User talk:Hoary/Archive 9

Hello Hoary,

I have edited past the 3-edit rule, which quite honestly, I did not know about, so I got banned from editing a page. I am somewhat confused about what appears to be the thinking that what I expressed was an opinion rather than statement of fact. The work was already referenced, so I did not need to reference it. It took a method and investigated it with disregard to the scientific method. The reference was in the article already. I also referenced scientific method after seeing your comment, so I thought that was OK. I guess I will have to reference the source where the method that was investigated is described, but that was already referenced in the article, and I was afraid I may seem biased by referring to it again in the same article, especially since it may be seen as a commercial thing.

I am a trained research scientist and find it important to put right unsound research. Just because the research I criticized was accepted by a respected journal does not make it correctly carried out. There have been others in recent times that were retracted (please don't ask me for the details, it will take me a couple of days non-stop to search for them), and this one may well eventually be retracted.

What would you recommend?

SuzanneZacharia SuzanneZacharia (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed this message yesterday but was coming down with a cold and had little time. I still have the cold (so my brain isn't working quite right), but I do have a little more time now.

Perhaps as a result of the cold, I don't fully understand what you're saying above. Let's look at your most recent edit to that article. This adds:

This research deviates from the scientific method.

The facts in layman's terms, are very simple. In the EFT training DVDs, the viewer is taught to tap with as many fingers as they can, as it can stimulate the finger meridians. The viewer is also shown extra tapping points not in the standard EFT sequence and is told that there are many other points that can be tapped on. This is illustrated and corroborated by expert guests on the DVD. Additionally, the viewer is shown tapping on non-standard EFT points. All this was published before this research took place.

With this in mind, so-called sham points and tapping on dolls' faces is not too different from tapping the standard EFT sequence and therefore is useless as a control in a scientific study.

It is right and necessary to criticize any method, including EFT. However, the researchers did not learn what EFT was in the first place. One cannot criticize what one does not know.

First, a minor technical point. Rather than writing "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method scientific method]", you can simply write "[[scientific method]]". (Of course nobody is criticizing you for this little slip.)

The section on "the EFT training DVDs" is a bit dodgy in itself as the reader isn't told precisely what they are (or it is). But perhaps you omitted the information because you were in a rush and intended to add it later. Now, I think that I can refer directly to what's said in a non-fiction DVD such as that of Born into Brothels as this is widely and cheaply available, but I wonder if the same can be said of EFT DVDs. Further, your statement that something is "corroborated by expert guests on the DVD" is problematic: "expert" in which sense(s)?

Obviously you're dissatisfied with the research. Yes indeed you are right to say that Just because [research] was accepted by a respected journal does not make it correctly carried out. But in order to say that the research was faulty, you are going to have to cite an authoritative (expert, disinterested) statement that it was faulty. If you are certain that you can prove it was faulty, you are welcome to say this -- but somewhere else, not Wikipedia. That's how Wikipedia works: there are rules against both "original research" and "original synthesis". At one time or another these rules annoy a very large number of editors, certainly including myself; but they're firmly in place and they are not going to disappear.

You say I have edited past the 3-edit rule, which quite honestly, I did not know about, so I got banned from editing a page. I'm not at all sure that you broke the 3-revert rule. Mastcell didn't tell you you'd broken it; rather, he warned you that you were in danger of breaking it. People are banned from editing certain pages but this is rare and it hasn't happened to you. Also, you've never been blocked from editing.

Clearly you have a strong opinion about EFT and you think the article about it is defective. You're free to edit it, but as practice toward doing so I recommend that you do a bit of editing on some unrelated and innocuous subject that happens to interest you: the skills you'll painlessly pick up there will help you later. -- Hoary (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hoary,

Thank you; unfortunately, it would be the same story. EFT is such a subject to begin with! Anyway...

Thank you so much for your feedback; this is just what I was looking for.

It is science that I feel strongly about and feel it is my duty to defend, and I feel it is my duty to put that right. Let me explain.

I happen to have bought an EFT DVD. EFT DVDs are the training tool of EFT. EFT is defined in the EFT DVDs. These are a published work explaining to anyone who wishes to work with EFT what EFT is, amongst other things. They are published by the founder of EFT. The DVD that is relevant to the Waite and Holder study in particular was Steps Towards Becoming The Ultimate Therapist. This DVD set is now available as a new edition, called Beyond the Basics.

Let me elucidate so that it is perfectly clear. That is, I am trying to make it perfectly clear to you, because you seem to have a healthy rather than blind respect for science, and I am hoping you can help me present this on the page itself in a way that is acceptable and right.

The EFT training tool is called the EFT DVDs. Steps Towards Becoming the Ultimate Therapist was filmed in 1998 and made available for any member of the public to purchase cheaply. There were and are still are rights for each purchase to copy and give out 100 copies of this DVD, so there is always someone out there that can hand out a free copy. In other words, this DVD set contains a definition of EFT that is available widely and can cost nothing.

In Steps Towards Becoming the Ultimate Therapist, EFT is described as encompassing various applications. Two of these applications are relevant to the Waite and Holder study, as they are described by this EFT training as EFT, and the viewer is advised that they may get equally good results tapping this way. One was tapping with the fingers to stimulate the finger meridians, and another was tapping on points that are not normally known as EFT points.

The Waite and holder study did not use the scientific method because EFT as defined in Steps Towards Becoming the Ultimate Therapist was given to the control groups that the study claimed did not receive EFT. One control group was asked to tap with their fingers, and another group engaged in tapping on points that are not normally known as EFT points.

The Waite and Holder study was published in 2003. I do not need to conduct a research project to prove that 2003 - 1998 = 5.

I am more than happy not to say the Waite and Holder study was faulty, and simply state the above points.

For the EFT DVDs, I understand now that I need to reference them. I am not sure how to do so on Wikepedia. Do you have a link that can show me this?

The DVD to be put somewhere in the references is the following:

Graig G, Steps Towards Becoming the Ultimate Therapist, 1998, and new edition renamed Beyond the Basics, 2008, Gary H. Craig.

It is found here: https://www.emofree.com/EFTStore/p-25-the-eft-foundational-library.aspx#Contents%20of%20EFT%20-%20Beyond%20the%20Basics —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuzanneZacharia (talk • contribs) 13:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The EFT DVDs can be bought very cheaply or sourced free via the site of the founder, which is already referenced in the article.

I hope you can help me word this in a way that in your experience and with your skills is right for Wikepedia.

SuzanneZachariaSuzanneZacharia (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Previously, you wrote in the article that there's something wrong with a study that the article cites; this time, you're telling me. You're not breaking any rule by telling me, but it will have no effect. Instead, you have to cite a disinterested, authoritative study saying that something is wrong with that published study.

Two minor points: I couldn't find the EFT DVDs at WorldCat (though I might have missed something); and emofree.com sells them in a set for $150, which may be good value for what you get but is not what I'd call a low price for a DVD package. (Amazon.com is selling Born into Brothels for under $14.)

Again, I recommend that you practice editing in some subject about which you feel less passionately before moving to EFT. -- Hoary (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I will be definitly interested in improving the text. I was looking for books. Some of them have ISBN already listed. Tabor book is here but it seems to be without ISBN?

About the following:

Albrecht, V. 25 roků ve službách černého umění: This is relatively old book and it is in fact just extended catalogue of merchant with photographic equipment.

Český svět and Slovanský sokol are historical magazines, available in national library.

Thanks a lot and happy new year ;)

--Honza (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year yourself, and I'm delighted to see you back and surprised that my message got such a fast response.

Some of them have ISBN already listed / [cough] That's because I added those ISBNs during the last couple of hours. I'm ashamed to say that over the last few months I forgot all about our friend Josef Jindřich Šechtl, but he was on my "watchlist" and I noticed that people have been (benevolently) fiddling with the article recently; that's why I took another look and decided to act upon the (my?) little complaints in <!-- SGML comments -->; I went to WorldCat and looked up what I could. (Incidentally, I changed the place of publication of Tábor jak jej fotografovali v letech 1876-1996 Šechtlovi in accordance with what WorldCat says. Of course if you were sure you were right, please change it back.)

Albrecht, V. 25 roků ve službách černého umění / I've encountered very informative Konishiroku publications in the past and I realize that mere catalogues can be informative (if used with care). But let's specify Herr (?) Albrecht's first name: this might help in somebody's search. And let's give the publisher. And since this isn't at Worldcat, it might be a good idea to add a <ref>footnote identifying one archive where this may be found<ref> (wild guess: a certain museum).

Český svět, č. 1-18., 1918. / Is "č." the same as "volume"? But no, that wouldn't make sense. Pages 1-18 of an annual? Of course I realize that my question may seem (or be) a bit silly, as 99.9% of people sufficiently interested in this to want to pursue it will understand what "č." means, but let's be informative anyway. (For one thing, this helps avoid complaints by busybodies.)

Slovanský sokol, Cizinecký ruch. 1912. Pp. 258-260. / Is this pp 258-260 of a magazine that was paginated continuously (so that one issue might have started at p.312)? If not, again, shouldn't this have additional date information?

Why am I bothering? (And why am I bothering you?) Because I've been fascinated by Josef Jindřich Šechtl (not least because he was completely unknown to me); and although I have a rather dim idea of the process by which articles are certified as "Good", I think it could be fun (as well as frustrating and irritating) to submit this. However, the preparation should all be done before submitting it.

Czech photographers are an interesting bunch. I suppose I've only heard of 0.1% of those who merit consideration; but among these I've always wondered why it is that Saudek has mass international appeal (to me, his stuff is mere gimmickry); why posthumous books of the works of Sudek (excellent though they are) reach such crazy prices; why somebody as good as Cudlín is virtually unknown, etc.; and of course I've recently marveled over the way in which the admittedly bizarre would-be pornography of Tichý is discussed most seriously by museum curators and the like. -- Hoary (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do massage, poke, prod, squeeze, lance, draw puss, from the prose there. Wasn't certain about your reinstatement of "certain". What does it add? Tony (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Hoary, please extend a courtesy to me and allow me to eliminate the offensive postings that I have made to the Chomsky Talk Page. I would appreciate it very much. Thank you.Lestrade (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

As far as I noticed, only one small part of one (recent) message was potentially offensive; I've removed that and also my response to it. I hope that this is satisfactory. If it isn't, please feel free to say so here and we'll try to work something out; but please do not remove your messages again. Thanks. -- Hoary (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Ohm Phanphiroj, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ohm Phanphiroj. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 19:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That monstrosity, an article that I created? No intercoursing way! -- Hoary (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hoary, have you read this? I was warning her about the likelihood of a ban, which is growing at ANI. The reason I went into that long thread with her was, I'd hoped to find a reason to unblock straight off. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I hadn't seen it. Thank you for pointing it out. I had a feeling that there was some Big Thing that I'd missed, so I'm only partly surprised to see it.

I haven't carefully read what's at "The list returns" but a quick look shows a mixture of thoughtfully expressed concerns and people who seem to be in an unencyclopedic tizzy, throwing around dodgy analogies and the like, plus the odd person whose degree of affrontedness beggars belief and who seems to be relishing the opportunity to dramatize. (No, I'm not going to name names.)

A world history of racism (for want of a familiar word akin to "ethnicism") would be a long and depressing work that more depressingly would have to be updated again, and again, and again. Racism merits study. It seems to generate or be generated by or rise and fall with ethnic stereotypes. The ethnic stereotypes themselves merit study. Deecee appeared to be writing something related to their study. I thought that your simple description of what she wrote was wrong, and I still think that it was wrong.

NB I'm not condoning any edit warring on behalf of the list, or doubting your "GF" or motives. And I see an unfortunately strident tone in Deecee's responses to you. However, your warning of the likelihood of a ban did look like the threat that it wasn't.

Thank you for unblocking her and I hope that this works out well. -- Hoary (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

have you seen this

If you still haven't read the ANI thread, several editors/admins were talking about a 1 year ban or indef block, which is why I brought it up with her. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've seen it. Some of it, perhaps a lot of it, seems reasonable. Some doesn't. A significant amount seems quite wrong-headed. There's a notable "GF" deficiency. There may be reasons for this.

Clearly this is an emotive issue and I'm willing to believe that Deecee went about it in entirely the wrong way. She does tend to resort to "this is the flip side of the crap that I have to take" [my words, not hers] rather quickly, and of course "othercrapexists" is no justification, but she happens to have a skin color that certainly does take a lot of crap on WP (from drunk white boys, I suppose) and I can see where the anger comes from.

