User talk:Hoary/Archive 4

You might like to comment at the WP:GA/R for Agrippina. Cheers, Moreschi 14:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a good article [lowercase]. I glanced at the toing and froing over it and I think I digested the gist of the complaints. I then looked again at the article and I have to say that the dissatisfaction is not completely unreasonable. Consider for example In modern times, Agrippina's critical reputation has rested high among Handel's early works and indeed among his entire career as a whole: either one of "entire" and "as a whole" will suffice, "rested" doesn't sound quite right to me ("remained"?), and "career" seems less likely than "works" (a word that of course is better not repeated so soon). Rather than make a conditional comment about the article ("It's fine, except that/although...."), I thought I'd go through the article making changes and then comment. Some of my "improvements" may of course be unwitting degradations; feel free to revert. -- Hoary 14:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Whack away. Enjoy! Cheers, Moreschi 14:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Once you've done that, of course, feel free to pass it. Or fail it. Or do neither. 'S up to you. Cheers, Moreschi 14:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes yes I'll whack away -- except that acute need of sleep and the demands of the "real world" must come first. While you're cursing the churlish comments you're getting over Agrippina, consider the hell that Badlydrawnjeff is going through. -- Hoary 15:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Christ, poor bastard. One useless peer review there - and then all the stuff that should come up at peer review comes up at the FA nom, and you have to scramble horrifically. Anyway, see you round tomorrow - I'm GMT/exact Wikitime. I look forward to your comments/corrections, and sweet dreams. Cheers, Moreschi 15:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

...so I can buy you a beer. Thank you so much for your help on the Babb FA. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Want to take a gander over at Mom and Dad and see what you might change around? I'd much appreciate it. Thanks either way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The demands of the "real world" are mounting up, and may hinder me in this. Can it wait a little? (You're free to answer either "yes" or "yes".) -- Hoary 05:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, that's not a problem at all. Take your time. Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Allo mate. You might be interested in this discussion regarding the names of the WP Projects History of Photography and Photography. What do you think of Girolamo Savonarola's proposition? Pinkville 00:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wotcher, mush.

GS is right, in a way, but jeez. . . . Well, see what I wrote on the project talk page. -- Hoary 08:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoary—I like what you did; reminds me of my deficiencies as a writer. If you don't like the acknowledgmeent, please let me know. Tony 03:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Nah, it's not a matter of deficiencies. You're a fine writer. The problem is I think rather that the article to some extent exemplifies what it writes about: precisely because you've done so much work on it, its lingering flaws are particularly hard for you to spot. This too doesn't matter; the only problem is of what happens when somebody is referred (very likely not by you) to the page and is in a truculent mood about it. ¶ As you'll have noticed, we have orthographic differences. I find it hard to get worked up about a lot of the standard shibboleths. (And I tend to combine those elements of "British" and "American" spelling that appeal to me.) However, a comma directly after "i.e." or "e.g." looks odd to me; and while I'd be delighted to have a thin space fore and aft of an em dash, I greatly prefer a bog-standard (20 hex) space to no space at all. Still, it is your article..... -- Hoary 08:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

PS as for the acknowledgment, I appreciate it but I'd rather it wasn't there at least till I've gone through the article. Even in normal circumstances that would take me odd half-hours here and there across several days, but I am in very abnormal circumstances: desperately behind schedule with various "real-world" commitments. (Indeed, I really ought to close up shop here, at least for a month.) All in all I don't expect to do much more work on that page till 2007. -- Hoary 23:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

68.225.228.235 added (the red-linked) "Eugene F. Lally" to the List of photographers today, and looking into some of this user's contributions (see here and here - and note a certain other user in the latter) it began to smell slightly fishy... There's a teeny little bit to be found about Lally via Google, though often from user-contributed sources, yet Lally is supposedly the originator of the idea of digital photography! What do you think? Pinkville 22:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Lally has made many significant contributions to society, yet I can't find his name in the Library of Congress Catalogue, though he apparently wrote numerous papers (including "Mosaic Guidance for Interplanetary Travel, which contained the first concept disclosing how to produce still photos in a digital domain", from Timeline of photography technology). According to the article Krafft Arnold Ehricke, he was (with Ehricke) the creative spark for the US space programme; he originated the consumer price index (see Consumer behaviour), etc. But left few traces of this work...? Pinkville 23:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't get very concerned about the articles that people hint that they might make. Yes, Krafft Arnold Ehricke looks very odd (starting with his very name); if Eugene F. Lally indeed turns blue, I'll view it with interest and a handful of "{{fact}}" tags to apply wherever they seem appropriate. -- Hoary 03:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, fair enough. Pinkville 11:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I have been banned from the Presley article. Bemusement best describes my emotion. I think I am done with Wikipedia for a while. Something just doesn't seem right. Regardless, thank you for your involvement. You strike me as a decent sort. All the best. Lochdale 04:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the process really fucked you over. (Why mince words about it?) I've been looking at it now and again with increasing distaste. If I stand back from this and look at the article and what came up in the RfAr, I have to concede that (i) your antagonist's methods had improved a lot since the time of the previous RfAr, (ii) perhaps his goal wasn't as simply horrible as I'd thought, and [sorry but] (iii) you had done some things you shouldn't have and perhaps should be censured for it. However, the way in which Bauder seemed to seize on the simplistic "User A added sourced facts, User B deleted them" (without consideration of what the facts were), the swingeing penalty proposed for this, and the way in which the little arbitrettes all dutifully followed the boss man -- they all seem grotesque or laughable. ¶ For different reasons, I stay away from Presley and from anything that smacks of "arbitration". I hope some other people come along to sort out the former. As for the latter, I've decided to pay some attention to the "elections" that are going on right now. I'll vote. ¶ Take a break from Wikipedia, yes. But if/when you feel like it (and I hope you do), please return to work on some other area. Or, perhaps better, forget areas and instead help here and there with articles that are already pretty good and whose primary authors have invited and appreciate help. Peer review seems promising. In the meantime, thank you for trying; I'm sorry it screwed up, but the sky isn't falling. -- Hoary 06:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments and admire your optimisim! I think I am going to focus on Irish-related articles (with an emphasis on cleaning up some of the soccer bios) and I will also have a look at the peer review section. I agree with you that I certainly made significant editing errors. I put it down to hubris, inexperience and sheer frustration at the one editor. I do not agree, however, that his agenda is anything other than malicious in nature. I also think I may have suffered from Fred Bauder's issues with Ted Wilkes (and his many "alter-egos" it seems). Not much I can do about that. I do think, however, that they system is a little flawed as I don't feel that the arbitrators actually looked at the edits in question. That said, this is still a volunteer site so one can't complain too much. Thanks again for your involvement. It was nice to know that I wasn't always banging my head against a brick wall! Lochdale 17:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about his agenda. I used to think it was malicious; recently I've started to wonder if he simply has a sort of tabloid mind, interested in gossip in general and sleazy gossip in particular. If it's the latter, maybe he's representative of the millions of goofballs who buy crappy magazines. And I suppose it could be said that gossip-obsessed goofballs deserve their own 'Pedia -- it's just not a 'Pedia that interests me. ¶ Funny, all this would-be denigration of people by saying they resemble Wilkes (or even that they are Wilkes). As I remember him, Wilkes went over the top at times but in general was a fine editor. -- Hoary 15:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with you that it is mostly a fascination with gossip and innuendo but for the fact that the user then tries to buttress his claims by reference to legitimate sources. This is what leads me to believe that he has a malicious agenda. I didn't know Wilkes but I read some archies that show that he and Fred Bauder went at it somewhat. Lochdale 17:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoary, I was delighted with almost all of your edits. Please go ahead; it's so nice to be on the receiving end of a good copy-editor with ... ahem ... strategic distance. I'm working on a little offshoot—how to find copy-editors—so that I can thrust it at FAC nominees who ask how they can locate good people. Tony 11:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hoary. It just happens that you are in such a list (given by Sandy to Balloonman), and that I am in such a position! Tony and others consider (correctly I'm afraid) that Serial Experiments Lain is too poorly written to pass its FAC. Would you mind having a look and sharing your thoughts about it? Thanks in advance.--SidiLemine 12:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoary, I wonder whether you'd mind having a quick look at User:Tony1/How_to_find_good_copy-editors—am I wasting my time? Is it likely to result in nuisance requests to good copy-editors? :-) Tony 12:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry SidiLemine, I appreciate your polite request (while wondering if I should go after Sandy with a blunt instrument*) but despite (or perhaps because of) my (Top Secret) Geographical Location, I've got some sort of anime/manga block. How about putting it in this list? -- Hoary 13:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC) ¶ * NB This Is A Joke. [Note for people who are very solemn and/or thick. And the legal profession.]

Tony, your new page looks good. I may later post my usual list of tiresome niggles or my list of tiresome niggly "fixes", but they'd be incidental; it's an excellent start. -- Hoary 13:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC) PS Um, do you have any blunt instruments with which to go after Sandy?

