rocker, Anton Pannekoek, Spanish Revolution sense), but I can't say I'm hep to this particular jive... I'll have a gander - if it ain't all over and done with. Pinkville (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Zzzzzzzzzz -- 22:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did skim this... Pinkville (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

CSD of Anarchist International

The speed you deleted Anarchist International makes me think you did not review that the actual article being deleted was the same as the AfD one or had been changed. Did you ? --triwbe (talk) 08:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did. See User talk:Anna Quist/Anarchist International. -- Hoary (talk) 08:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have undeleted it. Strange that you didn't ask me first. I could just redelete it without asking you first, but I'm no longer a schoolkid.

Surely you'll agree that if the article is worth retention it's worth retention as Anarchist International and that it's mistitled. If you are sure that it's worth retention, why not move it to Anarchist International? If you're not sure, why not take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review? -- Hoary (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Just read it. But you checked it, reviewed, compared and deleted it faster than I could remove the CSD. If I may remind you WP:CSD#G4 provides:

"provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted."

Now I believe it has been substanially improved to answer the concerns in the AfD. Deletion review does not figure because there is not contesting the arguments in the AFD, it is improving the article to answer the problems of the AfD. Incidently I am a minor player here, 2 other editors (inlcuding a previous deleting editor) have participated. I also feel that, regardless, this editors efforts deserve more review than just a speedy.

BTW I recreated the article and then came to you, just go the order a bit changed, that's all, I had it open for editing (to remove the CSD) but was writing a full explanation in the edit comm as to why, then saved. I did not want to loose all the work we hade done in the past week. --triwbe (talk) 08:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see that it has been improved. I also see great similarities to its predecessor. (Incidentally, I certainly don't see "B-class" quality.) The article may deserve preservation and improvement; if so, it should be retitled. Personally, I'm neutral on the matter. I've brought it up at WP:AN/I so that somebody else can take a look. -- Hoary (talk) 08:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yea, B class was a bit glorifatious, it was more than a Start class but this header did not have a C class. --triwbe (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History of photography

Since you created Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History of photography (thanks for that, by the way, we've really needed a photography related delsort for a while), I thought you might want to weigh in on my question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting#History_of_photography.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation; have done. Meanwhile, what about Gabrielle Geiselman? (If nobody else comments fairly soon, it will probably end up being relisted.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Relisting isn't always a bad thing. :) Still, I was intrigued enough to spend some time on teh intertubes looking for her, and I'll weigh in at the AfD.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Prem_chand_pandey

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Prem_chand_pandey. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Part of the problem is that there are two persons of the same name. Tikiwont (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constantian Society (2nd nomination)

Hi there! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constantian Society (2nd nomination) has just been relisted for a second time due to a lack of people offering an opinion. I listed Constantian Society for deletion after it was mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The George Nethercutt Foundation, which you commented on. It would be great if you could cast an eye over the Constantian Society article and deletion discussion, and offer an opinion, since it is in some ways a similar case. Cheers! --Stormie (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Chinese" porn

Hi, I just found it in Flickr and thought it will be good representative image of lesbianism. The photographer mentions it is ancient Chinese art. I am not sure of it, to be honest. If you believe there is some problem with this image, then I will remove it from articles. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. The image is deleted from commons in my request. I need to be more careful before uploading image from Flickr. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. That IP's a sock of blocked user User:Hdayejr, he shows up every few days to troll and try and stir something up, as you can see from his sock list. I appreciate it! Dayewalker (talk) 07:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Stunning young photographers

Yes, kind of amusing indeed. Just before your message I did a WP search on the "International Photography Award" (which according to their website are apparently given out by the dozen each year, so I doubt its notability somewhat) and found several other articles of the same vein as Luke Duval. Editing WP is amusing, but sometimes also tiring, I must admit. Amazing how vain people can be and how many vain people there are.... But I guess it's a compliment to Wikipedia that they all feel that they must be in it! :-) --Crusio (talk) 08:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