Additionally, what she added wasn't crap, at least when viewed as a complete package.

I think there's a wider problem here, one that is very hard to deal with in the WP model in which anyone (of course including the underinformed and misinformed) can edit by default. It's of what to do about currents of debunked once-science, pseudoscience, mass delusions, mindlessly repeated received ideas (in the Bouvardian sense), and so on that have arguably (or even obviously) had some effect (often bad) on society at some point. It appears most obviously in an article such as this one which bounces to and from AfD, etc; but of course it's also behind well established nightmare articles such as negroid, and it pops up in places such as AAVE (which you, Deecee, I and others have taken turns defending) where a sociolinguist could reasonably claim that social attitudes, however misinformed, toward a lect have major social consequences and that you therefore have to (a) describe the misinformation (here, that for example speakers are "too lazy" to "get the grammar right") in order to explain its impact rather than (b) dismiss it as peripheral or ignore it. Of course it would be better if editors, particularly those who have already been blocked, approached this stuff very warily indeed; but the informed and the ignorant, the genuinely educated and the horribly miseducated, the reckless and the feckless are all told to "be bold" and exceptions to this have to be justified laboriously.

Meanwhile, if you look through my editing history for the last 24 hours or so you'll see that I narrowly escaped accusations of homophobia, which (with 20-20 hindsight) I now think would have been partly justifiable. You got the spotlight, I didn't; it could easily have been the other way around. -- Hoary (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sad to say, the community is not a level playing field when it comes to "perceived" ethnicity, gender, origin, faith, sundry outlooks and all that stuff.

I don't like how DeeCee went about doing what she did, or how she wrote it up, but I think she was trying to be helpful in her way. Her ways of talking about things sometimes may tend to get her trapped in discussions without much support.

Wikipedia's flaws are often its strengths but the model does fall to its knees, so to speak, on the highest traffic articles, some of these are so off-weight as to be almost worthless, others wonderful, most are highly "labour intensive." So long as waves of free volunteers are here to watch over things, the outcome is more helpful than harmful. This said, any encyclopedia will tend to echo the sweeping flaws, gaps and propaganda carried by widely published sources.

Like all language, AAVE is the outcome of historical background, group culture and peer pressure. Language has lots of sway for human beings, dialect and accent are often a very big deal in how folks get along with each other and it cuts both ways.

An advanced degree is worthless to a Wikipedia editor unless they also have the skill or inborn luck of getting along and adapting to the policies of an open wiki. I glark there are more blocked PhDs than high-school dropouts, yet some of Wikipedia's most helpful users are advanced degree holders who quietly edit away, knowing what they've gotten into and able to budget their time and emotions.

Like anywhere else, offline or online, most folks read rather sloppily and misunderstand or mis-remember swaths of what they take away from it. I've been editing this wiki for almost 5 years now and the most nettlesome thing that happens to me is being misunderstood as to my outlook on a topic, now and then by those who don't even understand the topic enough to know what the PoVs are. Moreover, neutrality is all too easily taken as a hated PoV in itself. Truth be told, I've never edited in some areas of my professional/academic expertise. I canny knew the first time I edited here, from what I'd already seen on USENET, it would drive me bats :) Gwen Gale (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

On your last observation, yes, it's terribly frustrating when I attempt to write about linguistics. Often there's not all that much that can interestingly be said without theory, and in many areas as soon as you start theorizing you lose consensus. Take case for example: it's easy to write a simple taxonomy for ich, mich, mein, mir (and so on for [at least superficially] more complex systems that I don't happen to have learnt by heart), but this is to true understanding rather what bird-spotting books are to genuine studies of avian physiology, sociobiology, etc. So how do you proceed? The method taken by the series "Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics" (rather austere books generally held in high regard and stocked by every university library) is to have both a taxonomic book (Case) and a theoretical book (Theories of Case). Offhand I can't think of a better alternative. But I hesitate to think how this (let alone anything better) could be accomplished in the encyclopedia that everyone can edit and in a world where people will confidently expound from their own wellsprings of truthiness. So I rarely attempt a substantive addition to any such subject, instead preferring to defend the AAVE article from stupidity and to work on articles on such matters as photographers who'll never appear on CNN. -- Hoary (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope you all don't mind me barging in, but you've both hit on some concerns I've had with WP - concerns that have made me reluctant at times to edit more than I do (which is hardly at all, lately). It's a real worry to me that the articles on the most important subjects (things that in the real world have a major impact on people) are the hardest to make and keep accurate, fair, neutral, informative, and well-written. The other end of this point (so to speak) hit home to me the other day when I consulted Google maps for a satellite image of Gaza. Of course, I already knew that Wikipedia articles are now linked to Google maps, but my previous exposure to this phenomenon had only come while researching certain architectural projects of Aldo Rossi to see whether they had actually been built, how they were sited, etc. Not very weighty stuff. Gaza, on the other hand, is pretty heavy. So click on some of those Ws and you will find a disproportionate number of articles on (former) Jewish "settlements" established in the Gaza strip (notice in passing that Google's spelling of Khan Younis is the transliterated Hebrew spelling). My point isn't about the reasons why there aren't more articles on Palestinian subjects in Gaza, but simply to highlight the (increasing) importance of Wikipedia as a general reference for people worldwide. Any WP articles on contentious subjects that are problematic (in whatever way) are providing a framework for people's knowledge of those subjects... and that worries me a lot. Having had some experience with a number of WP's articles on political issues and conflict in the Middle East I can confidently say that they frequently provide a very distorted view of their subjects. That would be bad enough if it were merely a matter of those people who purposely consult Wikipedia suffering such exposure, but WP is casting its net wider and wider. Anyone looking for a decent aerial view of a place is now invited to understand that place from whatever perspective Wikipedia editors provide or allow. Pinkville (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The computer I'm using today doesn't like newfangled things such as Google maps. I tried, I waited, I chose the "simple HTML" option, and then I got a largish scale map with no "W" and indeed little or no roman script: only Hebrew script, and little of that, at least till I reached "Jerusalem". I zoomed out a few times: more of the same. You're saying that GM has links to en:WP?

IP/browser-sniffing may be an issue, even though I'm using Google Maps Canada. Yes, there probably is browser-sniffing, because if there weren't then I'd expect a link to a French-language alternative. Perhaps I'm looking at maps for which nobody has yet bothered to transliterate into katakana.

The problem with the great majority of Palestinian subjects, I suppose, is that a significant percentage of people wanting to edit have an almost religious -- or indeed religious, or even fundamentalist -- commitment to broadcasting their faction's truth. If they aren't greatly outnumbered by others, these others will become worn out and walk away.

It's a horrible problem and one that's probably related to the one I brought up, but I think they're separable.

Yours is a political (and not only political) issue of what's covered and how. Another is apolitical. While there's a lot of first-rate work done on [what's now] unpopular culture, there's much more on "popular culture". No surprise that the popular is popular, but a lot of popcult approaches mere market-research-driven product, and a lot of the material here on this is more or less "in-universe". So the articles recycle the vendors' selling points to a considerable extent.

(My thoughts on product are fueled by having twice in recent days seen the Japanese boy band "Exile" on the boob tube. All the [numerous] members are tall, youngish, and [I suppose] handsome; the costumes are coordinated with a certain degree of studied pseudo casualness; the hairstyles are "edgy"; the boys look and smile at each other knowingly as they prance and croon with what I inexpertly guess is just a hint of homoeroticism for additional perceived "edginess"; and the music they produce is utterly bland and conservative and even mildly retrogressive. So the consumers can experience a frisson of daring as they hand over the loot for a sort of youthful Japanese Barry Manilow, sounds that will keep mums and grandmas happy too. The concerts are wildly popular and you'll see "edgily" dressed teens and twenty-somethings in the train coming home from these and clutching their "Exile" branded tie-in products.)

Hoary (talk) 06:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a put down of Wikipedia to say that pop culture drives mega traffic and Wikipedia lives by the mega traffic pop culture pulls in (with all the soundbite politics thrown in). I look stuff up on Wikipedia every day and far more often than not, it's an obscure enough topic that someone, after 7 years, has at least done a clean and helpful job spinning up a sourced overview which, if I want to know more, has references I can click on. Yesterday I looked up the history of the Eastern and Western Norse settlements on Greenland. The article isn't stunning, but it is helpful and it launched me into a more thorough read elsewhere. Meanwhile, the flaws in articles like Gaza are canny echoes of the flaws in secondary sources and outlooks drummed endlessly by the media in English speaking countries. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmph. Then again, I spent much of my free time over the last few days reading secondary sources on the ill-fated, mid 19th century Franklin expedition. A Wikipedia article which looked very fit at first blush now looks like a basket case to me, sloppily weighted and lacking. :( Gwen Gale (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd noticed Franklin-related articles (oddly, via Spilsby). They've attracted a lot of interest. Virtually all that I've noticed has seemed well intentioned and at least partly well informed, but sometimes rather worrisomely intent on citing this or that book, which may or may not be authoritative (I wouldn't know). I don't have the time to educate myself in this, and "my" library would hardly be equipped for it even if I were. I can only suggest that you express your qualms on the article's talk page and then perhaps draw attention to them on the talk pages of what might be relevant projects. -- Hoary (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

For a quick, spooky tale having to do with Franklin, have a look at this. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Hoary. As this series of edits indicates, I've got the book. And a beauty it is! Chock-full of interesting bits I didn't know about, including the intriguing Korea/pinku connection, and those female Tarzans which had piqued my interest earlier. Though I'm still giving the other project most of my attention, expect the pinku articles to expand gradually. And, by the way, I've been enjoying the Drive-in sleaze collections as well. Volume 2 has some really God-awful horror flicks. Fun stuff! :-) Dekkappai (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh hello, 'Ppai. I'm glad the book lives up to expectations. At the very tail end of the old year I went to Sōkyūsha and bought half a dozen photo books (these on top of half a dozen other books I'd bought during the previous couple of weeks); at the very beginning of this year I went to a sale at Kinokuniya and bought six volumes, or 2400 pages, of More Serious Fare; for the next few weeks I think I'll restrain myself in ordering yet more parcels from that US monopolist I sometimes patronize. My most recent parcel from the latter contained DVDs of two minor blaxploitation flicks that I haven't yet got around to seeing; I wish the company that flogs 50 dodgy films on 20 discs for about $15 would do a blaxploitation special as I'd be happy to explore the barrel-scrapings of that genre if they come at a barrel-scraping price: no matter how bad a blaxplo's plot, script, acting, etc, there's usually something to gape at in disbelief. Often pimp vine, of course. -- Hoary (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't got into blaxploitation yet-- except for ogling at Pam Grier, Tamara Dobson, and some others whose names-- but not faces-- escape me at the moment-- but your enthusiasm for the genre has me looking over some possible future purchases... I've seen those 50-film packs too, but was a bit leery about the quality. These BCI "Drive-in Cult" releases are very good quality, for this genre. They treat the films with some deal of respect, which is nice. If you want to take your morbid interest in trash cinema to its ultimate, I challenge you to watch volume 2's They Saved Hitler's Brain and The Creeping Terror back-to-back. I may never recover :) Dekkappai (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Tamara Dobson: good looking, but my fading memory tells me that her best-known (only?) "vehicle" is a very humdrum affair; it's not much more than a TV program where the faces happen to be black and the clothes are more amusing than normal. I am, erm, aware of a possible special interest of yours in Pam Grier, and she won't disappoint; but that aside she's fun to watch as she credibly plays characters who stick it to The Man, or anyway some man. (I loathe summary "justice" in reality, but my inner simian appreciates it in Pam Grier flicks, in the closing chapters of Carl Hiaasen novels, etc.) Films such as The Big Doll House of course have no redeeming qualities if you're as appalled by their gratuitous voyeurism, etc, as you are fully justified in being; but as I'm not so appalled, I don't need any redeeming qualities. And after watching and enjoying these things, I then have the additional (and greater) satisfaction of watching them with Jack Hill as my guide; he's somehow the ideal retrospective commentatutidinalizor. I'll definitely order those drive-in specials together with my next pile of Serious Fare. -- Hoary (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

etc., etc., --KP Botany (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to help. I had mixed feelings about uncategorizating (or whatever) this; doing so renders it less conspicuous to those who might improve it, but also less conspicuous to those who might (wrongly) harrumph that it was an unsuitable use of userspace. I had a quick Google for the subject but couldn't find anything that appeared to add anything to its "notability" (in the WP sense) and that I actually understood -- which does not mean that I'm happy for it to remain deleted, merely that I couldn't help it. Hoary (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's one of those issues where it's not a big web presence--and, it's mostly in the know among experts and others in AI or folks who focus on algorithms rather than programming. In other words, rather technical

I think it was mostly deleted because the person who nominated it for deletion seemed to think it's only been around for a year or so, and couldn't understand what was added from other sources, again, too technical--even though one of the references is from 2003. However, it's good enough now to be an article, and its sources are just fine.