Thanks; Sandy has proposed a number of improvements, so it's still work in progress. Tony 06:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the advice, I'll do that right away. Please note that Sandy didn't point you to me for help, bu rather for help on Military Brats to Balloonman. Cheers!--SidiLemine 14:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Captions in 1a

Eight centuries ago, writing was such a rare and elaborate skill that it was displayed with great artistry. This Apocalyse manuscript shows St John's writing to the seven churches of Asia.

I'm no expert and lack the time to check, but my impression was that vellum or parchment or whatever the medium was at the time was hugely more difficult to procure in quantity than paper was in, say, the 18th century (let alone than it is now). It was also long-lasting, and there was an assumption that Biblical and similar writings would be just as valuable in the future as the present. Imagine that inkjet printers and even cornerstore photo marts didn't exist, and all we had was archival-quality photo paper, priced to match. Well, you'd be nuts not to focus your enlarger and time it just right.

I'm being dumb: do you mean that writing was displayed with great artistry not because it was a rare and elaborate skill, but becasue the medium was hard to procure?

Rather than saying anything, I'm speculating that because the medium was valuable and longevity assumed, writing was done sparingly and with great care: care with handwriting would have been obviously appropriate.

Perhaps: but now the caption is going to be elaborate ... unsure what to do.

Me too. Let's leave it for now, attaching a virtual question mark to it. When time permits, we can reexamine it.

The power of writing has changed the world. Here, Mahatma Gandhi writes at Birla House, Mumbai in August 1942, five years before India gained independence from Britain.

It would be good to come up with something that he wrote and that demonstrably had an effect. I'm sure that there is plenty.

Are you suggesting a quote or citation within the caption? The Gandhi article provides links, but wouldn't that be overkill?

A citation, if it could be done neatly. (I'm as opposed to overkill as you are.) I'd add the cite myself, if I knew what I should cite.

The Story of My Experiments with Truth? See this?

I skimread the former article. Probably inadequate, I know, but I got the impression that the book was reflective and highly regarded but perhaps not as obviously inspirational (or even "incendiary") as some others. Let's think a little more about this, too.

Grammar at its worst.

No! In "Recruitment at It's Best" [ugh!], the grammar is fine. It's the orthography that's screwed up.

"Recruitment at it is best?" The grammar is wrong. I agree that you could see the added apostrophe as a spelling issue—or a typo—but it's the grammatical option that I've chosen, because that's more apposite to the surrounding text.

Try saying "Recruitment at It's Best" and then "Recruitment at its best" out loud. They sound the same: a strong hint that grammatically they're identical. The former is indeed not intended as "Recruitment at it is best" (if it were, there would indeed be a grammatical error); so it's just a matter of orthography. (NB I don't like it any more than you do.) The problem (?) is that normal people (as opposed to aphasics, etc.) make very few grammatical errors in their first language; other perhaps than in the eyes of the most died-in-the-wool prescriptivists (on whom see such books as American Tongue and Cheek.)

Maybe you're winning that one. But say "might of" and "might have" or even "might've" at conversational speed. With an ellided "h" and a schwa, they sound identical. Is it a spelling mistake when this person writes the first instead of the second?

Yes, I think it is. Native speakers of English learn to say "might've" before they learn to write it. It's an interesting one as somehow I don't think many would write "Could you of left early?" yet I can't think of a principled explanation why this would be less common than "You could of left earlier". But anyway I don't think speakers would regard it as possessive. More thoughtful speakers would note its interchangability with stressed "have" and would link the two, but I've a hunch that stressed "have" ("You could have left earlier") is acquired later and could be understood as separate. Thoughtful writers might be expected to wonder what part of speech "of" could be within "You could of left earlier", but then again English offers lots of many apparent anomalies; for example, though we learn that "very" is an adverb that fortifies an adjective ("very hungry"), we also see it used to modify a noun ("the very bag I was after"), so I don't think it would be crazy to infer that "of" doubles as a nonfinite verb form. [I'm sleepy now; I hope this makes sense.] -- Hoary 15:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hope you guys don't mind if I crash your party with an example re: normal people... make very few grammatical errors in their first language... Consider the increasingly common American formulation, "if I would of..." for "if I had...". The genuinely erudite Michael Franti even had this perplexing lyric in one of his songs, "if ever I would stop thinking about music and politics...". No particular point, just a morsel to chew on. Pinkville 19:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You've left me a bit confused, Pink. I'll agree that the lyric sounds odd to me, but (focusing away from the trees and instead to the forest) there seems to be considerable haziness among native speakers of English [may I abbreviate this to "L1 English speakers"?] about conditionals. Without actually bothering to consult Huddleston and Pullum's Cambridge Grammar, I'll speculate that these are in some sort of diachronic flux. For even syntax does change over time: note how any verb could be moved for an interrogative in Shakespeare's time ("Know you...?"), whereas now anything other than a modal or other auxiliary requires "do-support" ("Do you know...?"). There seems a great difference in syntactic competence between even near-native L2 speakers and L1 speakers: for English, consider tag questions (complete "You know that, don't you?"); difficult for L2 speakers, child's play for L1 speakers. It really seems that grammar is what L1 speakers "get"; and that once we put aside aphasics and the like and discount "slips of the tongue" that would be quickly acknowledged by the speaker, any time an alleged "grammatical mistake" is found in the speech of an L1 speaker, it's actually something else. -- Hoary 02:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I imagine the conditional situation is in flux, the upshot for the time being (until it settles into a comparatively stable form) is a fog of meaning that's difficult to penetrate. But the example also suggests that there isn't one grammar within a given language anyway, that there may be several "correct" grammatical forms for a particular meaning at any given time... But what the hell do I know, I'm no student of this level of linguistics, just an armchair enthusiast. Pinkville 14:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The model writing postcards, (1906) by Swedish painter Carl Larsson (1853–1919), famous for his idyllic watercolours

Splendid, a gratuitous display of nipples! Or one nipple, at least. Joe Bob Briggs would be proud of this. But forget about Joe Bob; I like it

To make out such a tiny detail you must have hit on the pic to enlarge it. Perhaps you have the advantage in that respect, since I'm gay and can derive only uniform pleasure from all parts of the watercolour—table, chairs, flowers, body. I had to look up Briggs to see what you meant.Tony 11:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Lucky man! Yup, I'm just a hetero vulgarian. But society is to blame for what I have become. (Tip of the hat to Repo Man.) -- Hoary 11:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Your query about commas in the direction of: yes, I can't understand it myself, so will look into recasting that sentence, or removing it. Tony 01:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Can't it be "spelling", then? [asks Tony, about something]
  • Yes, that would be fine. I have a slight preference for "orthography" for one reason; but come to think of it even in my eyes this is outweighed by the concision of two syllables rather than four. Plus of course it's your page, not mine. Incidentally, see this. -- Hoary 06:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Good comments at that link. Apart from the reduction in syllables, I don't want to send them scurrying to their dictionaries. Plain English? Tony 06:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if you know the whole history there, but I recommend treading lightly. Work really hard to be NPOV and gentle in the talk page, because this has been a bit of a flamewar article in the past. :) Be firm about citing sources, and I would actually recommend proposing changes on the talk page first and then making them only after some consensus has been made.

Otherwise, I am likely to get calls on my personal cellphone about this. I prefer that not happen. :) NPOV is non-negotiable, but let's also be gentle and move slowly to preserve harmony when possible.--Jimbo Wales 23:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, to me "an advocate on [xyz] issues" implies somebody who has letters published in newspapers, has articles published in magazines, makes speeches in rallies, appears on television, or some alternative (I'm open minded) at about that level. Seeing no sign of that, I inserted a FACT tag some days ago. That was answered with two references, which said that she'd (yes, newsworthily) appeared at one or two rallies. To me, appearance is less than notable advocacy. I'd be inclined to scrap the reference entirely, and thought I was being very indulgent to reword instead of scrap. I'm surprised then to see a reversion of what I did with the edit summary Do a search on Adams and you will find that she has donated time and funds to several gay non-profit organizations. Further clarification can be provided if necessary. What is your problem? Since I'm asked: My problems are that donating time and funds to NPOs seems less than "advocacy", and that the further clarification was just what I had asked for and what could still be, but is not, provided. ¶ I'm very sorry to hear about calls to your cellphone, though. Its number must be hugely more public than mine is, or than I'd ever want mine to be. I hope you're not disturbed any further. -- Hoary 01:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but kana are not letters, they are syllables. The kana form a syllabery. Japanese does not have letters, which are sub-syllable components. Please volountarily revert your reversion. Do you read and speak Japanese? Akihabara 22:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As it happens I do, though I don't see why this should be an issue. You're choosing a restricted meaning of "letter"; I believe that it also has a wider meaning that encompasses members of a syllabary. (The only dictionary I happen to have at hand now has an entry for "letter" that's disappointingly vague about this.) ¶ I've reexamined the edit; the problem was that syllables (which are sounds, not graphemes) were being transliterated, which I understand to mean converted from one writing system to another. ¶ Is what's written true? I'd have guessed that "Tokio" resulted from an aversion to "kyo" as somehow strange and, well, unEnglish; but offhand I have no evidence for this. -- Hoary 23:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the question from my Talk page. Not sure why he posted that. I don't recognize him. Oh, well. =) -- Gogo Dodo 05:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Hoary—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 04:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello. You participated in the Ryūkyū Islands vs. Ryukyu Islands vote that resulted in no consensus at Talk:Ryūkyū Islands. As you are probably aware, that vote is being redone at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Japan-related_articles)#Poll:_.22Ry.C5.ABky.C5.AB.22_instead_of_.22Ryukyu.22. . If you still have an opinion, please participate in the new poll before it is concluded. Bendono 00:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

By my typos? Maybe; I'm surprised there are so many. Should have pasted it into Word and spell-checked. Which were the pompous bits of the date-link proposal? Contend? Tony 08:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a compelling need to create an additional syntax for autoformatting but not linking dates. (Currently, the autoformatting and linking functions are conflated.) Please consider this matter urgently, and if possible make the mark-up for the new decoupled syntax as easy to key in as the current [[linking mark-up]].