From Solo Zone

Hoary, maybe you should spend some time on your own links. Many are rather opinionated. What gives you, for instance, the authority to declare anything by Francis Barlow weak. The Wikipedia community has no basis for you as a critic nor as an historian nor as a connoisseur. You seem little more than an Anglophile who spent some time in Japan. If all you can do is correct spelling, stick to that. From the links listed below, it is obvious that you are neither a master of syntax, nor adept with grammar. And just as clearly, you do not know enough about photography to add anything. What you have been doing to German photography in America constitutes vandalism, not editing. DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Do something constructive like an article on Yodabashi Camera.Solo Zone (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

transferred from user page... Pinkville (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Many are rather opinionated. / Yes, that may well be true. Examples beyond Barlow welcome. ¶ What gives you, for instance, the authority to declare anything by Francis Barlow weak. / I believe that it was Edward Hodnett's critique of it within his otherwise highly appreciative work Francis Barlow: First master of English book illustration (London: Scolar, 1978). I don't have the book at hand right now; if you do, does he not say this? ¶ The Wikipedia community has no basis for you as a critic nor as an historian nor as a connoisseur. / Sniff! Perhaps some other menial job (or basis) is still available. ¶ You seem little more than an Anglophile who spent some time in Japan. / That's closer to the truth than, say, a Slavophile who spent some time in Brazil. Do you think I should plaster my user page with little flags? ¶ If all you can do is correct spelling, stick to that. / Hmm, let's see ... I can do such lowly tasks as put pairs of brackets around names in order to link them. ¶ From the links listed below, it is obvious that you are neither a master of syntax, nor adept with grammar. ¶ You leave me wondering how somebody might be a master of syntax and not adept with grammar, or adept with grammar and not a master of syntax. That minor mystery aside, if you see faults of grammar perpetrated by me or anybody else, feel free to fix them; if you see me continuing to make a certain kind of grammatical mistake, point it out to me. ¶ And just as clearly, you do not know enough about photography to add anything. / Nothing at all? Dear me. Since I still labor under the delusion that I do know enough about it to add something, perhaps you should open an "RfC" on my conduct. ¶ What you have been doing to German photography in America constitutes vandalism, not editing. / Please be more specific. Or of course you are free to report this vandalism. ¶ DO YOUR HOMEWORK. / Yes ma'am! Uh, which homework? ¶ Do something constructive like an article on Yodabashi Camera. / Now there's an interesting suggestion. To carry it out, I'd have to be something of a historian, but you say WP has no basis for me as that. That matter aside, my problem with Yodobashi is that it doesn't particularly interest me. It may seem odd that I created an article about the very similar but now defunct Camera no Doi but not Yodobashi, but I'd inadvertently created a redlink to the former (which also doesn't much interest me) and guessed that if I didn't turn it blue then nobody else would. ¶ Have a nice day! -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Correction: The criticism of Barlow's composition is expressed succinctly within the generally favorable summary by Richard Jeffree that appears in the 34-volume Dictionary of Art. Do you think Jeffree is wrong? -- Hoary (talk) 05:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hoary, I'm not sure we've been formally introduced but I have seen your work on many a page. For some reason the List of German-speaking photographers in the Americas popped up on my radar today (perhaps it was mentioned on a page I monitor), and I've just been reading through the article and the talk page. I have the sense that not all is right here: there are dozens of names in the list that do not appear to be notable photographers, as they are neither blue- nor red-linked; there seems to be a strong sense of ownership; and I am wondering about possible spamming and/or conflict of interest. While the subject might be worthy of a list (on that, I would defer to your superior knowledge), I am not quite sure the list, as it currently exists, is the right one. I am contemplating taking this to an Articles for deletion discussion, but would appreciate your opinion before doing so. Perhaps I should also have a word with Solo Zone about the inappropriateness of insulting fellow editors, although it seems you have deconstructed her comments fairly effectively yourself. Thoughts? Risker (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yo Risker. I suppose my slimy trails on many a page are evident from mediocre syntax and grammar, and all the rest (sob). You bring up many questions. I'm not confident that I'll be able to tease them apart, but I'll try with a few.

There's not that great a correlation between being notable as a photographer and having an article in en:Wikipedia. Yes, those among the top fifty or so do get articles (of variable but usually inadequate quality); but when we turn to the five hundred or so that the editor and associates of, say, the Oxford Companion of the Photograph would agree were very much worth an article, a lot of these don't have articles, even stubs. Meanwhile, there are many articles on extremely minor figures and nonentities, and given a lot more hours in the week I'd happily send dozens of them off to AfD. So the fact that a great number of the names in this list would be redlinked if they were linked at all is not something that concerns me, and I don't think that it should concern you. (However, why the de-redlinking?)

I wonder about the arbitrariness of the list. Why not, say, Italian-speaking photographers in the Americas? Still, this is no reason for deletion: nothing about this one list prevents anyone else from making other lists.