I actually think it's better to uncat in user space. --KP Botany (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome to Wikipedia. I am quite confident that by carefully following Wikipedia's policies and always asking myself "What Would Krampus Do?" when it comes to dispute resolution I will make it to being an administrator in no time. Jkelly (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Jkelly, you show remarkable perceptiveness and promise. The lonely struggle to the humble position of "admin" -- first in a series that goes past "steward" and others before it reaches bodhisattva and eventually buddha -- involves novices asking themselves what Krampus would do and then inscrutably doing it hardly more or less than doing anything else. This shows equanamity and coolth under pressure. Some day a long earlobed, wispily bearded admin will deign to notice and perchance appreciate the humble efforts of the novice, and will select him for "WP:RFA". -- Hoary (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I do not have much time for a chat or a translation, but you can get a general idea what those articles in Lithuanian are about from Google translations. Here is one. The other one seems offline and available through Google cache.Renata (talk) 04:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you! Enough is understandable for me to get the flavor. Hm, I'm whelmed. -- Hoary (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I found these. , , , , . But nothing could be found about 2009 kokuten. Instead of ake..., make up a nicer name for chicken gizzards. Sand liver? Oda Mari (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hoary: not sure if you saw them but I placed four references to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Den_Schliker confirming that Den Schliker is notable. Three references are from Ukrainian newspapoers and one is with IBSN of the Russian books with legendary photographers' works. I guess it is enough to count that den Schliker is "notable". Please, share with me your thoughts GeoffBarrenger (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Geoff. Yes, I saw them. But I don't know what to make of them because I can't understand Russian or Ukrainian, or even manipulate the Cyrillic alphabet. Please improve the article: you're basically allowed to do anything you like with it other than remove the "Articles for Deletion" template from the top.

When you edit the article, I urge you to err on the sides of understatement and of pedantic, detailed citation.

I'm sorry, I can't undertake to vote "keep" on this one. My hunch is that Schliker has made a good start but isn't there yet. Well, he's very young. However, my mind's still open. Persuade me. (Tip: there's nothing like hype to piss me off.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

1) 28 y.o. - is not that young for professional photography. Joey Lawrence (a Canadian one)is only 19 but he already shot for movie "Twilights" and for the well known "Forbes" mag.

If to continue speak about Den Schliker: have u seen his fashion series of photographs: While You Were Sleeping.." http://www.denschliker.com/train_story.html , "Red Room Stories" http://www.denschliker.com/red.room.stories.html , "Velveteen Dreams" http://www.denschliker.com/velveteen.dreams.html ? If THAT'S not fashion photography - then I don't know whta else can be called "fashion photography". Now try to persuade me GeoffBarrenger (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No, 28 isn't at all young for a fashion photographer. But it's young for undeniable notability to have emerged. And I've never denied that what Schliker does is fashion photography. Indeed, I've argued against MagazineHound's bizarre claim that what Schliker does is "irrelevant" to fashion photography. -- Hoary (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

1) Den Schliker's works were presented at least at several exhibitions;

2) his works were published in the book about Russian/Ukrainian legendary photographers;

3) his works were published in misc. magz (fashion and business ones);

4) there were found citations about him in several Ukrainian newspapers.

Isn't it enough facts about his notability? GeoffBarrenger (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't spend your time pleading with me or anybody else. Instead, put your time and effort into improving the article.

1. You talk of "several exhibitions". The article lists just two. What are the others? Source them.
2. Avoid gushy language such as "legendary". It doesn't impress me at the best of times; instead, it shouts "Promotion!" and makes me start to yawn. ("Iconic" rivals it as a vapid indicator of bullshit.) What's the precise title of this book, in Russian or Ukrainian? Precisely where does Schliker appear in it?
3. Let's have specifics on where Schliker's works appeared; or, better, citation of an authoritative statement -- not from him or in a blog, but in a newspaper/magazine article -- that he's had them published here or there.
4. So which Ukrainian newspapers? Where within them?

Again, please don't tell me. Instead, improve the article. -- Hoary (talk) 12:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your questions:

(1)two exhibitions - those I found - isn't TWO not enough?

(2)"citation of an authoritative statement". Newspapers - isnt' it an authoritative statement? I gave you three citations from nespapers (not his blog as u say..but newspapers)

(3) I presented four facts - references to three newspapers' articles + reference to a book. If u need to see the exact page with Den Schliker's work published in a book - here u go, that's from the publisher's site: a direct link to the page with his work in this book: http://fotoloft.ru/Admin/GetFile.ashx?id=263 The same photo is among his works: http://www.denschliker.com/photos/genre/scream.jpg What would u say to these arguments? GeoffBarrenger (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm used to writing up photographers who have entire books to their name. (All of them, or almost all, are over 30.) Anyway, again: don't try to persuade me; instead, improve the article. -- Hoary (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It's already improved. So why does the AFD mark still there? GeoffBarrenger (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The AfD template is still on it because the AfD discussion continues. It will either stay there until the AfD winds up with "keep" or "no consensus" and the article survives, or it will go down with the article if the AfD winds up with "delete". -- Hoary (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Enjoy the day. ttonyb1 (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Victoria Perelet, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Perelet. Thank you. ttonyb1 (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, good grief, would you delete my spelling error, singular instead of plural. Or, if there are Lagerstätten with only one fossil in 'em, I could leave it.... Category:Lagerstätte <-- delete this so I don't have to figure out which tag to put on it. Thanks. [asks KP Botany]

Blammo! Zapped by administratitudinal ray gun. -- Hoary (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but it had a spectacular fossil in it. Thx. --KP Botany (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Book covers--oh, that's what the list is. --KP Botany (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It hadn't occurred to me that I should add such a list to this article, for example. Even in retrospect, I don't regret this omission. Do you think that individual book covers are inherently (I mean, other than when widely discussed) notable (or in any special WP sense "notable")? -- Hoary (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to abuse your goodwill, as if you had any, isn't this considered a bad user name, User:Ginbot86, or is it allowable? The policy says user names can't end in bot, and I attempted at one time to sign up with a user name that ended in bot (short for botany), but was beaten up, stomped on, kicked, then stabbed, left for dead, told to go to hell, shot, punched, then boiled in oil. The user name report page and policy has not improved a bit since then and is still nasty, draconian, and vile to newbies who make innocent mistakes, like thinking botany existed befor internet robots, but, still, I'm going back for my bot name if all I have to do is add numbers onto the end. The reason I ask, is because I thought this was a bot edit, but it snot. Since she's been editing for a while, it can hardly qualify as a blocking emergency. --KP Botany (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You raise most interesting questions, KP. First, please rejoice and praise the Lord for having been spared the ignominy of some more serious punishment. That aside, since we have Deletion Review, we presumably also have Hazing Review. Of course, as the former can conclude that deletion should continue, the later might conclude that hazing should continue. Are you sure that this is an avenue that you want to explore? -- Hoary (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As my annoying 18-year-old lab partner says, "Bring it on." --KP Botany (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Please take a look at this. And see my talk page too. Oda Mari (talk) 05:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It's OK. User:Aude took care of it. しつこい人なんで、どうしたらいいのかわからなかった。Although outdated, this is funny.Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 09:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad Aude did, because this really isn't my area. As for the link, I particularly liked [when] you start thinking can coffee tastes good. Yes, I tried it once and thought "People pay money for this?" -- Hoary (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Hoary. As (I surmise), a resident of that fair city, you might want to look in at the bullshit I've just flung over at Talk:Asahi Breweries. I welcome you dropping by to deposit a nugget or two. :-) Dekkappai (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary. You know, Korean is a very "shit"-rich language... 별똥 (lit. "star shit") = "shooting star", etc... Once in Seoul I was out with my wife and a friend who wanted to introduct me to Korean-style 닭똥집 "ttalk-ddong-jip" (lit. "Chicken-shit house"). Understanding only the literal phrase at the time, I kept asking, "It's really a chicken-shit house?" "Yes! Korean style chicken-shit house!" (This conversation going on in Korean.) I'll leave to your imagination the visions I was having, but I was game for a new experience. Figured, whatever manner of architecture this turned out to be, I could always rush home and take a shower afterwards... Imagine my disappointment when "ttalk-ddong-jip" turned out to be fried gizzards... Dekkappai (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Denbot (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

article appearing on today's Main Page... Pinkville (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

And it's a good article, isn't it? Or anyway it was about 30 seconds ago; now, who knows. I'm just waiting for this to be featured: I think we owe it to the masses to lead them to Enlightenment, and I'm not talking about Diderot and others imprisoned in Cartesian reasoning. -- Hoary (talk) 06:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you should revisit the AfD. you seem to be carrying on a campaign against it, and the presence of the material in museums has now been demonstrated. DGG (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation; I've revisited the AfD. (I'm very puzzled to read that I've carried on a campaign against it, whether this "it" is the AfD or the article. I don't think I have opposed either at any point, let alone encouraged others to join with me in opposing it.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

My dear Hoary, I wonder whether you'd mind running your eyes over the blue box here, which would replace the rather frightful text in the subtitled section, with a few associated changes above it, here? The proposed replacement is kinda statute-like in length and elaborateness, but at the moment it does seem to encapsulate the intended meaning of that important section more neatly and clearly. Ta. Tony (talk) 12:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Done! -- Hoary (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you zap this piece of garbage before anyone sees I created it. I can't figure out what I did, and would like to have it removed from public view ASAP. --KP Botany (talk) 07:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There I was, flame-thrower in one hand, ray-gun in the other, but I found that one Anthony.bradbury had prezapped. Boring! Anything else I can destroy for you? -- Hoary (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you're not going to be useful.... --KP Botany (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Should I just turn the ray-gun on myself and end it all? While I'd protest that I'm too old to die young, any notion that I'm not expendable as an admin evaporates in the aura of a contender such as this. -- Hoary (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Funny stuff. I hope the guy remains unblocked just for the continued theatrics. Sort of the Pat Paulsen of Adminship campaigns. :-) Dekkappai (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd never heard of Paulsen but I like the quotes there, starting with "All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian." -- Hoary (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, I'd forgotten that quote. <sarcasm>Fortunately he's dead, so you can see what he looked like.</sarcasm> basset hound face with a Buster Keaton dead-pan delivery. I'm old enough to remember his first campaign. His article is in pretty bad shape too... might be worth looking into for editing work, that is if someone doesn't bring an action against me for putting together a list of sources first. :-( Dekkappai (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts"? I'd never heard of that one. "It is a non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors, to seek perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum." Ah, only on Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. -- Hoary (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... a first for me too... next step, Goodnight, sweet Dekk, and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest.... :-( Dekkappai (talk) 03:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope you still have the vomitorium around here, Hoary. --KP Botany (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes thank you; it's over in the other building. -- Hoary (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of zapping, you deletionist you, if you get any chance away from your (cough, cough) administrative duties, contemplate these suckers for deletion:

• Władysław Szafer Institute of Botany
• Cuevas de la Araña en Bicorp
• Berkeley Geochronology Center
• Garniss Curtis
• Paul Renne
• Kenneth Farley

Or you could just copy edit the first 2 and last 3--and by copy edit, for those monitoring Hoary's page and unfamiliar with my prose, a third grade education will usually suffice to improve my turgid writing style, and I would be appreciative and not post vomitoriums on your user talk page. I already conned DGG into the BGC one<--can you see why?--.