The new syntax is conceived not as a replacement but as an alternative, retaining the option to link to a chronological article where useful, and the huge number of date-links already marked up in the project.

There are significant advantages to allowing autoformatted dates to be black rather than blue, where there is consensus to do so in an article. Specifically, reducing the density of blued-out text will:

(1) improve the readability of the text;

(2) improve the aesthetic appearance of the text;

(3) remove low-value chronological links that may lead readers to a pages that are irrelevant to an article;

(4) increase the prominence of valuable links;

(5) reduce the spill-over effect, in which editors feel they should link centuries, decades, and bare years, months and days of the week; and

(6) reduce conflict.

NAMES

Howzat? -- Hoary 08:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As usual, much better than my first version. I've implemented this one, with minor changes. Thanks! Tony 06:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You lost me. Are you seconding Kim's opinion that the block was excessive? If so, can you give me some reasons why you believe this user isn't a troll, and perhaps what you'd do for an alternate remedy? You can see some of my thoughts at User_talk:Kim_Bruning#User:Carl_Timothy_Jones. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm seconding the opinion that the block was premature. I don't believe he isn't a troll; while I don't like some of what I see, I'm not yet convinced that he is a troll. Of course he's not a new user; he's a new incarnation of an older one. Until we know that the older one is banned, being a sock is no reason to ban him. Alternative remedy? Just wait a couple of days or until he edits some more; see what he does, and act on this. Incidentally, his existence came to my notice when I saw that something had happened to Alan Lodge. If nominating this for AfD is trollery, you're going to have to deal pretty stringently with the perp of this edit (but you may wish to consider that he's an editor in excellent standing and that I'd rush to his defense too). -- Hoary 03:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, let's try to keep this discussion at a higher level. I didn't say that the AfD of Alan Lodge was the reason I blocked him, so your "counterexample" is just a strawman, and your use of it isn't very respectful to me. I'm not that cavalier with the broom.

I went for an indef-block because he's an established user, masquerading as a newbie, who is clearly here to either harass another user or violate WP:POINT or perhaps both at once. It is possible (likely?) that he's a sock of a blocked user. Now, it is undeniable that he's targeting User_talk:WietsE; see User_talk:WietsE#Self_promotion for both evidence that there was something personal behind his edits and more evidence that he had familiarity with wikipolicies beyond what any two-day-old Wikipedian would have. He's also arguing quite strenuously in those AfDs, responding to every "keep" comment that I found. Whether this is a WP:POINT violation is debatable; I'm more concerned with him harassing another user through the deletion process. Even if every deletion suggestion is valid, it's still a bad use of a critical Wikipedia procedure, and is something to be discouraged. If it's a sock of a user in good standing, it also likely falls under the forbidden uses of sock puppets (good hand/bad hand). The user in question also seems to have no interest in making productive edits; he made 20-odd edits, all of which were csd, prod, or afd tags.

It's not any one of those things, although I'm troubled by the appearance of harassment. It's *all* of those things together which point to someone who's bent on making trouble here. Now, if someone can give me reasonable doubt on these points, I'm open to an unblock with a short leash. But I just don't see that evidence, and I'm concerned about giving this user a chance to make more mischief. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm in a rush today and I hope that goes some way to explaining any apparent brusqueness in what I write. No, I didn't think you banned him for nominating that one article. He may have done much worse; but even if he didn't his apparent monomania was cause for concern. I'd have asked him questions more forcefully than Kim did. If the editing pattern persisted and good answers weren't forthcoming, I'd have given him a stiff warning. And if that didn't do the trick I'd ban him. I wouldn't drag this process out, but I'd be willing to let it take a couple of days, during which I'd leave a message asking WietsE for patience. Of Jones's "contributions" that I've looked at, those within the Lodge AfD seem the most sustained. His comments within it are lucid and (though perhaps very wrong) apparently reasonable; I think the AfD should have been allowed to proceed, though I wouldn't kick up a fuss about this and I realize that it wasn't you who closed it. -- Hoary 09:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Dmacw6 Good copy-editor, it seems. Tony 11:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, (s)he seems to be doing lots of good work. Some of the articles are on subjects that don't obviously deserve such an abundant application of a scarce resource (editing power), but each to his own. -- Hoary 14:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoary I just dont understand you or your ilk. My problem is I just try to add info as I have limited time and I want to contribute what I can. You just seem to delete info but not just that you add your sarcasm too. That sarcasm Hoary is NOT needed. You really need to learn to nuance. Like a bull in the china shop. Shame.

Example you say on Colvin's page it only shows one pic at Dobbins site but if you had taken another second you may have figured out that art sites are different than other sites and you may have even thought about clicking it and if you would have clicked it you would realize that there is a whole other section that lets you see much more of Colvin's work.

All of these so-called editors and this whole art section with people editing it who know very little about how artists feel or how its handled should not and I repeat should NOT be BULLS in China Shops and shouldn't even try. Artsojourner 04:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's put aside shops and bulls for a moment and look at the example. I didn't say that the Dobbins site only shows one picture; I said that the link shows one picture, assuming that the link meant the page and not the whole site. How was that? Well, I clicked the link and saw a single image in the Javascript popup. At the time I was using a different browser than I'm using now, and I speculate that either something hid the scrollbar or that I was too sleepy to notice the scrollbar. That's why I misdescribed the link. I've corrected this now. I'm sorry if I have made any other mistakes; if I have done so, please let me know. (Meanwhile, I don't see any sarcasm.) -- Hoary 07:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you THANK you!!!!!!!! Artsojourner 19:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, heh heh, that was quite a change of mood. I'm glad to have been of some help.

Notes ("references") are simple once you've figured them out. Within the body of the text:

This is an assertion.<ref>This is where its veracity can be checked.</ref>

Somewhere near the foot of the article, a single instance (probably under the subheading "Notes") of:

<references />

One warning note: If during revision you do something like forgetting to provide a needed </ref>, you can screw up the resulting article very seriously indeed. (I speak from embarrassing first-hand experience.) So if you're doing a lot of work on notes, it's better to hit the "Show preview" button after you think each note is done. -- Hoary 06:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I really feel that after looking over many many artists articles that I can safely say this works now. What do you think since I reworked a large part of it? Artintegrated 04:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The Lee Isaacs article is certainly a lot better written now, but Isaacs' claim for notability still isn't clear. He's been a commercial photographer with many notable clients -- but there's no independent verification of this. I suppose verifiably, he has tried various interesting things and he has been a participant in various interesting and worthy activities. But which of these criteria does he meet? -- Hoary 07:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Isaacs is my vote. This photographer is quite notable. Editor Hoary decided long ago he didn't want Isaacs' on WP for whatever reason. We both obviously see, along with others, that Isaacs work is as notable as half of the photographers on WP whether its art photography and/or commercial photography. I fleshed out alot of this article but I do understand to google Lee Isaacs is not easy since alot of people have his first and last name as a middle name and last name. I have a book here, UPsouth, that has many examples of his work. This is a Warhol project grant through Space One Eleven. He is in good company as far as the notoriety of the other artists here is concerned. Emma Amos and bell hooks are in the book along with Willie Cole and Marie Weaver. Cole is the only other male in this project. Maybe someone could sift through some of this. Artsojourner 05:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Whats going on here? Please help

On a recent article I want to include on Pinky Bass, the Pinhole photographer this is what happened. I dod put the hang on at the top and was deleted almost immediately. This guys seems to do this alot after reading others logs about him. what gives? Please let me know what to do now. the article log is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NawlinWiki#Pinky_Bass Artsojourner 18:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

In the form (17:39 17 December) in which it was deleted (17:40 17 December), the article read in full:

{{Hang on}} creating a page for Pinky Bass takes some time Lots of info please be patient.

The article thus said nothing whatever about Pinky Bass. Nawlinwiki was entirely right to delete it without any warning; I'd have done exactly the same.

You seem to have misunderstood the use of the "Hangon" template. You add this to an article after somebody has added a speedy deletion notice, not in an attempt to dissuade anyone from adding a speedy deletion notice.