There's a question about verifiability. Anyone even slightly interested in these things should know that Andreas Feininger notably photographed the US; adding a reference to this effect would be ridiculous. But Feininger is bluelinked anyway. If this list is worthwhile, then I suppose each person who isn't bluelisted should have some sort of explanation of why they're there.

I think the list/article was posted for at least one wrong reason. However, this in itself doesn't worry me. If the article deserved salvaging (as a list) and could be salvaged, the COI would no longer matter -- as long as the COI factor was not reinserted.

For me too, the article was problematic from the start. I was strongly inclined to take it to AfD rather than spend any of my time on it. However, I was sure that it would attract a chorus of "Wikipedia isn't paper", "It's interesting", "It's useful" and all the rest; battling that lot seemed harder than starting to turn it into a tolerable list, so I chose the latter option. However, yes, some of my work has already been undone and there are "OWN" worries. I'd be happy if it went. I still predict that an AfD would be tough.

As for being insulted, I didn't mind at all. My skin is thick. Still, other editors get very upset by being told to do their (capitalized but unspecified) HOMEWORK, etc., so I suppose SZ should be warned off this kind of thing. -- Hoary (talk) 05:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverts

Hi Hoary, I didn't realize you were online. It was only when I looked on the user's page to see if he/she'd been warned that I saw your messages. Normally I wouldn't take the liberty of editing someone else's page. Rossrs (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, edit away, please do. I'm almost dumbstruck by the ability of "Radioinfoguy" (for assuredly it is he) to divine that I am in Detroit. (Could it be that he didn't read the thread shortly above, the one kindly plonked here by Pinkville?) Truly, the internet is a wondrous thing. Praise the Lord! (Or whatever they say in Detroit.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, "Praise the Lord!" will do. I know nothing of Detroit but what I've read recently on the internet and that wasn't quite a recommendation. On the other hand, I am aware that "you are the personification of everything that is wrong with wiki and the internet in general", so I guess you're likely to say anything. Rossrs (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

And not just say anything, either. Did you see our boy's argument for being unblocked?

I do have Wayne Miller's Chicago's South Side, 1946–1948 which I'd warmly recommend if it weren't for the unfortunate fact that I've just been unmasked as a total ignoramus in these matters (see #From Solo Zone, above); this being so, any recommendation from me would be a negative. So again I could point you to Wayne Miller, except that this is now a redirect to some person called G. Wayne Miller, of whom we read:

In 2002 Miller released the first in-depth, behind-the-scenes books covering one of the most popular sports in America - NASCAR - as only someone given a rare, unlimited access to the largest racing team in the world. The release of 'Men and Speed: A Wild Ride Through NASCAR's Breakout Season' was the result of Miller being granted unprecedented access to Roush Racing (now Roush Fenway Racing) during the 2001 season. This book took his growing fan base through a fascinating season that included the death of legendary Dale Earnhardt, the rise of young star Kurt Busch, the trials of superstar Mark Martin, the prelude to Matt Kenseth's 2003 Winston Cup championship season and a deeper understanding of what it means to be a modern race team. 'Men and Speed' has quickly become one of the standards for NASCAR literary excellence.

"NASCAR literary excellence", now there's a concept that you should think through long and deeply, preferably while sipping a vintage armagnac. No, while sipping a legendary vintage armagnac. But only if you're a superstar, or at least a star with a growing fan base. The people at Britannica must be quivering with envy at Wikipedia coverage such as this. -- Hoary (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

After reading this one to the missus, she says, quivering with something... Pinkville (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hoary, at least it was a succinct argument. Imagine if he'd gone into detail! G. Wayne Miller clearly doesn't do things by halves. It must be lovely to live a life that is entirely one of superlatives and chronic overachievement. What most wins my admiration is to discover that he's a "proud father of three children". This certainly calls into question the attitude of all those ashamed fathers, although I will feel very disappointed if I discover that there's an unfortunate fourth child that he prefers not to talk about. Rossrs (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Pat Buchanan

Hoary, Pat Buchanan is an absolute mess. What's up with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.11.98.173 (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You'll find the answer in that article's history page. -- Hoary (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

William Hanna FAC preps

I've taken this article from this to this, in preps for filing it for FAC. I could you some help now with:

1. finding a free image of Hanna
2. some good copyediting
3. expanding the lead

and when that's done I'll unlink the repetitive links (things can change during ce, so I don't want to do now), then file for FAC.