I created them to retaliate against the pair of anti-science editors currently attacking the botanists at naming conventions. "The thousand injuries of Lame Wiki-Administrators and Editors I bore as best I could, but when they ventured upon policy changes I vowed revenge...." --KP Botany (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I contemplated the first and second. Contemplation of the first took an instant, and the conclusion was "keep". Contemplation of the second did, I must admit, cause a throb in the hoaxamometer, but anyway I tweaked it. I'm puzzled: why the desire to delete? -- Hoary (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm joking! I'm joking! I just want a copy edit! Ahhggg! --KP Botany (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh-oh, I seem to be coming down with mind-blindness again. I'll return to the articles later; not only am I too hungry to edit right now but my right arm aches (and DGG knows why). Meanwhile, won't you join me in spewing some bile? -- Hoary (talk) 10:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I puked at puce, then added my own input. --KP Botany (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought the precedent is that an infobox is preferable. Am I incorrect or did things change? Is the precedent that an infobox is not preferred except if discussed? Not upset, just curious - Royalbroil 05:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no such policy that I have heard of. People in the Biography project may have come up with some policy of their own, but then they do some pretty strange things and all in all seem oblivious to the way in which many noteworthy people don't easily fit within preconceived classification schemes. Various WikiProjects explicitly advise against them; here's an example. Hogg's article was given a template as part of a spree that included the addition of a template to the recently main-paged Adolfo Farsari, which became an FA without any template and for which the polite suggestion of a template was previously declined.

I don't pretend to be neutral; I'm openly against the use of these things for articles on most kinds of people. But User:Mike Christie generally likes them, yet here he is asking this person to stop adding them willy-nilly. -- Hoary (talk) 09:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Looks like there's people on both sides. I don't have a strong preference either way. Thanks for your time. Royalbroil 13:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If I might butt in, Hoary. Question of infobox aside, there is the fact that this article had gone through the FA process... When other editors make what I see to be rather pointless stylistic changes to the only FA I've been involved in-- Anna May Wong-- I revert it just on the grounds that the article went through a pretty brutal review process and should be considered somewhat complete. I'm not against the addition of new information that comes up-- an editor added a recently discovered bit about her grave post-FA-- but I do think that the format, the style of the article has been decided through long review and debate, and shouldn't be subject to change by any editor who just cruises by... These are just my own thoughts, which I've never seen expressed in any kind of policy, and one of these editors I reverted huffed that FAs should be considered no less editable than any other article... Any opinions? (Or, better yet, "rules" I could point to to back up my own opinion ;-) Dekkappai (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not going to look up the particular hazing ritual by which that particular article became "featured", these rituals make less and less sense to me. Of course there are some intelligent comments, but there's a huge amount of nincompoopery such as --

People in the Biography project may have come up with some policy of their own, but then they do some pretty strange things and all in all seem oblivious to the way in which many noteworthy people don't easily fit within preconceived classification schemes.

then ambiguous; reword. Comma after things. Note classification not an adjective; try classificatory.

-- which makes me glad that these ninnies are working at FAC; better that they spent their time there than indulge in RL activities that might have some impact on the world.

What I very rarely see at FAC is any real investigation of sourcing. I mean, when an assertion is followed by a note pointing to something looking authoritative, all smiles. On occasion I've smelled something off and looked in the "source", only to find that indeed it says no such thing. I mention that and typically there's no comment, while the ninnies continue wittering away about alleged stylistic [nano]gaffes, which they could have easily fixed instead.

Where was I? Ah, yes, the problem's with "WP:BOLD", a good idea for crap articles but an appalling one for good articles. Once in a while I toy with the idea of drafting an antidote, "WP:TIMID", but laziness overtakes me. -- Hoary (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Right-- I found the FA review to be mostly heated discussions over dashes and semicolons... Flare-ups over whether to use citation templates or not... Major battles over whether an image should be on the right or the left... Those of us who actually put the article together were changing minor stylistic quirks back and forth just to get different people to pass the article... All very discouraging... Anyway, your WP:TIMID sounds like an excellent policy to me. I'll put it in my tool arsenal. (I'm surprised it's red-linked). Dekkappai (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hoary, I just wanted to offer a personal note of thanks for your comments at Talk:Caspar David Friedrich. I was pretty sure everyone who worked on the article would agree with my edit, but it was nice to know others felt the same way. Thanks again, Kafka Liz (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: - spot on. DuncanHill (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It's now at User:Tango/GH_discussion, if anyone's interested in this "show" that is "over". -- Hoary (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I saw that! DuncanHill (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This affair has made me feel more sick than anything else I can remember at Wikipedia. But I've no desire for melodrama (indeed, I'd like very much less showmanship), and I'm happy to note that Giano is back. -- Hoary (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I found another "hatchet job" just this evening "In popular culture", as they say. Among the extras in my DVD of This Is Spinal Tap is an interview with the ageing director Marty DiBergi, who, reduced to designing promotional mousepads, looks back at this height of his career, and sadly notes that Tap vilified his rockumentary as a [gesture with four fingers] "hatchet job". -- Hoary (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I don't know much about templates, but it seems to me this template is not an appropriate one. I don't know what to do about it. Please help me. Maybe with your powerful weapons. Thank you always. Oda Mari (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I read in one place that I could delete it if:

The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used

I read elsewhere that I could delete it if it's an example of:

Templates that are not employed in any useful fashion, and are either: substantial duplications of another template, or hardcoded instances of another template where the same functionality could be provided by that other template, may be deleted after being tagged for seven days.

According to the first, I could delete it; according to the second, I couldn't. I went ahead and deleted it anyway; I hope this won't get me into any trouble. -- Hoary (talk) 08:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Maybe yes, maybe no……I knew you couldn't resist zapping. I hope this won't get you into any trouble too. たぶん、だいじょうぶ。But don't blame me if it will do. Happy zapping! Oda Mari (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this if you have a bit of time (not much needed)? As ever, please feel free to bring up anything I've botched. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've skimread, and confess that I'm quite lost -- except that I get the impression that as of now no hordes of pitchfork-wielding arbiters are about to push you into a vat of molten lead. -- Hoary (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was only checking, that I wasn't being wholly clueless about something or whatever. Thanks :) Gwen Gale (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hoary, I have blocked you for half an hour for creating a skewed article on Jonathan Routh two or three years ago, and for the incivil manner in which I expect you will react to this post with. You might use this time to cool down and reflect on the mysterious and unexplained, shifiting ways of an encyclopedia that considers you expendable cog. Thank you. Ceoil (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

A fair cop. But fuck me, now I'm really fucking fucked. Hoary (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Three years is but a heartbeat on the Internet, after all. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, well, well. I was right about the future incivility. 60 90 minute block. 30 for each use of the fuck word. Ceoil (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Tsk tsk Hoary, how couldst thou be so fuckin' naughty? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Back off Glen, I am in communication with important people and things I can't understand or explain, they are just too important and they have flashing lights. Know this though; actually I can't tell you that either. Ceoil (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, sorry. Please forgive me? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine, you seem to have learned your lesson. Ceoil (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Fuck. I canny have done. Thank you thank you thank you. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I though my scot joke would slip under the water, well spotted. Hoary, ignoring everything I stand for and every thing I said before, because your friend is correct, I'm going to do an about face here with no explination or aplogy, and hope it all goes away. You are now free to edit for free. Cheers. Ceoil (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

While I was blocked, I went away and watched From Russia with Love. That was fun, in a retrosexist way. Can Gwen and me block you now? It's fun, you'll enjoy it! -- Hoary (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think a spiteful block would be handy :D Meanwhile I've always thought From Russia with Love was by far the most believable of the Bond series. I can sit through Goldfinger, though I don't care for the dumb "nerve gas" plot at the end, it was shot with taste, mostly :) Oh! I forgot to say, Goldfinger was the first movie I ever watched in Japan! Gwen Gale (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yah, can we speedily delete him with WP:IDONTLIKEHIM? Meanwhile, I'm trying to think what the first film I saw in Japan was. Something in its first run, for sure. Foolish Wives maybe? -- Hoary (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I always go dizzy when I see your man, whats his name with the broken nose, walk out of the sea, though showing my age, I have memories of the lovely judy dench throwing a hat a fat bloke painted in gold speeding away in an austin martin?. Crikey its great when I'm confused!

Gwen, sorry I misspelled you name so many times, poor auld Glen has a piryful block record, whoever he is. Eeek ;) Ceoil (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that was Ursula Andress, in The Mustard and Cress File, with a sprinkling of angel dust. -- Hoary (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, Ursula Andress; zzzz--drifts away is dotage-zszz. I dont really have a problem with being blocked out of spite by Hoary, as lomg as the block summary is imaginative and suitably evil. Do your worst. I double dare you. Ceoil (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ceoil, the snap on your UP is so, so worrisome, I'm utterly beside myself with woe and worry, seeing as how it could stir up notions among the children, of going about shirtless and then offing oneself with a kitchen tool, all on a web-linked webcam. That's not on here at all. I think we should hard ban you now, for the children. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Like Eric Cartman? Ceoil (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

why did you delete his page? he has discography far larger than that of den harrow, for whom he sang. why not delete den harrow then too? hooker's page could be expanded by adding discography section for starters. fyi, you should really focus on deleting real garbage off wiki. 99.151.179.167 (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that I have ever deleted any such page. However, when you mention "den harrow" that made me think of Thomas Barbèy. One version of his page said that he "was successful in Italy and he moved there for 15 years, where he performed under the name of Tom Hooker" (none of which was backed up with any source).

So, Thomas Barbèy. I didn't delete the article on him. What I did do was propose its deletion. I did that openly, here. Three people agreed that it should be deleted. Somebody using the IP 99.151.186.99 (close to yours) disagreed, saying "Strong Keep The article needs to be expanded, rather than obliterated. Deletion proposition appears to be initiated with envious bias." I replied "how do you propose that it could be expanded? And would you care to specify sources that could be used for the expansion?" There was no response, and so MBisanz deleted the article.

"why not delete den harrow then too?" I can't be bothered to think about Den Harrow right now. If you think it should be deleted, see here whether it indeed qualifies for deletion, and if it does then proceed from there.

I should really "focus on deleting real garbage off wiki"? Hmm, actually I prefer working on stuff that isn't garbage. But yes, when I see real garbage I push it toward deletion. And when you see real garbage you are of course welcome to do the same. -- Hoary (talk) 04:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Hoary. It's beginning to look like we've got an official, slow, edit war going on over at Tenga (masturbation toy). I'm really not sure what it's all about, but if you'll check the edit history you'll see that an (or some) anons continuously remove sourcing. (Some of the sourcing is to the WaiWai column that Mainichi took down and deleted from their archives-- resulting in dead links-- due to a bullying campaign by 2-chanellers concerned with the national image.) Sometimes they seem to do this inadvertently by adding links to a video on the product, sometimes they just remove them for no apparent reason. Anyway, this is getting to be a daily, or more, revert. Can anything be done? Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Er, 'ppai, when a site takes down a worthwhile page whose address you have, the first thing you do is head on over to web.archive.org -- which turned out to have this article. Although it's some hurriedly thrown-together summary of something put out by the junk magazine Asahi Geinō, so I'd call it worthless. (The complement: if you see a web page you think might disappear, you freeze it via webcitation.org.) ¶ So, when I encountered it, the article had great claims (none sourced) for a wanking device, a product list, a list of links to the company, and two links to blogs. I suppose that in principle I've an obligation to tell goofball IPs not to do battle over it, but I can't work up any enthusiasm for doing so: the more time and energy that time-wasters expend over junk articles, the less they have left over for articles that matter. ¶ Or am I missing something here? (I suppose one of us could always sling a "WPJ" template on its talk page and observe the earnest denizens of that WikiProject wincing over it!) -- Hoary (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC) [..... disastrous domain name mistake fixed Hoary (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)]

Hi Hoary. Right-- it's a crap article. (Not that it matters, but I've done no work on it except to add the junk magazine citations. I was doing this when Mainichi was posting these articles on the difficult-to-source underbelly of Japanese pop culture, figuring that citations to secondary junk sourcing were better than no unsourcing at all.) I'm not much for removing links to ads, etc., though I don't mind their removal either. What gripes me here is the continuous removal of the secondary sources. Yes, I'm aware of the Web archive, but in previous experience, every one of these Wai Wai articles I've searched have been removed from that archive as well... Why was Tenga spared from the wrath of the "nothing here but cherry blossoms, Ozu and tea ceremony" crowd? An interesting sociological question. Anyway, I agree with your summary and edits: crap article, but-- I believe-- real subject with coverage in secondary (junk) sources. Good to get your outside opinion on it though. If edit-warring continues, maybe you can, ah, lend a hand again? Thanks. Dekkappai (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way-- I noticed that archived copy of the article contained links to even junkier Wai Wai articles which were preserved... Letting my hopes get the best of me, I searched on the perfectly respectable "Porno queen seeks investors' plug as she goes out with a bang" and came up with the dreaded "Blocked Site Error." Dekkappai (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why you shouldn't get webcitation.org [and sorry about the domain name mistake earlier] to back up any web.archive.org page you think might later be liquidated.