If you really have lots of information with which to create an article about somebody, and if creating the article will take some time, then the course of action is obvious: spend that time writing a draft either in a file editor on your computer or in a subpage of your own user page. When the draft has reached a state in which it is informative and would not be deleted, use it to start an article -- but not before. -- Hoary 22:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. So my best bet is to do this in another program like Appleworks then drag it over That way I dont have to freak out about the time it is taking me to show info about the article. I get it! Thanks man, Artsojourner 07:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I looked up the book and you are correct in that is is only one page Also, thank you so much for your help in wording these things I have lots of info but I'm not very good at inputting it sometimes. Thanks very much indeed It reads so much clearer now. Artsojourner 20:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually he photographed cities and such but what would you call this??? So much of his earlier work was just photography in the feel of Paul Strand or even Elliott Erwitt. He is noted for his most famous piece but it seems atypical of the overall body of his work so I am not clear as to which should be listed. I could add more areas I will look up more info.

When I had questions about these areas I didn't add anything. I figured it was better to be settled about it than to get it incorrect. Thanks Hoary Artsojourner 01:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoary I am afraid that it is so. Ruth is gone. I called Mary Ann this mornng and didn't get an answer but my fears were realized once I got an article from the San Francisco Chronicle.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/19/BAG8JN28GN1.DTL&hw=ruth+bernhard&sn=001&sc=1000

Sad sad day. Artsojourner 15:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the informative link. I guessed that it was indeed true that she had died, but there was always the possibility of a hoax and I therefore felt compelled to revert any claim that she had died until evidence for this was offered.

I've only examined one book of Bernhard's, the rather surprising one The Big Heart. Viewed coldly, it's really not so very special -- but I like it a lot and rather often look through the copy I bought about five years ago. -- Hoary 15:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"The Eternal Body" is my favorite. I talked with Mary Ann Helmholtz and she said Ruth died in her sleep I worry about May Ann though She had a heart attack last April and all this trauma cant be good for her. I agree with you about the revert until all the stones are unturned it should not be listed Artsojourner 19:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Tere tulemast.

Thank you for your comments on my talk page. I have thought about your advice and I don't currently plan to intervene or "speak up" about the article on Nick Adams, or the Presley article. It is my understanding that the user I was speaking of is unable to currently edit celebrity biographies. Also, after looking at some of his/her contributuions, it seems as though I will getting a very large head ache if I try.

I am glad to see you have interest in Estonian photographers and filmmakers such as Johannes Pääsuke - he is very important artist for Estonian people. Unfortunately, I am not very good with the subject of photography. However, since you seem to be very interested and good with the subject, a few other Estonian photographers you may wish to look into are: Peeter Tooming, Jaan Riet and his daughter Hilja Riet, Kalju Suur, Peeter-Maria Laurits, Herkki-Erich Merila, Marko Laimre, and of course Carl Sarap. While I maybe able to help with some biographical information, I do not know much about the techiniques of fotography. Proosit ExRat 01:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's agree to forget about Presley. At least in the short term, the Presley article will probably have to rot. I hope that other people will eventually arrive at the article, cut the trivia (sleazy and other) and contribute good material. If they don't, well, there are other information sources about Presley.

I know very little about photography in Estonia and among the names you mention for the first time the only one I know is Tooming. I find that his work ranges from the worthwhile and enjoyable to the gimmicky and dated, but perhaps I haven't seen the best selection. Sarap documented Narva, whose history and destruction should be much better known.

I came across Pääsuke by accident: the fascinating book of his photos was on offer in the little souvenir shop at the entrance to the Estonian National Museum (Tartu). We went to Tartu (from Tallinn) by the unfairly maligned railway; I was very impressed by the half-ruined Tartu station, which I hope can be restored. (If there's a restoration appeal, I'd like to know about it: I'd make a contribution.) -- Hoary 09:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Another one awaiting your discerning eye.... Pinkville 23:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work! -- Hoary 23:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Why, thank you! Any improvements you can make would be most greatfully received! Pinkville 00:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

If I may adopt a charming phrase I read yesterday in a "position vacant" ad posted by a university, my efforts will commiserate with the quality of the article. However, they'll have to wait a couple of days. (I blame an accumulation of [distinctly festivity-unrelated] disasters in the "real world".) -- Hoary 02:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm only just surfacing after/from under an accumulation of [distinctly festivity-unrelated] disasters in the "real world". Currently much enjoying the music of Mahmoud Ahmed, Baaba Maal, and Fela Kuti... lubricated with one or two bottles of organic red... The disasters seem to have faded for the time being. I look forward to the results of your exertions, re: Farsari. All the best. Pinkville 02:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Splendid, splendid, you're surfacing. Right, now forget any silly notion you may have of doing Christmas shopping (it's painful, plus you never really know what she wants) and instead be a good chap and give a little nudge to one of these. (My efforts toward Farsari will commiserate!) ¶ Yikes, have you seen which notable artiste has been selected for special display here? -- Hoary 03:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's just swell! Then again, 5930 Wikipedia contributions is presumably notable... ¶ Meanwhile, these short-term priorities are currently beyond me! I'm proficient at creating lists of things to do and then doing something else entirely. ¶ I have no more money for Xmas shopping anyway! Pinkville 04:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Oi, young whippersnapper, that's my pilcrow you're using! -- Old whippersnapper

*cocks a snook* Youthful (he dreams) upstart

are splendid! Thank you for macrons, tidying, concising and otherwise improving the beast! Incidentally, I started the article in a version of Word that doesn't support macrons or Japanese text, so I'm always having to add manually one by one while editing in WP... Very tedious and prone to oversight (and not in the peculiarly US governmental misleading sense). Pinkville 18:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hang on, are you saying that you (clearly an intelligent, discerning adult) are a voluntary user of Microsoft Turd? -- Hoary 00:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

By no means. Said turd was the standard at work... At home, I'm a Mac sort - but sadly, I have yet to find a decent word processing programme (Appleworks is... like working in soft clay with a blunt stylus) that produces documents that can also be opened by Microsoft Turd and other users (voluntary or not). Pinkville 02:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

NeoOffice is such a sedulous imitator of Turd that people who like the latter ought to like it, while I loathe it. But at least it's "open" and free of charge. It reads .DOC files and, if you want it to, writes to them as well. -- Hoary 04:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I know you as a helpful and skilled prose editor and was wondering if you would look at this FAC. It is now 2nd from bottom of the list and while it has had much improvement done to it during the FAC, it may still benefit from some prose editing, which seems to be the biggest concern before. Thank you for any help and Merry Christmas! Sumoeagle179 18:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahem! I think I should reveal at this point that shortly after joining the boy scouts my very much younger self was . . . not thrown out, exactly, but strongly advised to leave: an offer that I gratefully accepted. You may wish to reconsider your amicable invitation. . . . Hoary 23:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, okay, I take it you mean you may not be able to be impartial; in such a case, thank you for your honesty candor. Have a nice holiday season. Sumoeagle179 01:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a reasonable interpretation, yes; though it's not quite what I intended. I really don't think I'm the best person for the job. Still, I've given the article a look and have made some changes. (Note some comments and questions in <!-- SGML comments -->.) Best of luck with the article. -- Hoary 05:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Great, that's just the help I was looking for. I answered your questions. Thanks.Sumoeagle179 12:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I had reverted that edit three times (WP:3RR) and the user kept adding it back. I had previously stated it was conjecture on the two prior edits. I was trying to be diplomatic with an obviously new user. Having reached my three revert limit, I assumed (correctly) that someone else would see the information was worthless and edit it out. Please use a little more tact when criticizing the edit comments (and assumed motives) of others. ++ Arx Fortis 15:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Your recent post regarding perceived personal attacks and faux fear of blocking was totally inappropiate. It served in no way to cool the heat in the situation, and there can be little question that "I never talk behind people's backs - a concept I don't expect you to understand." is clearly a personall attack. I'd ask that you consider more carefully before posting similar in the future. - brenneman 23:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You just blocked him for 15 minutes. From a quick check of contribs, there are major personal attacks against established editors. See for example. I would say that a longer block is warranted (like 48 hours at least). We can't tolerate personal attacks. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree and am right now writing the message that will accompany this longer block. -- Hoary 00:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In this edit, User:Artsojourner plonked the following on User talk:TheMindsEye. I think it was supposed to go here. -- Hoary 06:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Geez! Hoary some of your edits and explanations seem so callous. Southern artists are different enough to have their own category I assure you just as southern writers should have their own category. Southwestern artists are in the same boat as they, too, are quite different from the rest of the country. What does this hurt if they have their own categories?

In just a day of recent edits, I find that you, instead of getting to the root of a problem or situation, had rather just delete it all rather than deal with it. I feel that this is a breach of respect for the other editors on here. You tend to overreach and have said in some of your edits that you dont have the time to bother. What does this mean? This seems pointless and ill conceived for you to waste all of this time if you dont wanna bother. In fact, you seem to have this idea that you know more about editing than anyone else on here. Anyone can just delete something. Deleting something is not the same as editing since deleting doesn't need any thought. Other editors spend their time building an article and adding pertinent information to include in these articles. You dont seem to respect your work on here as many of your comments seem pointless and harsh with no feeling other than disdain for what you are doing or bothering to do. It just leaves otehr editors frustrated and aggravated.