Any help is greatly appreciated. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Kanabekobaton

Now just wait one damned minute. I used you message that *you* suggested I use. Took it directly from your post in AN. So if anything, you wrote it. I'm not going to take it down. It doesn't look like it's going to do any good anyway. DarkAudit (talk) 13:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Gwen deleted it anyway. Since I can find no record of this person ever posting anything beyond a template on talk pages, how do we really *know* he understands English? I used the language he claimed as his native language. That was several hours after I requested someone fluent in Japanese to try to engage him. Since no one could be bothered to do so, I did what I did. If the language was coarse and unseemly as a result, tough. I was bold and tried to get the guy to save his Wikipedia account. No one else thought it worth the time. He can still read and edit his talk page, so telling him he still needs to reply to what's going on regarding his place in Wikipedia, even after a block, is entirely appropriate. I stand by my actions. DarkAudit (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

New factotum

Dear Mr. Hoary,

Thank you so very much for your delightful edits to my life-story, I do so appreciate them so, I have been trying to find a competent secretary/factotum for some time - finding the right person is so difficult in England. I often say, England's problems could be solved at a dash if the working classes could be made to work. If only poor dear Mrs. Thatcher could be persuaded to return - as for that ghastly Mr. Brown, if I just hinted at some of his unsavoury habits rumoured at throughout the drawing rooms of Belgravia you would be shocked to your core. Mind you he is better than that Mr. Blair grinning. like a Cheshire cat, with that dreadful woman, with the mouth like a letter box, in tow.

As you are obviously applying for the position, I am happy to award it to you. I shall be paying £45 per anum, live in and all found. every alternate Wednesday afternoon off, and no callers. I trust this will be acceptable to you.

Yours sincerely

Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Lady Catherine

I feel deeply, deeply privileged that my humble "user talk page" should be graced by your presence. It is of course a humble space, befitting its humble owner, but my wife Dorcas will be bringing some cucumber sandwiches in minutes, and we should feel privileged if you would stay for half an hour or so.

Your offer is most appreciated. As a mere scrivener, I know my place, or more specifically the place of my nose, which is at the grindstone. And what more delectable grindstone than yours, my lady?

However, I must regretfully bring up one small matter. I am an honest working man, my lady, and as I say I know my place. And that place has its own humble dignity: the dignity of labour, such as that those better, wittier, richer and more indolent than myself may rise in society. One small part of my dignity is its monetary remuneration. The figure need not be large, and I hardly dare quote it in guineas; yes, forty-five pounds is more than generous. As I think you will agree, my lady, it is not so much the actual lucre as the thought behind it that counts. While I hardly dare speculate about the thought of one as exalted as yourself, I do observe the manner in which you spread your beneficence. And, my lady, while I have heard of being paid through the nose, the notion that somebody (presumably your butler) would pay me forty-five pounds per anum comes as a considerable surprise, and, if I dare say it, a shock.

I urge you to reconsider this one small factor in the proposed employment contract. -- Hoary (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Good day, Mr Hoary. I feel I have a contribution to make to this discussion, since you made these most constructive edits concerning my personage to the tissue of lies that passes as my sister's life story. I thank you for removing some of the viler adjectives with which she described her loving and caring elder sister, who has only the best interests of her poor deluded sibling at heart.

A word of warning, Mr Hoary. Do not take a note of credit or a cheque from my sister in lieu of payment for your labours. They will prove as useless as my last man (though a cheque may prove to have more bounce than he ever did). If you take payment in cash, make sure you hold the notes up to the light to check the watermarks, or better still, purchase one of those new-fangled felt tip pens with which one may detect counterfeit monies. On no account must you accept her "krugerrands" or one of her "diamonds". I am sorry to be the bearer of such distressing advice, but I would not be able to live with myself if, by my omission, I allowed one as impoverished as you to fall yet further into the slough of grinding poverty and misery. One of my station has a social responsibility. I am reminded of it every time I am forced to step over the man with a dog on a string who slumps outside my London residence. I always remember to send my maidservant out with a bowl of sustenance for the poor unfortunate.

Princess Venetia di Cannoli (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Your Highness Princess Venetia

How honoured I am that you should grace my humble page with some advice from above.

I regret that it seems I shall be unable to contribute to the article about your sister. The quantity of the remuneration, and even the question of whether or where it might be legal tender, are small points. To me, the dignity of the relationship between the classes is all. Myself, near the floor, yes; but for Lady Catherine, noblesse should oblige; when by contrast she proposes to have her butler remunerate me per anum I must draw the line.

I note that Lady Catherine has obtained the services of her personal brewster, so surely the lack of my own services will not be missed.

May my wife Dorcas and I interest you in some cucumber sandwiches?