I'll keep the page on my watchlist and I'll s-protect it if things get worse. I understand that some nitwit in India (perhaps with an interest in a rival product?) was hitting it as often as three times a day, but his energies seem to have flagged. Hoary (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hope his eyesight's holding out... Thanks-- I'll put that site in my toolbox. Dekkappai (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh- and I thought that template was only for cartoons and train stations... Dekkappai (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

And retainers, a word that always makes me think of Sir Henry at Rawlinson End (recommended). -- Hoary (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"Hands off" for anons-- that's what I suspected needed to be done. Now if we could only recruit someone with enough stamina to actually write an article on it... can't work up the enthusiasm myself. Still trying to remember where I heard about the old, wrinkled family retainer above... I wasn't aware of Sir Henry, but I know I've heard of the retainer. Is it possible one of the Python lads mentioned him in on a record? in a book? or somewhere else the '70s? Dekkappai (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

'Ppai, I can't respond now (or to this fellow); I'm too knackered. Tomorrow, tomorrow. In the meantime, might I ask you to keep an eye on Parodies of Sarah Palin? There is much grumpiness toward the foot of its talk page. It might come as a bit of a change of scenery after all the stuff on body parts that you've had to manfully struggle with. -- Hoary (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin? Well. Though I think I'm able to maintain my neutrality in the Korea/Japan minefield, Sarah Palin's a little too close to home. If I stepped in there, I'd quickly let my views on politics in this country get the better of me, and... kablooie!... mere grumpiness would burst into all-out, total war. :) Anyway, I'm off work today, and Boobpedia is in need of a tender touch. Dekkappai (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Aw, come on, 'Ppai. That article even has an entire paragraph on a porn film. (For all I know, its star may even be "well endowed".) I protected your toy article; now help a sleep-deprived old geezer assailed by two (remarkably similar-sounding) grumps, will ya? -- Hoary (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Hoary. Just took a look at the Palin thing. The grumpiness seems to have abated, so maybe, like the controversy on your page a couple sections below this one, it's been worked out. Looked to me like a guy who just didn't want to see parody that criticized this particular subject. If I may quote from a non-reliable source: Parody is "a work created to mock, comment on, or poke fun at an original work, its subject, or author, or some other target, by means of humorous, satiric or ironic imitation." So, this guy is seeking out non-critical parody?... I suspect "parody" read "hagiography" may be what he's actually looking for... Assuming Good Faith, and all :) Dekkappai (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right on all counts. -- Hoary (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I saw your question at the ref. desk. One of my computers is Win 2k and I recommend SeaMonkey and Sylera. Have you ever tried them? As for FireFox, I hate it. The latest version works OK with my 2k, but it takes very long to come up on the screen. Even though I remove G tool bar and anything related G, G wants to know my login name, phone number, credit card number, etc., when I use FF. It's really annoying. But it never happens with SeaMonkey and Sylera. I still have FF, but I'm thinking about uninstalling. Oda Mari (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I know of SeaMonkey, but I haven't tried it or much wanted to because it promises to include a pile of stuff (HTML editor, mail client) that's of no interest to me. (The main constraint with this computer is hard drive space, and more particularly space on C:.) I'd never heard of Sylera and that does sound good. I don't remember how I installed Firefox, but any time any program asks me if I want to install this or that "helpful" offering from Google I say no. (I don't even accept Google's cookies.)

I think that after a long effort to produce browsers that more or less got CSS2 right -- and I'm reliably told that even MSIE is moderately good these days -- the competition among browsers is now again largely one of gimmickry. A Mac at the office has lots of processing power and hard drive space, so I installed the beta of the next version of Safari: the main difference I see from the old one is that it has a pretty way of displaying web pages that it thinks you might want to look at. I hate to think how many CPU cycles that uses up. And before it has "learnt" what you like, it comes with its own suggestions, of course heavily biased toward Mr Average American's shopping preferences. I can't get excited. -- Hoary (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

SeaMonkey is really nice. You don't have to install a pile of stuff, if you don't want them. But I found the mail client is faster than Thunderbird. So I use it now. And you can hide and show the navigation tool bar, personal tool bar and Menu bar by one click. It's so neat and you can have a larger space for the page. As for G, I don't accept their cookies. But as I wrote above, G wants to know my private info. when I use G search on FF. With Sylera, even if I use G search, it never happens. Uninstall FF and have SeaMonkey! Oda Mari (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the nudge. Yes, I'll try Seamonkey, but first I'll do so on some other computer. I've just done a search with Firefox's built-in Google, and it didn't ask me anything. -- Hoary (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant PS: Some people have far too much free time. -- Hoary (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

(EC)FYI. I mainly use SeaMonkey for editing wiki and never use for searching. Sylera is for browsing and searching. As for CPU, I use this and checking it all the time. And I use this memory cleaner. This one is popular too. I love this too. Because I don't have to click when I switch windows with it. This page is useful for me. なにあれ？ What is it for? Oda Mari (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

While I understand and agree with your reversal here, protection of the page you are editing is against the admins' code or ethics. In the future please be aware that many admins would be more than happy to do the same for you. - 7-bubёn >t 00:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Hoary (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, SemBubenny, it's only suggested (strongly, yes, but suggested) that you don't protect pages you're editing. There are no codes or ethics which specifically forbid it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Although to the surprise of all participants, and thanks in large part to a splendid suggestion by 7-bubёn, this minor kerfuffle was sorted out quickly and amicably. -- Hoary (talk) 08:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI: A user has started a discussion on the Reference Desk talk page, presumably regarding your response here. – 74  03:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip, 74.

I continue to be surprised by the loyalty of some people to their operating systems. (If they'd had a hand in creating them, I'd understand.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The part that gets me isn't the loyalty so much as the militancy—I'm repeatedly shocked by the downright hostility any mention of the 'L' word engenders. "You can have my misery when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers!" – eh, no thanks; you can keep it.   :-)   – 74  06:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people do things for which only one operating system will suffice. But most of the people I know spend virtually all or all of their glued-to-the-screen time doing one or other activity catered for by a total of perhaps eight programs, free as in speech, beer, or both. Explorer, Finder and KDE (I've used all just this week) have similar looks 'n' feels; most of the time I'm browsing a web page, viewing a PDF or writing a paper I don't notice which OS it is that I'm working under. When I used Windows a lot more than I do now, I did make great use of home-brewed Take Command batch files, and the first look at bash was a bit daunting -- but that was mostly because there was so much available beyond what I'd ever want. -- Hoary (talk) 07:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree: Giano's bird makes me dizzy! This I would love as a pet, but they're carpet wreckers, you know. A school friend from a farming family was allowed to keep a pet pig, complete with a private swing-door from his bedroom to the yard. Came home from boarding school for the holidays, and she was bacon. Tears. Tony (talk) 07:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

And even if you keep them away from carpets, they grow very big very fast. All in all, nanny goats are better. But as for the carpets, do try to watch the film A Private Function some time, not reading anything about it (even what's written on the DVD box) till you do so. -- Hoary (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for chipping in. Have you read the section just above? My comments about recusal may make more sense if you have. --John (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've skimread it, and you may have a point about recusal. However, on much else we have to differ. ¶ Meanwhile, your user page tells the world that This page is best viewed in Mozilla Firefox. It indeed looks pretty good in Firefox. It appears to be virtually identical in the unrelated Konqueror; indeed, I don't notice any difference whatever. (I didn't bother to try Opera or any other browser.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

...the still photographer (not)? Well he is now. Still I mean. Very still. In fact he's dead. I managed to remove the two 'living' categories from his page, but am struggling to put in the 'not living' versions of these - which I assume exist. As a past corrector of Otto's category section I thought you might like to have a go. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

My apologies to the late lamented, but I have to confess that no, I didn't remember him. Until I got to the page, that is. Ah yes. I'm intrigued by those five published volumes. Polling WorldCat for Otto Felix brings tons of books by Otto somebody and Felix somebody else, but Amazon conveniently lists one (1) book by Otto Felix, titled Amour and stocked in the US by the Anchorage Public Library and nowhere else that has bothered to catalogue it. I'm not whelmed either by this or by the notion that his claim to photographic note is this publication of one pretty picture. The article starts This article includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. And I'd add that the whole thing remains dodgy because none of those sources is disinterested, but adding that might piss off my chum Dekkappai so I won't say it. But I'll say that I'd rather be spending the limited time I have in this world on this person or this one, really. -- Hoary (talk) 09:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You can see the latest here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. You'd already wasted far more time on this person than he deserves, and today you've wasted yet more. But thank you for the heads-up. -- Hoary (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:AlexanderHall.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You need your algorithms looked into, chum. -- Hoary (talk) 05:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that you recently posted a question at Orangemike's talk page. First, I must admit to being a "full", and had to look up the reference; however, it does appear that we still have CAT:BJAODN. In all seriousness though, it was nice to find a link to some items that made me smile, rather than the usual "dramaz" that seems so prevalent throughout the wiki. Have a good one ;) — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 06:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC) (sorry for the generic smile, I couldn't help myself)

I am working on a list and wanted to know if you would proofread the intro text for me? If available, I would appreciate your feedback. Regardless, thank you for your help on wikipedia. kilbad (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have no knowledge whatever of dermatology or anything related to it, and thus hesitate to attempt to improve the prose. I do wish the article well, however. -- Hoary (talk) 04:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hoary, please be more careful when talking about living persons as you did here. This is obviously a controversial topic, and some of your comments could offend people reading. Spring12 (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Hoary, after waiting for 2 months in vain for DGG to put the Errol Sawyer article back on, I would like to ask your advise. Do you have an e-mail address I can send information to? Thank you very much,

--82.95.185.119 (talk) 09:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Neither DGG nor I is going to repost the draft (User:1027E/Errol_Sawyer), even a greatly improved draft that obviously meets all the requirements. Instead, we can give you advice so that you and others can improve the draft to the point where it would meet the requirements. (Right now, it won't, as it has unsupported assertions and miscellaneous other oddities.) When you are confident that it is OK, post a message at User talk:MBisanz asking MBisanz to reconsider it. (You should remind him that it was he who deleted the article.) MBisanz may agree, may disagree but make suggestions that would lead him to agree, or may flatly disagree. If he doesn't agree and you are dissatisfied with his answer, you're free to take the matter up at WP:DRV -- however, it will be much better if you instead edit the article scrupulously and work to get MBisanz's OK. -- Hoary (talk) 10:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed your edits and you seem to know about photography.

I have spent time fixing up this complete fluff piece on Rodney Lough Jr.. Do you know anything about this guy? The article seemed just a huge promotional exercise that Lough had put together. Is this guy worthy of a wikipedia entry? Thanks Jenafalt (talk) 10:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of him. However, large-format color landscapes aren't my thing, so the fact that I've never heard of him means nothing.

Yes, this version of the article is a laugh.

Both his books are published by "Lough Road". The title (in the HTML sense) of his website is "The Lough Road".This hagioblography on him is titled "The Lough Road". I think it's safe to infer that both his books are self-published.

That earlier version of the WP article says (and in bold): Rodney [sic] strictly abstains from using color filters and digital effects. That's odd: Googling had also taken me here, an amazon.com comment (or anyway the top part thereof) that seems to have been removed.

Well, it seems that he verifiably runs an industry selling beautiful images of beautiful scenery. Does he merit an article here? I don't have an immediate answer to that. -- Hoary (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

PS this long thread is most interesting, and worth reading all the way through. -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Your assistance would be appreciated concerning ja:草泥馬, as to where exactly the interwiki links go. For me, they should logically be linked to Grass Mud Horse and zh:草泥馬, but another editor pointed out that there is some content which suggests that the JP article could have been misnamed because there are some references to the Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures. Neither of our Japanese skills are of a sufficient level to solve this one. The discussion is here. Cheers, Ohconfucius (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's the same thing.

And what a bizarre article it is. I quote:

欧米では『grass－mud　horse』と呼ばれている。 [...] 『草泥馬』は英語でfuck your motherという意味がある中国語を動物の名前のように同音の漢字を当てたものである。

which is something like:

In the west [literally, in Europe and (the) America(s)], it is called "grass-mud horse". [...] 草泥馬 uses for the animal hanzi that are homophones for Chinese that means what in English is "fuck your mother".