I dont claim to be any kind of editor at all since all I do is try to include information. If you dont like what you are doing then just dont do it because wasting other people's time and energy is bad Karma and how can anything good come from bad Karma, definitely a deal breaker for me. Artsojourner 06:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You're surely referring to my "depopulation" of Category:Southern artists: I mean, for every artist who was marked with this category, I removed the category.

The reason was simple. For every state of the US, I think, there exists "Category: [state] artists"; and certainly for every one of the artists whose articles I fiddled with, there was one or more of Category:Louisiana artists or whatever. For convenience's sake, let's stick with female artists from Louisiana. If somebody is so notably a Louisiana artist as to deserve to be so categorized, she's also automatically a Southern artist.

(I suppose I could imagine an artist who never stepped out of the Pacific northwest -- or indeed the Netherlands or Karelia or wherever -- but who yet was claimed to have a "Southern sensibility". But I saw no such claim made for anybody there.)

Thus Category:Southern artists seems utterly superfluous.

I don't think there's much point in discussing any other contributor/editor's attribution of motives and predilections to me, so I shan't respond. (If you're that dissatisfied or otherwise concerned, there are channels by which you can complain about me to Wikipedia in general.) However, I'm happy to clarify anything that's not clear in what's written above, and I'm open to an argument for how I'm wrong and Category:Southern artists is not rendered superfluous by Category:Louisiana artists and the rest. -- Hoary 07:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dare I say it, but I'm surprisingly, well, surprised, at the redirect you just made. You made me "LOL", good job. User:Logical2u_Talk 01:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't my own idea, as WP:WOW was already redirecting there (until our visiting ten-year-old temporarily changed it). Thanks for the fast zapping of the nitwit's user page and the fast banning. -- Hoary 01:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was talking about the LTA:WOW subpage redirect, (I've done some work on the WP:WOW page before last night), which now redirects to the same page WP:WOW does(And is protected)... I didn't actually ban him, however... I'm not (maybe 'yet' goes here) an administrator. User:Logical2u_Talk 23:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You mentioned on the talk page for Lee Isaacs that you were considering sending the article to AfD. I thought you would want to know that another editor has already done so. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Isaacs. Eastmain 21:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Isaacs is my vote. Artsojourner 05:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added a very wee bit more, do you think this one's ready for FAC treatment? Pinkville 23:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It soon will be. I'll print it out, go over it with a fine-toothed ferret, and let you know the worst. -- Hoary 01:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I love the fine-thoothed ferret! I'm at the point where I've looked at the article so much I can no longer see wht's there (or not there). Thanks. Pinkville 02:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it is nonsense like that - and the behavior of its proponents - that make me wonder why I spend so much time here. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The AfD process is semi-broken; it works for clearcut cases, but most cases where there's a real debate end up as "no consensus" because that's the path of least resistance. Any AfD in particular that I should look at? Especially if there's one that needs closing. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I see you have deleted many quotes by critics and curators in the past and now here because, as you state, you dont understand them. If they hold up to a galleries guidelines and criteria then they can and should be used as quotes here on WP. these quotes are usually cited so they can be referenced. Because you dont understand the quotes doesn't mean many others will feel the same way Hoary. This seems to be a limitation you have and in my opinion this is yet another reason that you should leave the art section alone. You go at it like a bull in a china shoppe. Your comments toward many artiists are gross and unrefined and I would expect more from someone editing articles about art. Your comments here are noted by alot of art peole I think you should care more and at least nuance your comments or keep them to yourself. Artsojourner 16:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's precisely what I deleted:

About Scruggs' work, Jon Coffelt has said, "Virginia Scruggs' shapes become a reflection and an inflection of our own reality. Ever-changing, these bubble-works expand what we understand on the surface by reflecting information back to us in a convex form. Upside-down and backwards, we rethink the lines of the known boundaries of expression." [http://www.schedlerminchin.com/events.asp?ac=ind&event=793 -Jon Coffelt] <!-- Note: this link does not contain the quote, please add the correct reference or remove the quote -->

Does it add to our understanding of Scruggs? I'll let other visitors to this page judge for themselves.

You say: Your comments toward many artiists are gross and unrefined: Examples? -- Hoary 16:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And you said:

• 15:55, 29 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Dorian Gray (→References In music - Yes, it was crap. Trivia, coat-tails riding, promotion, etc.)
• 15:58, 27 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Jimbo Wales (Rvt removal. The material does seem rather senseless (it's certainly incoherent and parts of it look batty), but "rant" may be a bit strong.)
• 15:09, 23 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m Adolfo Farsari (→Farsari and Yokohama shashin - removing SGML comments, now that it's all hunky-dory)
• 09:46, 23 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m Kevin Ayers (→External links - skipping wasteful, modem-unfriendly opening page)
• 04:08, 23 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Hoary (→Your Farsari edits... - MS Turd: Just say no.)
• 06:14, 17 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a (→Sentences - That may have been pretentious terminology at its worst!)
• 06:05, 17 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a (→Sentences - Photo caption: not grammar but orthography at its worst (see the earlier talk page discussion))
• 03:48, 14 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a (→em dashes - More bile!)
• 06:15, 12 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m Graham Greene (rvt to state before latest goofy addition)
• 06:16, 12 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:75.20.212.217 (a warning about silly additions)
• 02:11, 14 November 2004 (hist) (diff) m Milton Glaser (I've made this slightly less terrible. But it's still terrible.)
• 21:57, 16 November 2004 (hist) (diff) CMP Media (Either vanity or copyvio; why should we waste our time finding which it is of the two?)
• 01:44, 17 November 2004 (hist) (diff) CMP Media (Removed the self-congratulation from what had merely been advertising puff for the company.)
• 01:56, 17 November 2004 (hist) (diff) Talk:CMP Media (My dislike of the page I've just re-created. (Well, I loathed its predecessor, so perhaps it's an improvement.))
• 21:14, 26 November 2004 (hist) (diff) Dandelion Records (a perfunctory start)
• 04:48, 4 December 2004 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dr. Alien! (Delete this trollery)
• 10:35, 7 December 2004 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sollog (Correction: Ennis is mentioned by NYT and WP, but only as a flake)
• 05:23, 9 December 2004 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gogo (Final Fantasy VI) (Gogo (Final Fantasy VI) redundant fancruft)
• 05:39, 12 December 2004 (hist) (diff) Talk:Sollog (→Status as deity - godliness revisited)
• 06:30, 10 January 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 10 (Scatolinguistics superfluous core, unencyclopedic baggage)
• 06:48, 18 December 2004 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Glenn Kessler (Glenn Kessler -- delete as fancruft (if even that))
• 07:04, 18 December 2004 (hist) (diff) Talk:Sollog (→TOH logo - Removed by probable sockpuppet "Xwatcher")
• 03:09, 3 January 2005 (hist) (diff) A Child's Garden of Verses (very feeble rescue from a cretinous start)
• 06:52, 4 January 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Hoary (Reverting again. Bye bye, nitwit)
• 07:02, 4 January 2005 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Hoary (more cretinousness deleted)
• 00:47, 5 January 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:172.131.211.87 (Yet another IP number used by the same bored troll.)
• 04:45, 5 January 2005 (hist) (diff) m User:Jpgordon (rv after moronic change by 172.208.143.168)
• 07:11, 6 January 2005 (hist) (diff) m Sollog (rv. Anonymous AOL nitwit and Ennis -- a match made in heaven?
• 06:42, 14 February 2005 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin mercer (→Benjamin mercer - removing my own gratuitous rudeness)
• Non-entity's vanity page. Thank you for wasting our time. -- Hoary 05:03, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
• 07:55, 13 February 2005 (hist) (diff) The Man Who Had All the Luck (made it a bit clearer; removed gushing praise for Fields)
• 07:55, 12 February 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 February 12 (Robert Fairweather -- the vanity page that refuses to die)

and there are hundreds more. Artsojourner 17:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

On that note... Hoary, I thought you should know that Artsojourner posted a message (partially concerning you directly) on my talk page, and that I've responded there. Pinkville 19:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a very long and careful response; I'm sorry that it must have taken a lot of your time away from much worthier activities, e.g. Adolfo Farsari or for that matter "real life". And you paint me as altogether much too amiable. (Consider me as a dalek; the inner me is the dalek creature.) But many thanks all the same. -- Hoary 00:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I was only afraid that by putting my oar in I might catch a crab. I've been pondering this situation for a week or two anyway. Pinkville 01:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if you're a dalek (hardly so hideous), you at least operate by a code we (wikifolk) hold in common. Pinkville 01:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What an extraordinary list. Er, where among it are comments toward many artiists [that] are gross and unrefined, or what other point are you making? -- Hoary 23:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC) .... PS Ah, I think you're saying that comments I make within edit summaries might in other contexts (and possibly even within the original contexts) offend some people. Yes, right. But I'm hard pressed to find comments about (or toward) artists among them. I do reserve the right to make very testy comments about the WP activities by or on behalf of people who deserve such comments; such people may regard themselves as artists (an example is the Robert Fairweather whom you bring up at the end), and they may even be artists, though I can't think of any examples now. I don't regard the activities on behalf of Isaacs as comparable with those on behalf of Fairweather, and I can't remember ever saying (or thinking) anything disrespectful of Isaacs. -- Hoary 00:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As for the narrow issue of my removal of the quote, it's better discussed on the article's talk page, where indeed TheMindsEye has already commented on it. -- Hoary 00:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Hoary. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

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

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

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

You're discussing this AfD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<s>text to be struck</s>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi

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

Sorry, just new and still learning.