Hoary (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Links to a Paraguayan encyclopedia

Hello Hoary, thank you for the given observation, indeed place these link in order that the persons to know on this encyclopedia, which is a project of the Department of Education of the Paraguay,, and they are a part of a cooperative spadework it linked itself to Wikipedia in English, the Spanish and the Guarani. It is the biggest project that incorporates articles into the language of Guarani. We have included more than 250 articles in the Guarani, 250 in English and 500 in Spanish, as is we have explained in this article. I hope that he includes the motive. Veronica --Vero83alvarez (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok thank you very much he will consider it--Vero83alvarez (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The Mark Tom and Travis story

Hi Hoary. Please take a look at this page and tell me what you think. Rather than putting this page up for speedy deletion when I came across it, I tagged it for notability and a few other things. An anonymous IP keeps removing the tags. I tried to explain to the user why these tags exist, but the user refuses to engage in a dialogue. I'm now at the point of calling an AfD or just prodding it, but I suspect that the user will delete the prod, too.

What do you think--AfD the article now, wait or is the article actually valuable? I'm a poor judge of obscure Rock band future publications with no reliable sources to support their current notability for an article of their own. J Readings (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I see I'm not crazy, after all. It was a clear AfD candidate. J Readings (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well . . . cough . . . it was a pretty clear speedy candidate: a re-creation (pretty much) of something previously deleted via AfD. Unfortunately I discovered this only after having written up its new AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Help!

Hoary, something creepy is going on...check Nanbu clan, what do you see? -Tadakuni (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

...dammit, it's gone! The page was black, and had writing in Russian, and a message in English on the top-- something like "This is the Zodiac speaking. I laugh at your attempts to stop me." It's back to normal now, but...what's going on?-Tadakuni (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

PS- there was also an image of a Celtic cross, which looks an awful lot like a target sight/crosshairs. What, if anything, can I do? -Tadakuni (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh God....just what I needed. http://members.aol.com/Jakewark/ -Tadakuni (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks normal to me, and its recent history looks normal (indeed, exclusively yours). When I make as if to edit the page, I read that it transcludes fourteen templates. Not are protected, and not all those that are protected now were necessarily protected 24 hours ago. I imagine that some schoolboy dicked around with one of them, that you happened to see the result transcluded within your page, but that the template had been undicked with by the time you took a second look at it. This is the kind of thing WP can expect during long school vacations. The more alarm you show, the likelier you are to thrill and encourage the nitwit who briefly perpetrated it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking...I checked on Google as well, it seems this is happening elsewhere on Wikipedia too, see this for more. -Tadakuni (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The perp should be happy with all the attention he's getting. Now let's move on before we encourage him further to deviate from the traditional teen summer pursuits of fantasizing about sex, experimenting with soft drugs, and flirting with skin cancer. (I'm assuming that he's northern hemisphere as well as male.) Or let's get Mr T onto him. -- Hoary (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Good point. At any rate, thanks for the help, as always. -Tadakuni (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"needless Japanese translation"

It was meant with good intentions, but if you'll note, in the reversion you also removed the link to literary magazine vice the original version's "general-interest magazine". The article for the publisher, Chuokoron-Shinsha, describes the magazine as the same (literary). So if you have no issue with that, I'm going to edit that back in (and leave your translation intact).--ip.address.conflict (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem; I've done the same myself on other articles. ^_^ --ip.address.conflict (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Pirani Ameena Begum (2nd nomination)

In your comment you wrote: "Comment on her publications (ii). The other publication is in "The Sufi" magazine No. 3 Vol. I, Sept. 1915. WorldCat lists The Sufi published in Southampton from 1933; The Sufi Quarterly published in Geneva from circa 1925, and, er, nothing else that looks similar. So I have no reason to think that this publication exists either". Before you tell that you use Copac in this case - "but it's one with historical and linguistic links to Britain and I therefore looked up the periodical Caravanseari (sic) at the convenient Copac". So we come back to "Sufi" magazine in Copac and what we see - http://copac.ac.uk/wzgw?id=080823577f8b85ae3fd161c539d8a20486ffba&f=u&rsn=2&rn=11 Location details: British Library. Care to comment on this? Sergey Moskalev (talk) 09:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hah! My opinion of Worldcat has dropped a notch. -- Hoary (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Peter Tasker

Hi Hoary. I haven’t been following the Arudou Debito page closely lately, but I notice that you asked about the notability of Peter Tasker. Out of curiosity, I did a LexisNexis search on “Peter Tasker” and “Japan”. The result was close to 500 articles mentioning him. (Note: in Japanese-language newspapers, according to Factiva, he’s quoted even more.)