(1) 草, 泥, 馬 are in Japanese very humdrum characters, used for writing not only Sino-Japanese compounds but also the regular Japanese words kusa, doro, uma, respectively the commonest terms meaning grass, mud, horse. There's no need to gloss them for Japanese readers, unless perhaps it's to reassure them that in Chinese they are no different from Japanese. (Of course plenty of Sino-Japanese kanji have acquired exclusively Japanese uses, and for all I know plenty of hanzi may be used for morphemes whose meanings have changed since their export to Korea and Japan.)

(2) 欧米 covers a wide area. I'd be surprised if the term is "grass-mud horse" in, say, France.

(3) The writers of the Japanese can't bring themselves to present 肏你妈, let alone to gloss it straightforwardly in Japanese, おかあちゃんをやれ.

-- Hoary (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thank, Hoary. So you're saying that the interwiki link to/from Mud Grass Horse is correct and appropriate. That being the case, I shall remove the link to/from Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures. BTW, it's untranslatable in French, which is why Ive gone for fr:Cheval de l’herbe et de la boue, which is a literal translation used in one of the sources. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Um, fr:Cheval de l’herbe et de la boue indeed exists, but shouldn't it be fr:Cheval de l'herbe et de la boue [ugly apostrophe]? Not that I mind, but if somebody will object later, better fix it earlier to reduce the total amount of work. Oh, and are grass and mud separate? My own guess (unhampered by any knowledge of Chinese whatever) was that it might be grassed-over mud, or a marsh. -- Hoary (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You're being discussed here, in regards to that Sheree Silver articles for deletion. The creator, Spring12, seems bound and determined to belittle and discount anyone who voted delete. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hoary, I'm really sorry if I upset you in any way with my observations there. I was discussing the consensus reached with Black Kite, to make sure it was read correctly. Spring12 (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

No no, you didn't upset me at all. (My skin is thick, and you didn't even scratch it.) I suppose I was saying that if I were to comment on the substance of what you wrote there, I'd disagree with some of it as strongly as SH had done -- but that this wasn't the place to get into an argument about it. I didn't mean to say that I agreed with SH's objections. (For one thing, I disagree with them.) AfD is usually a pretty horrible experience and it's unfortunate that one of "your" articles was subjected to one so early. (A "PROD" notice is bad enough: example; defense.) Best wishes for editing other articles. -- Hoary (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate your opinions and contributions at an essay I am working on: User:Chillum/Discrediting your opponent. It is only a stub, but I think a significant essay can be written on the subject.

The more brains I have helping me the better I can get this concept across to people. More brains can also be a potent sanity check. I have found past discussions with you to be very helpful. Chillum 01:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Re. Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Autoformatting responses

What kind of idiot is that? I just fail to understand the point of it. It's hardly going to succeed in subverting the poll (I am in support, BTW, and it seems rougly 2 to 3 in the oppose camp) but I just can't think, I can imagine if it was destructive even, but it's just pointless. Sorry it just boggles my mind. Thanks for reverting, merrily. SimonTrew (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure of the thrust of what you're saying here, but I'll say that the would-be correction to my vote was surely well-intended, and that although I voted "oppose" (in quotation marks) I noticed more bizarreness and irrelevance among the oppose votes than among the support votes -- not that I can claim to have done more than skimread. ¶ Oh, you may wish to tweak your user page: you say that there are some words and phrases that I think are overly wordy or do not have the meaning intended, giving as one example "kids" used for "children". Surely only a pathologically blinkered pedant would say that "kids" are only for goats; almost always, the meaning of "kids" is perfectly clear in context and it's one syllable shorter than "children". I don't say that you should learn to love the word "kids" (I don't much like it myself), but you may wish to make some different complaint about it. -- Hoary (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh I was just grumbling really that I can't see the point of changing other's text, whichever side they're on. I'm glad you think it was in good faith.

Fair points about "kids"-- I especially hated it when Tony Blair was PM as he used it all the time and I just don't think it's appropriate in formal situations. I was doing some copy editing last night and was so tempted to change a table heading from (Adults + Kids) to (Adults + Children) but decided against it because the former was shorter and so mae the column a tad narrower-- I can have some restraint!

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Me, I tend to think that when politicians talk of "kids" or "folks", or are seen consuming stuff from junk food megacorporations, or otherwise display "the common touch" in concentrated form, they're resorting to the populist mask in order to distract the gullible from an impending transfer of yet more money or other resources from the poor to the rich. -- Hoary (talk) 03:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

How'd you manage to keep yourself away from this little morsel you deletionist you? --KP Botany (talk) 05:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Damn, sorry I missed that one. But trust me, I've been deleting away in the meantime. I take seriously my responsibility to live down to my image. That aside, you've made me want to watch Prime Cut again. -- Hoary (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Good grief, you're the only other human being on the planet who's watched that movie besides me? I may need to visit your user page just thinking about that. PS Just to be clear, it's the thought of you watching it, not watching it, itself. That's a movie worth rewatching. --KP Botany (talk) 03:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I appreciate it. I'm OK now, I'm embarrassed a little though. A typical J reaction in the 恥の文化 society? Oda Mari (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Putting aside the question of whether it's typical, I don't think it's merited. Yes, you broke an unusually harsh rule, but you broke it in the mildest and most inoffensive way imaginable, which I'd have thought would lead to a block of 12 hours or so at the harshest. ¶ After all, if we're to be martinets, I wonder what I as a newly trigger-happy admin should do about a recent edit such as this one. In fact I'm inclined to do nothing, not least because I tend to react mildly to people's eruptions on their own talk pages. Having thereby won myself space to erupt here, I'll say that the sabre-rattling and miscellaneous bloody-mindedness and stupidity surrounding these rocks generally repels me, but since xenophobes, the jackbooted far right and other political opportunists here in Japan like to make a big deal of the rocks, I hope South Korea takes them over completely. (If I were instead in South Korea, I might well hope that Japan would take them over completely.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Right-- as someone who spent years in South Korea, I can assure you the rhetoric and zeal over there over these pebbles is no less repellent :( The Korean film No. 3 has a very funny scene in which the Korean gang and the Japanese yakuza are meeting to join forces. A couple of the lower-tier thugs bring up whether the rocks should be called Dokdo or Takeshima and all hell breaks loose from there. Good to see that some people can laugh at the situation. Also, judging from the outburst on the blocking admin's page, s/he's probably experiencing a case of ethnic-rivalry-fatigue. I was raised with Japanese people & culture, and married into Korean, and have equal affection for both groups... so, obviously, I've been at that "a pox on both your houses" stage a few times myself :) Anyway, welcome back, Oda Mari! Dekkappai (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

:) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, 20 days have passed and no evidence has been presented so can you return the article's version to the featured status? Also, can you say something to Hobartimus so that he stops falsely accusing others and discriminating against IP users?--86.44.135.94 (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Bratislava. -- Hoary (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Just to let you know there is a request at WP:RPP to change the protection level on this article. I've asked them to come to you, as you protected it, but you may want to decline/respond to it there so the bot can clear it away. --GedUK  21:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. As I've said there and on its talk page, I think it should remain fully protected until an informed solution has been hammered out, whereupon it can be fully unprotected and confidently defended against the underinformed and those with one or other kind of historical grudge. -- Hoary (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Your message was received and very appreciated. Sorry for my outburst as well. Good luck and hopefully I have made a wiki friend! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kramer84 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sho' nuff! Alas it seems that I'll be very busy with "real life" for the next few months, but after that I'd be happy if we could work together on some article. -- Hoary (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Hoary/Archive 9 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Hoary/Archive 9's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Hoary/Archive 9! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Congratulations Hoary! - Mailer Diablo 05:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Um, thank you! How extraordinary ... I've done a bit in the past, but very little indeed in the last few weeks other than write disgruntled comments on talk pages. I can't help but wonder if there's been some mistake. Still, in the meantime, I'm chewing on resting on my laurels. -- Hoary (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong when you say the US is at war. Bush's stupid "War on Terror" slogan was just designed to scare the people and Congress into supporting his empire-building action in Iraq. No declaration of war was ever made. You could argue that it is a de facto war, but not that it is actually a war. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you're referring to this. Well of course the very idea of a "War on Terror" was inane. (Surely it was influenced by the "War on Drugs".) And the al-Qaida–Iraq connection was a whopper too. The US sent many of its people to drop bombs on Iraq, and then to invade it, in what you're entirely free to call an "empire-building action", what it has I think called "Operation" this or that (none named quite as aptly as Operation Enduring Our Freedom to Bomb the Living Fuck out of You), but which most people call a "war". Of course the US didn't declare war: to have attempted to do so would have hindered the imperial presidency. As it is, you have a thoroughly modern war, much of which has, in the spirit of neoliberal "deregulation", bypassed the hurdles of democracy and been outsourced to "Blackwater" and other profit-making corporations.

Oh, maybe in some fairyland nothing is what it seems until its perpetrator declares that it's what it seems. Yes, perhaps we'll soon hear that the reason why "enhanced interrogation techniques" can't possibly constitute torture is that their practitioners never declared them to be torture. -- Hoary (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

See 1984 (novel) for background on this kind of wordplay. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

...and Wikipedia:WikiSpeak for our own home-grown version... how about an RfC to cast !votes (which are not "votes" because we don't call them "votes", we call them "!votes") on whether a !war is a "war"? Dekkappai (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, hello Ppai -- I've just been writing something not unrelated to one of your favorite subjects. As for this "!war", spades and ducks come to mind. What would Wittgenstein have said? Would he have amended "The world is everything that is the case" to "The world is everything that its actors declare is the case"? Speech-acts have never been so potent. -- Hoary (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The Bard's rose's names too... I've got other interests, but just sort of drifted into that particular subject when I first came here. In fact this user name was meant as a one-time joke when I started an article on one particularly voluptuous lass. When I saw articles on many "notable" performers in that field up for deletion, I stepped in to help those damsels in distress, and before I knew it, I was the "Japanese porn guy". There are worse crosses to bear in life, I suppose... I might poke in to !vote in that AfD, whose existence, somehow, doesn't surprise me... Though I do hate politics with a passion... Dekkappai (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		You asked for an apology on my behalf due to a personal attack in Talk:Errol Sawyer, and I appreciate it!  Mbinebri  talk ← 15:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Look at Hoary -- always getting the barnstars! Hrumph. (^_^) J Readings (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well well I've got yet another one. It appears below. It's rather small so you might trip over it without noticing it. But even if it's small, it's perfectly formed. -- Hoary (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much Mbinebri. Um, if I were to point out that I asked for substantiation or retraction, and only suggested an apology, would you take your barmystar back? I do rather like it. -- Hoary (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Take back a barnstar? No way! Not to mention, it's the first ever given someone!  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Yup, you're a snoot alright (after having read the Garner link). Then grab hold of Fowler and go to work! I'll watch from the peanut gallery, attempting to boldy tame the crowd (hee hee, just kidding with the split inf). I hang out with a full-blown snoot. I love to throw out a variety of barbarisms in public when I'm with him, just to watch him squirm. Some favorites are "supposably", "irregardless", "agreeance", and the like. The truth is that I'm jealous. I'm too lazy, have too many hobbies, and dammit, I'm just not smart enough to be a snoot. Tparameter (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a trip to the liberry would help? Dekkappai (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I hear you. Me, I tend to say such things as "Hopefully the new pamphlet will be better than last year's" when in the earshot of some old fart (of any age) who takes seriously the strictures of dopey "language mavens": I just like to watch the self-righteous quiver with rage. If you liked the Garner link, try the same author's richly deserved demolition of "Strunk and White". -- Hoary (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I like that Strunk and White critique. It was brutal, but honest. Good one. Tparameter (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

		The Minor Barnstar
		While the changes you made on John Frusciante today were minor, they demonstrated your passion for verbage (my dad's chiding word, referring to verbal and garbage). Because your deep concern about quality of text featured on the mainpage every day is a major asset to the pedia, I award you this minor, but not unimportant, barnstar. BusterD (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh that's terribly decent of you, Buster old chap. I'd been hankering after a nose stud and this is just what the otorhinolaryngologist ordered. I learned the other day that there's no internal locking mechanism and I infer that they can pop out when you sneeze; I promise to be careful with this new bauble. -- Hoary (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

They're sharp, too. BusterD (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The Merriam-Webster Word of the Day for May 3, 2009 is "hoary." Few among us will share this honor. Fg2 (talk) 06:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Crumbs. And posterity can view it here, we're told. But thank you for the heads-up during the big day! -- Hoary (talk) 07:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I will move my message to his talk page now. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Truth (painting), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Truth (painting). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Newross (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that I've ever contributed to the article on this ultimate non-event, but thank you for the heads-up all the same. -- Hoary (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tollemache-for-our-times.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that this has been fixed (OTRS link). -- Hoary (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the laugh! KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Likewise :) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

May also be related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gordon Bleu/Archive. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Very likely so, yes. (Jeez, do we have to go through all that rigmarole in order to deal with this latest name for an, er, "problematic user"? He's got "Multiplyperfect" written all over him; I'd have thought that would be enough.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hoary, I see that you reverted my edits that you referred to on my talk page. Thats fine, as always, Im bold but willing to discuss. My feeling was that because public image of SP is not an article about parodies, it doesnt make sense to to leave a link in various parody articles pointing back to Public Image. Additionally, as you can see from the redirect for deletion discussion, I was driven by a misguided effort to remove the redirect as clutter, an effort which I stopped once it became clear to me that redirects are actually desirable. If you find that answer implausible, so be it.