Take Care. Mick

Mick4839 13:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, I've gone through it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/African American Vernacular English, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm also listed in this request, and I just wanted to see what the rest of you think before I decide either way. It seems pretty soon after the RFC to go to mediation, but I don't see how the mediator could do any harm, and maybe he'll convince Wikidudeman to give up on the article. What do you think? Makerowner 04:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I dunno. It seems extraordinarily hard to persuade the Dude Man to do even simple things, like read a single worthwhile book on the subject. Really, I think he's grasping for procedural straws. Of course, he has the right to do so, but I've come to resent the amount of my time that he's wasting and I bet I'm not alone in this. I'd feel sorry for any "mediator", too. Let me sleep on it. -- Hoary 04:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

While I suspect that wdm will not accept anything a mediator says that goes against his preexisting biases, if this occurs we may be able to then take administrative action against him personally. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If you think i'm wasting your time then Perhaps you should give up your POV attitude towards this article and allow me to put some criticism of AAVE from cosby and others into the article. It's not too soon after the RFC to do this. Numeorus people (some in support of me) have commented on the AAVE talk page from the RFC. I'm not 'grasping at straws' I'm taking the next logical procedure after yourself and others have violated the 3rr when I tried adding the cosby quotes. You're unwilling to make any compromise so I am forced to seek mediation. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

aeusoes1, I would say that sounds almost like a threat. "take admin action against me personally"? Oh yes...You make personal threats towards me and all I do is try to add NPOV to an article and you are pretentious enough to think I should have Admin action taken against me? You might want to update yourself on Wikipedia policy.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude man, you may be trying to add NPOV to articles, but in the opinion of others you're merely trying to add crap to them. What do you mean by "pretentious"? (Do you perhaps mean "presumptuous"? Do please get your beloved polysyllabic words straight.) -- Hoary 02:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You have your own biases and think what Bill Cosby says is "crap". However preventing anyone from adding what he says to the article based on your own biases is against wikipedia policy. That article has no mention of criticism of the use of Ebonics even though criticism is vast. You need to keep your biases out of articles. Period. As far as "Pretentious" goes the definition of the word is "Claiming or demanding a position of distinction or merit, especially when unjustified."Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No, Dude Man, I have mastered the elements of linguistics (a closed book to you, it seems) and I know that what Cosby says is "crap". I have also tersely demonstrated the fact that what he says is crap, guessing at what I know know for a fact: That you have no interest in reading extended expository writing and would thus have to be given something short. ¶ How has our fɻɛ̃ⁿd claimed or demanded a position of distinction or merit (justified or otherwise)? No, don't answer: you'll only tie yourself into further knots. But please devote a couple of minutes of your valuable time to this suggestion: There's nothing stupid or dishonorable about choosing the wrong word, or misspelling. (I certainly hope there isn't, as I do it myself.) But once you start disparaging the linguistic abilities of other people -- especially if you do so gratuitously and ignorantly -- you draw attention to your own verbal skills and you invite similar comments to those that you have chosen to make yourself. For a good little essay on language-related ignorance and hypocrisy, you can hardly do better than this page: it will be little more than a screenful, and it should be understandable for anybody with the intellect of an adult who has English as their first language. -- Hoary 03:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, You've "mastered the elements of linguistics" well folks, I'm in the presence of a 'master'. How lucky I must be! You have not demonstrated what Cosby says is 'crap'. All you did was dissect what he said and make absurd comments about his sentences without even commenting on his actual point. For my use of 'pretentious' I was well justified in doing so. aeusoes1 made the assertion that he might try to "take administrative action against me". This is being pretentious because he is assuming he is in a position to do so when he's the only one breaking the rules. I didn't choose the wrong word. So let me say this..There's nothing stupid or dishonorable about falsely criticizing someone for using a word in the wrong context when they didn't, especially when you claim to have 'mastered the elements of linguistics'.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude Man, you're most insistent on "mediation", so I don't want to disappoint you. I wish the mediator well in his or her attempt to converse with you. (I'd recommend short and syntactically simple sentences, and simple vocabulary.) -- Hoary 04:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You've given up I can only assume because you've become tired of me refuting your posts. You were wrong in criticizing me for my use of 'pretentious' and you know it and now you're backing down. As you say yourself, there's nothing wrong with admitting you're wrong.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all, Dude Man. Now go away before you make yourself look even more ridiculous. -- Hoary 04:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the good advice Hoary, I'll bear it in mind if ever I'm struck by some kind of affliction that makes admining look attractive - is there an admin-only bar? Discount magnums of champers quaffed by battle hardened admins as R&R reward for battling vandalism??? (quaff is my current word of the week - Thinking it was just a tabloid word for drinking, as in - "They quaffed bollinger in their love nest", it turns out that the quaff is actually the name of the metal thing that holds the cork in. Hence quaffing, 'the removal of quaffs', but I'm sure this is all common knowledge in the Admin bar. :-) thanks again and take care. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You're pretty close, Mcginnly, but actually this admin generally quaffs Krug. Of course the same old Krug day in, day out gets a bit monotonous, so when I'm in a musical mood and need a spring in my step, I take something a wee bit stronger -- "a drink-drink", as you might say (Jackendoff, Foundations of Language, 162). Thank you for the noun quaff, though; my own word o' th' week is cabbage to mean US banknotes.-- Hoary

G'day and thank you for your work on the IBC article and cleaning up my messy references. I need to learn how to do those properly. Anyway, thanks for the janitorial work. It is essential but often under-rated. With best wishes, Maustrauser 13:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. I vaguely remember having a good laugh over the "exclusive invitation" in which IBC offered to list my obscure self in its grandly described publication. One warning, though. I see that you've put this outfit in Category:Fraud. Is it fraudulent, or does it merely depend on people's vanity and silliness? Might it take offense at the label of "fraud" or even decide that this label was actionable? -- Hoary 01:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I was offered Man of the Year. My wife laughed heartily at this joke! Yes, I've pondered long and hard over whether to use the category fraud. I used it for American Biographical Institute and I upset a few people. But I have done so because looking at how some people use IBC and ABI 'awards' in their resumes and CVs seems to me to amount to fraud. They are trying to deceive people in thinking that they have wide recognition for their work by an influential institution. I note that non-English speakers use their awards often and are also cited in the media for their awards. So I think it is more than vanity. Appreciate your advice on this. Maustrauser 06:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a sad joke. That said, you're now accusing people other than IBC of making fraudulent use of this stupidity. Clearly its manufacturer bears some degree of responsibility, just as a gun manufacturer can hardly claim after yet another homicide that its products were just intended for target practice. Still, the article is primarily about the outfit that runs this racket: the seller, not the buyers. I admit that WP is not the most reliable source on criminology, but the Fraud article does start: In the broadest sense, a fraud is a deception made for personal gain. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and is also a civil law violation. It seems to me that your categorization of IBC as "Fraud" could easily be taken to imply that IBC has been found guilty of a criminal offense. Has it? -- Hoary 10:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your views. I have no evidence that it has been found guilty of a criminal offence but it has been investigated by Consumer Affairs bodies. I might delete the fraud category and simply leave it as a confidence trick. Maustrauser 11:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Warning flags not neccesary anymore. Changes are made, references are done. Please check out article. Thanks a lot.Armilos 13:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your rephrasing on the talk was hilarious, and it should dispel all WP:SYNT worries ;) --Merzul 23:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about any feelings rubbed the wrong way. Ive taken on a few cases at once and as such am sort of jumping past the various points of view and simply stating my interpretation of policy -typically just NPOV - in a way thats rational and clear. Im sorry that it seems ive come down hard on your position, but given a choice between m:exclusionism and m:inclusionism I generally go with the latter. Moreso if the exclusionistic view appears motivated by an opinion rather than an appeal to making the article more NPOV. Anyway, Ill see you over on talk:AAVE. -Ste|vertigo 02:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"To be a good mediator you must be a good listener." Im reading what I can. Of those six mediations, only a couple have subtle arguments which require some discussion. If we can limit our discussion to the matters presented in the article, rather than get into issues of whether Im somehow unfit to mediate, then we can make some progress. Again, Im sorry if what I have said so far has upset you - I felt it best to state my own views out front, and let people respond with their best points. You make some valid points, and as such I am considering my position. I hope you are also considering the points I have made. Regards -Ste|vertigo 07:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You really like to push Assume Good Faith to the limit, don't you. I can't see anything wrong with the copyright status of this image as uploaded, cited and justified by Hoary and I dare say I know a little bit more about photographs and copyright than you. Stop wasting people's time. Pinkville 20:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop attempting to impede the quest for truthiness, Pinkville! Uh, I mean, let's move the discussion to Image talk:Stoskus-sf.jpg. Thank you. -- Hoary 01:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I head for the appropriate page, properly chastened... :~) Pinkville 03:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