Obviously, being quoted in a newspaper (even hundreds of times) is insufficient to prove notability, according to our standards. The person needs to be the subject of the article multiple times, right? Restricting the search, I get close to 100 articles either profiling or featuring him. Here’s an article excerpt on Tasker by Michio Katsumata in the Nikkei Weekly:

“One wouldn't expect a person who tracks stocks to end up on the best-seller charts in Japan. But financial strategist Peter Tasker is living such a dual life. Tasker, who works in the Tokyo office of a British securities firm…first gained attention in 1987 with his book, The Japanese: A Major Exploration of Modern Japan. The book is widely considered a good guide to Japanese business and culture. This year, Tasker has come out with two new offerings: Silent Thunder, a novel; and The End of the Japanese Golden Age, which examines the direction of the Japanese economy. The Japanese-language versions are currently on best-seller lists in Japan.” (Michio Katsumata, “Author Portrays Japan in Different Light,” The Nikkei Weekly, 2 November 1992, p. 20).

According to the Nikkei Weekly, Tasker also has the honor of being the only gaijin in Japan’s entire stock market history to be voted consecutively its number one ranked equity analyst.

Reviewer Henry Brokman writes in the Daily Yomiuri (Tokyo) about one of Tasker's more well-known books: “Tasker deserves the greatest praise for his approach to his subject. Too often, Japan analysts try to explain this country using constructs and concepts derived from their own cultures. In contast, Tasker analyzes Japan on its own terms.”

His books also seem to be favorably reviewed in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, The Daily Yomiuri, the Asahi Shimbun, The Japan Times, The Nikkei Shimbun, and other newspapers too many to mention here. JSTOR also indicates that Tasker is cited by academics on subjects ranging from Japanese criminal justice to economics to politics to culture. Hope that helps. J Readings (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Kokeicha

Hi, Hoary! Please take a look at the article. There's no such tea in Japan and the content of the article is almost the same as the description on an on-line store page used as the reference. Please do something. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm wondering what to do. The first question is probably: "Does Wikipedia benefit from some article on 'kokeicha'?" There's 和製英語 so of course it's imaginable that we're looking at real 米製日本語 (or 露製日本語 or whatever) for a real commodity. "Kokeicha" may be a fiction, but if so it's no ordinary fiction: after all, it does get 17,000 or so Google hits. Ideas? -- Hoary (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Kokeicha is a Japanese word. Kokei/solid + cha/tea. It is also called dancha/団茶. I found an interesting blog. I didn't know but there really is the tea. It says monosodium glutamate is added to kokeicha. The genuine kokeicha I know are Chinese Pu-erh tea and Japanese Goishicha/碁石茶 and they are fermented tea. Anyway, the kokeicha is not known and popular at all in Japan. IMHO, it's not genuine tea, but processed tea. Oda Mari (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The notion of tea processed with 味の素 does sound rather horrible, doesn't it? No wonder it's not popular. (I have to confess that I wouldn't know. I can tell apart perhaps four varieties of Japanese tea, but any subtlety is lost on me.) So now I suppose we have a copyvio problem. -- Hoary (talk) 05:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see the cheap and easy tea's gone. Thinking about the number of G hits and what that blog says, the tea must be a product only for export. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 06:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Although that has no bearing on the subject's notability, of course. If there were a special name for precooked, canned spaghetti and if independent sources said substantive things about this revolting foodstuff, then it would merit an article. No, I (belatedly) deleted the "kokeicha" article as a copyvio. -- Hoary (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

RE:

I tagged it for re-creation of deleted material. Undead Warrior (talk) 05:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The order of tags on a page has no meaning to it. It doesn't matter about the order you put them in. Undead Warrior (talk) 05:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

inappropriate username

Do you know what to do about an inappropriate userpage/username? See User:Lickable69.... --Crusio (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Already addressed. Wow, my first inappropriate username hardblock. I am really moving up in the admin world!  :-) Risker (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German-speaking photographers in the Americas - closed early as a WP:SNOW delete. Geez, and I didn't even have a chance to !vote. Risker (talk) 03:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Double dittos, Risker! (Yes, with the prospect of seven years of a "hockey mom" at the helm of the Free World, I must learn to talk like Rush Limbaugh.) To think of all the time I wasted on that bizarre article and its lengthy talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

For you

I offer Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Sernio (2nd nomination). Gwen Gale (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)