As for your representation of the AfD or what it means, I disagree with your implication that that discussion was anything other than a referendum on POV fork, not content. I said I felt the article was a POV fork at the onset, and that was the gist of the discussion, as you know. It is entirely incorrect to represent the lack of discussion of the contents of the article as implicit approval, it was not. Bonewah (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Hoary. I'm involved in a minor controversy over at Battles Without Honor and Humanity, and one in which I'm not entirely sure I'm on the right side... The lead mentions in passing that the author of the novel, Koichi Iiboshi (飯干晃一) had once been a yakuza. This is "reliably sourced" to the book Outlaw Masters of Japanese Film by Chris D. and to a direct quote from Fukasaku Kinji in that book. An editor says this is not true and has removed it twice. I suspect the editor is Japanese, and that he is correct, but the problem is we have a "reliable source" that says otherwise... (My opinion of Chris D.'s authority is shaky, but he's all over the place in commentary on Japanese films, and published.) I've reverted and attributed the yakuza claim directly to the book, but I'm not comfortable doing so. I've looked at the Japanese Wiki article on Iiboshi, and it says he went to Tokyo Daigaku, and graduated Kyoto University, not exactly impeccable yakuza credentials. The problem is-- as often at Ja-Wiki-- that article is unsourced... Can you point to any reliable sourcing so that we can counter this mistake in the English book? Or at least stop me from "edit warring" to version I suspect is wrong? :) Dekkappai (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a complete misunderstanding (whatever other crimes Donadio may be guilty of). See my comments on Donadio's talk page. Peter Damian (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

PS I like your "Please don't post a generic smile, "wikilove" or similar template here." Peter Damian (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. (See my comments on Rlevse's talk page.) Thank you for alerting me to this; I wouldn't have noticed it otherwise. -- Hoary (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

But then you refused to unblock him because you are "alarmed by the very clear indication that you want to continue your feud with him." So is he now blocked because he intends to continue a feud, or because of alleged racist comments? If not the latter, why does the original block notice talk about racist comments? Peter Damian (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comments in this thread. -- Hoary (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you undo these moves? This article is about execution by elephant, not about execution by crushing, and, for some reason they can't be reverted. No discussion, no appropriate additions, nothing, just unilaterally moved an article about a very specific topic to a more general topic. Execution by elephant. I'm in the midst of finals. --KP Botany (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, apparently it can just be moved back. I did that. --KP Botany (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment at ANI. DGG (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure! -- Hoary (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hoary. I've recently had a couple impressive viewing experiences-- (movies, I mean)-- and as I recall, you are also a bit of a connoisseur of the cinematically unusual. First-- the 1998 restoration of Welles' Touch of Evil. I hadn't seen the 1958 version for a long time, but this version-- based on Welles' famous, and famously ignored, memo-- left me awe-struck. Highly recommended. Also, to get a glimpse of what was going on on the other side of the water that dare not not speak its name, take a look at this:

http://www.theauteurs.com/films/2039

It's The Housemaid (1960), by Kim Ki-young. And it's free. Dekkappai (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a long time since I've seen Touch of Evil but of course I enjoyed it. Though really, Welles the actor strains my patience a lot in this film. (A contrast with The Lady from Shanghai, an even more enjoyable film and one in which his odd attempt at an Irish brogue doesn't worry me at all.) Thank you for the link to The Housemaid, which I hope to watch soon. -- Hoary (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't enjoy Welles-as-human-garbage-heap? Nothing against Lady from Shanghai, but I saw it fairly recently, and I think I favor the garbage pile to the brogue. Though it could have been my mood too-- I was sipping some good scotch while watching Evil. Stone-cold sober last time I saw Lady, I believe... Marlene Dietrich has all the best lines in Touch of Evil though: "Better lay off of them candy bars... your future's all used up... He was some kind of man. What does it matter what you say about people?" I come nowhere near creating the smoky atmosphere that Dietrich did, of course. Dekkappai (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Hoary. This is Donadio. If it's not abusing your patience, can I ask you please to take a look at the ongoing discussion at White Brazilian and make some comments about procedure? Thanks in advance. Donadio (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Done (as you've seen). -- Hoary (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Hoary. You have been absolutely fantastic in that discussion. I hope you can find the time (and energy) to continue helping on those articles. Donadio (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of abusing your patience, can I ask you to please comment in the Talk Page? Thanks in advance. Donadio (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Done (just now). -- Hoary (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this one, too. That was quite irritating, even if somewhat funny in another level. Donadio (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Please continue the discussion at Lindsay Perigo or some other place that seems appropriate, rather than here. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hoary, I think it is time to protect German Brazilian. Donadio (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No need for that. The information is sourced. If the other editor is removing a sourced information because he deslikes it (or wants to hide it), and creating an useless edit-war, he should be blocked because of that, like he was blocked several times last months because of disruptions. Opinoso (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I have protected the article. I'll comment on that on its talk page. I shall not make personal comments there. However, since personal matters have been raised on this, my personal talk page, I'll make one brief personal observation here. Yes, Donadio has indeed been blocked several times for disruption and edit-warring. Opinoso has also been blocked several times, for these and also for personal attacks. My patience is being stretched here. Stretch it a little more, and I might block again for persistent claims/innuendo about an alleged political or other desire to hide this or that. -- Hoary (talk) 00:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Hoary.

I have mistakenly posted a paragraph that was intended to Talk:German Brazilian in Talk:White Brazilian. Could you please move it to the right place, or can I do it myself? Donadio (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Better would be to note under my response that you posted it there by mistake, and turn off the computer (if it's as late where you are as I guess it is), coolly plan a constructive rewrite to your sandbox in T:GB, and post it there after a good night's sleep and some rethinking. -- Hoary (talk) 02:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hoary, what should I do about this:

What should be "sources" for the lyrics of a song? Something like and ?

Sincerely, if your patience is being stretched, so is mine. I'm trying to do things like I am told, but, really, when it seems something is on its way to resolution, a new problem appears. About things like the spelling of two words in a popular song's lyrics.

Thank your for your help. Donadio (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Protected. -- Hoary (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hoary, I am not personally interested in either placing or removing pictures from the articles. However, I do see some edit warring on them. Is there some guideline for that? Ninguém (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Does this or this say anything useful? -- Hoary (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I fear not. I am actually talking about things like and . Can one remove a picture just out of political or aesthetical considerations? Ninguém (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You raise reasonable questions, and do so in a reasonable way.

I'm sorry, I don't want to investigate this one; I simply don't have enough time. Worse, I don't know where you are supposed to ask. If I understand correctly, the best way (in theory) is via an RFC, but in practice that's very laborious. So I suggest that you ask another experienced editor. If you do so, feel free to link to this message of mine.

Now, could you please attend to the citation, etc., in your "German Brazilian" sandbox? If the other editor doesn't want to edit his, that's his problem; you should do the best job possible in yours. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, thank you. I know I have been abusing your patience. It's that you are the only reasonable admin I have found who was willing to actually try to understand the problems I have been facing, and so I tend to recur to you.

I think I am not a very "graphic" person; I tend to focus in text, not in pictures. In fact, I think I never added or removed any picture in Wikipedia. But sometimes I do see things that strike me as unjust being done to other editors, out of apparently no valid reason. That's why I have brought these edits into question.

I am having some real life troubles that have been delaying my editing here. That's the reason I haven't advanced the discussion in "German Brazilian" as much as I would have liked. It is also sometimes difficult to source the obvious, or to substantiate a negative claim (for instance, how do I source the information that there was no "torture penalty" under Vargas' dictatorship? Can I merely place a link to the 1937 "Constitution" (or the Penal Code) and leave the reader with the trouble of reading everything?)

Again thank you, Ninguém (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No, don't worry yet about torture. How about this? (About half of Lutheran ministers of the Sínodo Riograndense were members of the Nazi party.<ref>René Gertz, ''O Estado Novo no Rio Grande do Sul'' (Passo Fundo: EdiUPF, 2005); as summarized by Mario Maestri, "A inesperada reabilitação de Getúlio Vargas", ''Revista Espaço Acadêmico,'' no. 62 (July 2006; also available [http://www.espacoacademico.com.br/062/62res_maestri.htm here]).</ref>) -- Hoary (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually trying to find Gertz's text online, which I think would be considerably better. If I can't, I'm going to use your proposal. Thank you! Ninguém (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, can you please help me in discussing and solving problems of relevance? As of now, the article on Hunsrückisch makes assertions on the existence of a "German-Brazilian identity" and about English being taught as a second language in Rio Grande do Sul, that seem quite misplaced there. To my surprise, my attempt to remove these irrelevant informations was met with immediate reversal. Ninguém (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Hoary. Ninguém (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You were entirely right to remove this (unsourced) peripheral material from this (entirely unsourced) section of the article. I've left a warning on the editor's page. -- Hoary (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing bizarre about my reversion. Actually, the entire Hunsrückisch article is unsourced and to remove an information saying it is not "sourced" cannot be applied in an enterely unsourced article. Moreover, the information about the "German identity" is important, even if not sourced, because if a person born in Brazil keeps speaking German rather than adopt the Portuguese language spoken by the vast majority, this person is, somehow, keeping a "German identity". The language that a person speaks is one of the most important elements of his/her identity. The important information was removed, along with the information about English, which actually has nothing to do with the article. However, the other editor likes to remove important and not important informations all together, making it impossible for someone to know if the all the informations are important or not. Opinoso (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You're referring to this edit of yours, which I reverted and called bizarre on your talk page.

Your edit undid the combination of this edit and this one, summarized as Unrelated sentence. Article is about Hunsruekisch, not about education in Rio Grande do Sul. and Unrelated sentence. Article is about Hunsruekisch, not about ethnic identities in Southern Brazil. Those edit summaries say nothing about lack of sourcing; they are informative and accurate, and they provide a good reason for the removal. Your own edit summary for reinstating this material reads Undid suppression of informations. There's no "suppression"; it's instead removal of peripheral material that arguably merits inclusion in what's conspicuously announced as the main article on the subject, Riograndenser Hunsrückisch.

Indeed, now that I reexamine this part of Hunsrückisch, I see that the abridgement was far too mild, and I have removed more. -- Hoary (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it is wise for me to intervene in this discussion, but, caution apart, I would like to comment on this:

the other editor likes to remove important and not important informations all together, making it impossible for someone to know if the all the informations are important or not. (Opinoso)

In fact, I made three distincts edits here. It was not only possible, but even easier, to undo just one of them than to undo all. So the the readdition of the information on English teaching in Rio Grande do Sul cannot be due to the difficulty of separating it from the rest. Ninguém (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hoary, could you please check this IP: 201.15.138.116? Ninguém (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

He's made two edits. Both are disagreeable but minor. One was fixed well by you. The other was reversed by another IP who mischaracterized it as "vandalism". This all seems pretty trivial; am I overlooking something?

That matter aside: In "Version N", can I not interest you in either (a) adding ISBNs to books or (b) formatting links to Google so that they are immediately understandable and don't force sideways scrolling? -- Hoary (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hoary, I am trying to improve Version N. It's not always easy, and I don't always find the better way to source things. I don't think I actually know how to format links to Google in order to avoid sideways scrolling. As for ISBNs, I am trying to find sources accessible online, preferably to pointing to offline sources. Am I wrong?

I am also having less time to edit in a more detailed and profound way; real life sometimes needs to have precedence.

As for the IP, he has made two edits. Both seem to continue other IP edits, namely 201.10.43.98 and 201.35.133.68, which have surfaced in this context: . I hope you will understand that I find it necessary to put them biggest distance between myself and such things.