To break the... irritation. I just came across this ancient edit you made, and I can't think why you wanted to delete such a fine article as this was on 1 May 2005! The kicker is that the subject of the article is a good friend of mine from way back! :~) Ah well, back to the trenches. Pinkville 02:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

PS I haven't forgotten The Turk, whom I believe is very close to being vaulted into the ranks of the Olympians (if he doesn't object, due to age-old rivalries). I want to look at it again with closer attention and then I'll get back to you. Also, I've got "my" library back! A new contract (working on this cat - with a much-improved remuneration! Pinkville 02:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, how's your email situation? I responded (without much hope) to yours yesterday, but just got the friendly Mailer-Daemon reply... Pinkville 03:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

SNAFU. I do have a working address (well, it was working yesterday), though, and I've just informed you of this via the "email this user" thingie. Congratulations on the job! -- Hoary 03:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Double helpings of thank you! Pinkville 13:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I was kidding. :-P Nishkid64 17:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I don't have much else to contribute to the site, but I enjoy helping out by cleaning up vandalism. However, I see what you mean about spending too much time doing so, so I'm going to lay off a bit. Thanks for your help and have a good weekend! --Ann Stouter 04:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

While I didn't want to emphasize this, I don't intend the tabling to be permanent (I believe the word "table" means simply putting off discussion for the time being). Currently, the discussion is going around in circles at a rapid rate and I don't see any harm in taking a break from it, especially if we can use that time to gather resources to cite. In addition, we editors can still use our user talk pages to discuss the matter. If you don't want someone in your talk page, just ignore them. Perhaps I should have been more specific and said "table the discussion of Cosby." That's where the real tension lies anyway. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You're doing great work there. Thank you. If you're ever bored could you take a look at Race and intelligence I've been fighting an uphill battle to add more balenced information there and it could really use some outsid eyes. Thanks! futurebird 22:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked this.

I don't know what it is about nitwits that draws them to write rubbish about African Americans on WP. As I look through some of this stuff, my opinion about the depths to which the "intellect" can sink are revised downward. Since language is something about which I know at least as much as average people, I've been intermittently keeping an eye on AAVE. Things have now quietened down there, but I don't kid myself that this will last. Perhaps I'll be proved wrong and it will last; if so, when I've recovered from all the time I wasted at AAVE I'll take a look at "Race and intelligence" (whose very title I find depressing). -- Hoary 09:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Would you mind trimming or removing your recent comments on Essjay's page? I'd like to remove the inflammatory language, and your comments echo some of the bits I just removed. Thanks, William Pietri 08:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd accept that invitation in the genial spirit with which it was made; however, you shouldn't be removing other stuff in view of this prominent instruction at the top: Do not, under any circumstances, remove posts from this page without my permission. Non-vandalism posts, regardless of merit, should not be removed or reverted; anyone observing the removal of information from this page by anyone other than myself should blanket revert on sight. Not that I intend to revert your removal, but I couldn't argue with somebody else who did do so. -- Hoary 09:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I wrestled with that. I made sure to leave the post, and as much substance as I could find in it. I don't want to suppress information, but so many people are on edge about this that I don't want trolls starting content-free arguments. William Pietri 09:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

OK; I have redacted every naughty word. There was only one, actually: the simple (monosyllabic), well-established word -- oops, no, mustn't say it. -- Hoary 09:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate that! And I think you know this, but I'm perfectly ok with obcenities here. It's only incivility that worries me. And I recognize you were being completely civil; I just didn't want some overwrought person seeing what you wrote and getting the wrong idea. Thanks again, William Pietri 09:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they really were (are?) working themselves into a tizzy. The particular person to whom I was responding looks like a mere troll or chronic malcontent; but extremes like that aside, I'm amazed by all the excitement. SJ did something stupid and then bad; I suppose he should apologize or resign his janitorial posts or both. OK, so give him 48 hours; the sky won't fall in the meantime. But perhaps my problem is that I don't have a telly and therefore haven't had my brain fried by CNN (all talk, all repetition, all the time). -- Hoary 10:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Hoary,

Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency in the "References" section for the Ohio Wesleyan University article. I believe I took whatever was the actual title as it was written on the inside page. I fixed the inconsistency. Thank you, once again, for pointing that out! LaSaltarella 18:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to have been of some very minor help. -- Hoary 23:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support on my RfA. It passed with 55/0/0. I'll try my best to be worthy of the trust the community has put in me. If there are any of my actions you have a problem with or a question about, please feel free to discuss this with me and if needed to revert me. If there is anything else I can help you with (backlogs, comments, ...), you can always contact me on my talk page. Fram 14:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely it's nearly time for FAC! It's looking very good indeed. Pinkville 14:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but no. As you may have noticed, I've been busily ironing out oddities within it. However, I already know of more oddities within it that I just haven't got around to yet. And there are more peacefully black words and phrases that I am going to turn into nasty redlinks and only later blue out. At that point, the details may all be fixed -- except that I've heard rumors that at least one more book will probably be out by then. (His publishability shot up in 2003; I don't know about sales and royalties, but publishers seem to want to keep on trying.) So more writing up, more loose ends, more loose-end tying. And then what? I think the result will be a detailed article that tells us a lot of what we really don't need to know, but doesn't tell us why his photos are better or more interesting than others' photographs. Even when writing for entirely different purposes, I have enormous difficulty explaining this kind of thing to my own satisfaction; when I worry about people wandering around with big sticks labeled "NPoV" it gets even harder. The simple way is to summarize others' PoV and attribute these to them; I can do a little of that, but what little critical commentary I've seen I omitted to photocopy and also most of it is by people whose names mean little or nothing to most people here (including myself). ¶ Contrast that with Kimura; a wonderful little book on his work published this year has essays by Araki, Takanashi, Kuwabara, and at least three other photographers I can't be bothered to list. Not that Kimura doesn't deserve all the adulation. ¶ Incidentally, there's something of a Kikai/Takanashi contest right now: unintentional, I'm sure, but each has a book out of rather incongruous Tokyo exteriors. Kikai's photos are of course square and monochrome (and dark), Takanashi's are oblong and Martin Parr–style color; their interests and sensibilities are different and on balance I prefer Kikai's, but Takanashi's work is very good, a rebound from his last one or two books and not at all what I'd expect from a seventy-year-old. ¶ Another thing: I wonder if the idea of a model FA isn't solidifying into something that I neither like nor want: see the near-consensus on Ohio Wesleyan University and my comments on that article, and consider the gulf between them and me. -- Hoary 15:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

PS "them" now even includes Giano. Clearly it's me who's out of line. ¶ How about you, BDJ and I get stuck into faccing this dude? -- Hoary 15:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Eew. That OWU situation is very telling. When I put Beato up for FA there was no mention of inline citations - the references were (are) copious and easy enough to follow, I believe (I've been very slowly adding the citations anyway, because:) but the article was later briefly waved over the fire of FA demotion for not having inline citations (though only a particularly vivid imagination could conjur an image of heated controversy over the life details of such an obscure historical figure...). Well, inline citations are simply a lazy editor's way of judging the value of an article. What have I seen in FAC comments? Mostly obsessions with inline citations, punctuation styles, red-linked text, and jingoism. Much less in the way of real analysis of writing style and content. paragraph thingeeWhat we should do, really, is create a simple collaborative website to present decent articles - particularly on subjects that are seldom covered - or only covered superficially. Rather than a wiki or an editorial board, a collective (that anyone serious can join) that administers the site. Subject matter needn't be confined to one field - the site could be a curio shop of photography, art, politics... and certainly anime and computer games.

Meanwhile... Earlier today I had a look at Mr. Brown, esq. and I would definitely be interested in joining the fray. I know of the Misunderstood and know nothing of RS Brown, but I can probably add lots of commas and inline citations.

(Isn't it funny to have such a large body of ill-written, half-baked, misleading and irrelevant articles loaded with footnotes to lend creedance to and "ground" the whole preposterous mess?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pinkville (talk • contribs) 03:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC). the bot got me! at least I provided an edit summary... Pinkville 03:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you seem to take this article's inclusion in wikipedia so personally? All of the issues you cite are classification and Categorization issues and not inclusion issues. you are also boarding on the line of personal attacks with your "built in photoshop comment.", (sorry i had miss read your comment, at my first reading it looked as if you were saying it was built in photoshop, on second reading i can see you said you could believe it was not built in photoshop and believed the book was real) as per definition of published works: What constitutes "published works" is broad and encompasses published works in all forms, including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. photodude 15:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you seem to take this article's inclusion in wikipedia so personally? That's how you perceive it. Why do you perceive it in this way? I don't know. Do I take it personally? Not at all. ¶ If you want to discuss this article that you created about yourself while its deletion is being reviewed, please do so on the "deletion review" page. Thanks. -- Hoary 16:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't intend to discuss the article here...I wanted to discuss your position on the article's inclusion in wikipedia. your opinion seems to be based more on perception rather then the standards of wikipedia. photodude 17:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've done some edits to Mom and Dad and She Shoulda Said No recently to try and see if we can't push them to the next level, but you're much better at the details than me. Mom and Dad is still vexing me due to some of the Babb similarities, but I feel like they're pretty damn close and we work well together. Any input? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I dunno, BDJ. I mean, that stuff's just fiction. Can you dig this groovy cat? Astral, baby. He's for real (er, I think). How about taking him up to FA? Shall we kick out the jams or what? -- Hoary 10:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The eye in the dollar bill seems to be holding me back. Or something. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I like your changes, but fine tuned them to be more generic to creative professions and substituted "significant" in a few cases for continuity with the other paragraphs. I hope that this is OK. --Kevin Murray 02:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the amicable notification, but I have to say that your changes are radical, and to my mind not improvements. I elaborate on the talk page. I hope we can reach agreement on this. -- Hoary 09:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been too long! Do you have any thoughts on this proposal to change the name of this article? Pinkville 01:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Mission accomplished. Not in the Bushian sense, but in the genuine sense. Thanks. Pinkville 13:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it was in the Bushian sense. I should of knowed. Pinkville 17:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems to have been resolved. Which is good, since I know nothing about the incident, the Korean language, or determining consensus when only three people have commented. Jkelly 18:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that yours and my concerns about the FA-status of OWU page were largely trampled over by a legion of self-invested editors (especially as the most recent MIT FAR get shot down for less), but no one ever said Wikipedia was perfect. However, given your experience and apparent objectivity, I would appreciate your comments on my new pet project: United States technological and industrial history. It will be going up for RFF, PR, FAR in the coming months, but there is a despondent lack of other editors or activity despite being on two ostensibly large and active WikiProjects (United States and History of Science).Madcoverboy 20:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Offhand I don't remember what RFF stands for. PR can be good, but only if the article isn't open to obvious objections and if you're lucky. I wouldn't recommend it any time very soon.

This is a long article, and there are clear indications of entire paragraphs yet to be written. I think it needs hard thinking before those paragraphs are added. If the whole article is completed to the point where most of it is already completed, won't it be too long?

Two little points on illustrations:

1. Many American[s] began to associate technology with negative consequences in last half of the 20th century accompanied by a photograph of the trail of a rocket breaking apart. Perhaps this did indeed have that effect (it certainly seemed to have a strong and demoralizing effect), but it's a strange example, the technology destroying itself and its passengers (and a load of chances for funding) but not much else. How about something like the Love Canal?
2. I'm sure Dolly the sheep had a lot of US input, but wasn't she primarily a European creation?

Hoary 06:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

hi, i just want to let you know that i am sorry for the edits i have made to the "spilsby" town page on wikipedia. i kept putting the link to that cycles shop on there, then when i checked back a few days later etc it had vanished. i only kept putting it back on because i thought i must have entered it wrongly. i did'nt know that there were messages for me about it, i have only just clicked on this 'discussions page' and did not know you could talk to other users.

from now on all of my edits will be for the greater good, i have turned over a new leaf, and don't want to upset anyone. i have added a picture i took of the bus stop being built in the town, and a few other links (non-commercial) about the town etc.

i am not up on all this technical stuff, and did'nt mean to make you mad.

many thanks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:C.thompson

Hi Hoary,

I checked Rousham House for the first time in ages today (it was one of the things lost from my watch list when I became a "II") just look what the [mage police have done to all your beautiful photographs - perhaps thay had not just the right tag (I was pretty new then too) but I'm sure I would have put a decent explantion on them I always did - Shit! and double shit! Giano 12:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The photos were, and are, crap. They were taken during my brief flirtation (?) with a nasty digital camera. Some day I'll have to go back with a real camera. (Remember: "It's not the photographer; it's the camera.") But I haven't been within 500km of Britain for about three years and don't have any plan to do so this year either, so I suppose I'll have to recycle the digital stuff there. One of these weeks! -- Hoary 14:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have read the pages about this on wikipedia and I have came to you because you seem to be a person who knows how wikipedia is supposed to work and are most likely 100% neutral on this matter. I am involved in a rather intense edit war with two other editors of the article Miriam Rivera. In the last days the user User:Jokestress has quite reasonably asked for the article to be backed up with more reliable sources. Well I found them and that seems to have placated her. She has acted in 100% reasonable way in all of this. The problem arises in that she has asked in the spirt of resolving the conflict we were having other people who are not 100% neutral it seems to comment on the matter. These being the user User:Longhair and the userUser:Alison in particular who have not bothered to justify anything that they have done. Longhiar being an admin seems to feel no need to discuss anything and I feel is abusing her powers. Is there anything you can do? --Hfarmer 03:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your polite request and expression of trust in my fairness. But I don't know if I'd be fair: I'm neutral in that I'd never heard of the name Miriam Rivera and that when I read about her I was still certain I'd never heard of her. I don't have any preconceptions about her, but I'm afraid I do have preconceptions about a couple of the news sources listed now: that the British tabloids the Sun and the Daily Express don't count as reliable sources for anything. A quick look through the talk page suggests some poor behavior, which I could always complain about; this might even have a salutary effect. -- Hoary 14:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"Surely a couple of baseball players needn't be an impediment to putting thousands of Japanese names in the right order, as opposed to what westerners who know little about Japan fondly presume is the right order. " - Hoary, tell that to the Japanese government: - http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/index-e.html = Shinzo Abe! Also, remember this is an Anglophone wiki, so we only care about people who speak English. WhisperToMe 04:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

See, Hoary, the Japanese are in on this too. The GN-FN for Japanese people is not restricted to us Westerners. In Latin script and in the English language, several Japanese people and organizations use GNFN, especially if they are interacting with a lot of Westerners. Japan is a westernized country, and this is apparent in the naming order in English issue. WhisperToMe 04:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

1. tell that to the Japanese government: I have no interest in attempting to tell anything to the people who constitute the Japanese government.

2. Also, remember this is an Anglophone wiki, so we only care about people who speak English. Actually only those who read English. I care about delivering to these people information that is correct, not mangled to conform to their prejudices, the style guides of English-language newspapers, etc.

3. In Latin script and in the English language, several Japanese people and organizations use GNFN, especially if they are interacting with a lot of Westerners. That is indeed true. But several use FNGN.

4. Japan is a westernized country, and this is apparent in the naming order in English issue. Japan is certainly a westernized country in some ways. I haven't looked into this, but suspect that the odd willingness of many (but not all) Japanese people to reverse their names for foreign consumption is not so much a matter of westernization as a hold-over of the the Meiji-period desire to ape the west in matters of form -- which you'll also see in the invention of a royal family, in the "traditional" Japanese wedding ceremony, etc. -- Hoary 04:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is it an issue if the names are "mangled" if the Japanese clearly embrace "Western order in English?" I can find more examples for you. Read Mainichi Shimbun's English language edition: http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/ . Read Sanrio Japan's history: http://www.sanrio.co.jp/english/about_s/history.html . Look at Kodanclub (Kodansha) descriptions of manga series here: http://www.kodanclub.com/cgi-local/comic.cgi?id=009-00025-01-005 - "Western order in English" is clearly commonplace in Japan, so the Western order usage for modern figures cannot be considered to be mangled. Also, this http://www.kodanclub.com/cgi-local/comic.cgi?id=004-00110-01-001 illustrates the concept that FNGN is to be used for the Japanese language while GNFN is used for the English language.

"Japanese people to reverse their names for foreign consumption is not so much a matter of westernization as a hold-over of the the Meiji-period desire to ape the west in matters of form" - I understand that Japanese culture differs greatly from American culture in many ways, but Japan clearly has permanently incorporated many aspects of Western culture that has not occurred as much in Korea and China. McDonalds is among the most popular fast food restaurant chains in Japan, for instance. The Japanese have incorporated many words and phrases from English and other Western languages, while often changing the meanings. Japan is now part of the G8 along with Russia, the US, Canada, and several European countries. I.E., Japan is now often seen as culturally with the West.

WhisperToMe 05:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As a note: Most Japanese publications that DO use FNGN in English tend to be about traditional Japanese activities, i.e. Go or Waka. Therefore the authors may have a more "traditional" mindset. WhisperToMe 05:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Since this is all about an argument at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles), I don't see any particular reason to pursue it here as well. -- Hoary 07:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with that IP user. Never before have I seen someone with so blatant and complete a disregard for other people, and for the project. Some people can be so immature. Is he formally banned, or what? Thanks again. LordAmeth 06:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No, he's not formally banned. He's not worth the effort. -- Hoary 07:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)