I hadn't seen the reversion of the other edit. Mischaracterizations of others' edits as vandalism is not something new in this context. I have actually complained about that in my talk page during the discussion of my unfair block.

Thank you for your time and patience. Ninguém (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, you caught me at my sleepiest and grumpiest. My own "real life" is surreally busy so I sympathize with your plight.

As I understand it, you're in a long-term disagreement with Opinoso; and at times IPs pop up to make edits that disagree with Opinoso and that might appear to be compatible with your position, but from whose content or tone you want to disassociate yourself, and against which you may want to defend Opinoso. I think your intentions are good, but I simply lack the energy to look into all of this, and even when I do have lots of time I have to accept that both IPs and registered users are going to make bad edits with insulting summaries. If the IP is stable, I can do something; if it isn't, there's nothing much that can be done short of semi-protecting the article, which is not something that people rush to do.

When you're pretty happy with the "N" version, let me know. Then, IFF you like, I'll try tinkering with it -- not the factual assertions within it, but their expression.

Simple matters: (i) If you're certain that one or other ISBN is correct for a book, please add it. The method is incredibly simple: "ISBN" followed by one space and the numbers. (Example: ISBN 0140297863. Note that no "[" or "]" is needed.) Click on the link in order to see how useful it is. (ii) When you have an external link of any length (very short or grotesquely long), format it as [http://blahblahblah title]. If it's a book at Google Books, I'd generally write something like Author, ''Title'' (Place: Publisher, Year; ISBN number); also available [http://blahblahblah here] at Google Books. -- Hoary (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again, Hoary. Your summary of my problem with such edits is more precise and concise than I would have possibly made it.

I am sorry for this rant; I know that nothing of this is your fault, and, in the contrary, your intervention in this issue has been extremely useful and precise. In fact, if there were more admins like you (which unhappily seems to be untrue), Wikipedia might be a viable project. There are, frankly, times when I think the best I could do would be to quit Wikipedia for good, and start trying to undermine its credibility elsewhere. If I haven't, it is mainly your merit.

As for Version N, I'm still unhappy with it. First, there is this recurrent myth that Vargas forbade "all manifestations of German culture". While this assertion can be "sourced", ie, there actually are people stupid enough to put this into writing and publish it in the internet or in paper, this is clearly an absurd. I would like to find sources that explicitly deny this, but it obviously isn't easy.

There evidently was intervention against German-owned companies in Brazil during Vargas dictatorship. I am trying to establish what actually happened, which involves trying to understand why Renner apparently had no bigger problems than no longer being able to actively discriminate against non-Germans in their employment policies (which, yes, they used to do), while Hering had to suffer replacement of its manager and board (and why Curt Hering was someone that could not be allowed to manage his own company, but and individual named Roberto Grossenbacher was considered apt to manage it in his place; apparently it hasn't to do with Hering being of German descent, or Grossenbacher wouldn't qualify also). Also, I would like to present a better picture of the legal measures taken by Vargas against the minority of German descent. This isn't easy; the Brazilian Senate has a collection of Brazilian legislation, but searching it is not really easy and my feeling is it is incomplete. I would really like to present a decree that forbade the use of German and established penalties against it use, to definitely put to rest the lie that there was a "torture penalty". But so far I found two, that forbade it but said nothing about penalties. I have referred to them in the article (), but the edit was summarily erased as usual (), including the unaccurate and offencive edit summary.

I would also like to write something about the participation of "German Brazilians" in the Brazilian Army and especially its campaign against the Wehrmacht in Northern Italy. Up to now, there is something quite disagreeable about what the article has to say about it. If "German Brazilians" had to enlist and fight like everybody else, that's an horror, because, poor them, they would have to shoot at other Germans. If not, the horror, they were discriminated, they could not even have a military carreer.

The general tone of the article is awful, too. It projects XXI centurally mores into WWII times, when nobody actually cared about multiculturalism and ethnic minorities rights (not even in established democracies as the US and the UK); it treats the mistreatment of German nationals and "German Brazilians" by Vargas' dictatorship as a completely isolated phenomenon - when in fact, in this particular issue, Vargas' dictatorship does not compare unfavourably to Roosevelt's democracy. It goes to length in denying the existence of a "German danger" as it was perceived and denounced by Brazilian nationalists (and government) at the time; but then it wants us to consider perfectly natural and acceptable that part of the Brazilian populace considered itself German (and Germans ethnically superior to other "races"). I would like to change that. Unhappily, it is not easy, nor it can be done in a few minutes. It would probably take a few months, even if there wasn't the intent, by other editors, to keep it as it is.

So I am going to have to ask you for some patience, perhaps more than it is reasonable to demand. Ninguém (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The one place above where you severely strain my patience is where you make accusations about another editor. Complaints are welcome here as long as they're about content, about me, or about specific actions by anyone. If there are more such complaints here, I shall not hide them (as I've most unusually done above) but instead shall delete them together with anything else posted by the same person.

As for your other points, I'll respond to some a little later. -- Hoary (talk) 04:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This has been a very long day and I shall therefore address just one point.

You say above: I have referred to them in the article (link), but the edit was summarily erased as usual (link), including the unaccurate and offencive edit summary (with my addition of the word "link", twice).

The first edit seems informative. However, its summary reads Correcting sensationalist claims with reliable sources (Brazilian legal texts). But this itself strikes me as controversial. Brazil was an authoritarian country, and in such countries the letter of the law is not always adhered to. Brazilian legal texts may be excellent sources for the letter of the Brazilian law but they are not obviously the best sources for what the police and others were actually doing. Further, what you were altering and added to may or may not have been sensationalist but you should know very well that this word is likely to anger your opponent. Whether or not the claims were sensationalist, all you needed to say is that they lacked reliable sources.

The second edit indeed has an inaccurate edit summary. But I don't see it as offensive. Perhaps you were indeed offended; if you were, I think you'd also be offended by an insinuation that you had inserted sensationalist claims. Let's not have double standards here.

Now let's look at your sources in that edit of yours. Here's one footnote:

javascript:abrePopup('http://www6.senado.gov.br/legislacao/ListaPublicacoes.action?id=12803', 'nautilus'); Decreto-Lei 406, May 4th, 1938, article 87

That looks terrible. Try clicking on it. I don't know about you, but (thanks to a quotation mark) it doesn't work for me. Do you perhaps mean

Decreto-Lei 406, May 4th, 1938, article 87

?

Now please return to that sandbox. I'm not interested in claims for which there surely ought to be evidence even if that evidence can't be found. Just use the best information that you do have, and use it very scrupulously. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hoary, I don' think I am going back to the sandbox.

My patience has a limit. I am working for free - in fact, for a loss. This is something I don't usually do. It is not something I like to do. And it is only possible if I believe my work is able to change something for the common good. This seems to be not the case with Wikipedia. And consequently, I am no longer tempted to waste my time trying to correct its mistakes, or improve its articles. There are better things to do with my time.

I am sorry for having abused your patience and wasted your time. Have a good time, and good luck in your endeavours. Ninguém (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to read this, because I thought that the sandbox was moving toward what looked to me (unable to read Portuguese) an informative state. Even if it was "two steps forward, one step back" and I clobbered the one step back, it was improving. And actually it wasn't two forward one back; more like three forward one back. So I hope that you return to the sandbox, perhaps after a week-long break. -- Hoary (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As I have explained, I don't want to be associated with Wikipedia. Opinoso's edit here is just plain useless and noxious. And can you please explain him, for the 298,320,983,280th time, what is vandalism, so that he stops misusing the word?

Thank you. Ninguém (talk) 11:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, Gwen Gale did it. Thanks anyway. Ninguém (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Good afternoon! I hope I am not being intrusive, but I´d like to request for your help in a matter. I have recently done a few harmless edits in the article Brazilian people. I´ve added pictures of Brazilians from different ethnies from the 19th Century simply to illustrate. However, user Opinoso not only reverted my edits but also started a revert war for meaningless reasons. He disliked the fact that I had put the first the picture of a White girl (which was a random choice of mine) and later he complained that a ron girl was in fact Black. The problem is (along with the unnecessary edit war) the fact that he acts like he owned the article and consequently can do whatever he wants as he please. I am a long contributor for Wikipedia, artcles like: Politics of the Empire of Brazil, Economy of the Empire of Brazil, Military of the Empire of Brazil and many others were written, organized and edited almost exclusively by me. What I´m trying to tell is that I am very careful in what I do. Anyway, thank you for your time. - --Lecen (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I am very busy outside Wikipedia, and I am very tired of complaints (whether baseless or justified) about other people's edits concerning "race" and ethnic identities in Brazil.

So no.

You should coolly decide what the core issue is, and then coolly take it up at the appropriate place. I'd warn you that describing yourself (however justifiably) as a longterm and energetic contributor is likely to be much less effective than a demonstration of your maturity and cooperative nature. You'll achieve the latter by (i) conciseness, (ii) provision of diffs, (iii) avoidance of speculation about others' motives, (iv) avoidance of hyperbole. (Of course it's difficult to square the first of these with the second; do your best.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

My intention was not to praise myself. All I wanted to say was that everything I do is with great care and if I had to come here to ask for your help it was because I saw no other way out. The user Opinoso is constantly getting into trouble with other users and is quite hard to work serious when there is someone like him around. Anyway, thank you for your attention. - --Lecen (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I take all of your points. And I appreciate the thought behind entrusting this to me.

I'm sorry, but I really am too busy. (My contributions history will show that I have recently made very few edits to the subjects that most interest me.)

It may not be a good idea to ask somebody specific for help (in the way that you asked me). If the dispute later escalates, your adversary may then claim that you asked the specific person because you have a particular point of view and had reason to think that person would be receptive to it. (NB I'm not criticizing the way you asked me, just saying it has a downside.) It's better to ask in a forum that people of any (real or imagined) point of view are equally likely to read.

You may also wish to see this and create and work on your own "Version L". (Start by pasting in from whichever version you like more [or dislike less], and then work ont that.) As you'll see, one other editor started but lost patience and the other didn't even start. -- Hoary (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello there! My intention was not to force some point of view, because there isn´t any. I haven´t written anything at all in that article. All I done was to put a few pictures to illustrate. That´s not even the problem, but the way the User Opinoso acts around: he is always threatening and at the same time accusing other users of actions that they didn´t commit (like personnal attacks). But worse of all is that he acts like he owns the articles that he is/was involved somehow. But don´t worry, forget about it. I don´t even bother with that article, anyway.

My focus are on the articles about the Empire of Brazil. If you want to exchange thoughts about this period of the Brazilian history, you´re welcome!

About why I went after you to ask help about Opinoso the truth is that I saw that you already had met him so I believed you already understood the matter. But as said, forget it. There are so many complaining about him that it´s a matter of time until things get ugly at his side. Anyway, thank you very much! --Lecen (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think I do understand the matter. But unfortunately my time is limited. -- Hoary (talk) 04:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

A RfC has been opened to discuss the issue of alignment of the lead image on the Joseph Priestley article. Because you have previously commented or been involved with this issue, your input is requested. Please stop by Talk:Joseph_Priestley#RfC_on_lead_image_alignment and leave any feedback you may have. Thank you. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Your external link: Oh ... my ... god. PS Online academic journals are coming to our neighbourhood very very soon—apparently the better ones will make the transition and you'll pay to be published (that is, your university will redirect its current library budget for buying dead-tree journals, plus more, into departmental funds for such publications). The mediocre journals will continue to kill innocent trees. Tony (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hoary, a week ago you posted the following:

I'm sorry to read this, because I thought that the sandbox was moving toward what looked to me (unable to read Portuguese) an informative state. Even if it was "two steps forward, one step back" and I clobbered the one step back, it was improving. And actually it wasn't two forward one back; more like three forward one back. So I hope that you return to the sandbox, perhaps after a week-long break.

So I think that, a week later, I should explain why it is unlikely that I am going to the sandbox.

I am sorry, but I am not going to "improve" an article that states that there was a "torture penalty". I would be only giving credibility for that lie. That it is a falsety is indeed recognised by the editor who introduced it:

It seems somebody is trying to deny the fact that Germans in Brazil were obliged to stop speaking their mother tongue and that many of them were arrested and even torture because of this. Yes, Brazilian Republican law never allowed people to be tortured, but in Brazil's History the law is often not respected, and torture is still widely used even today. Opinoso, in Talk:German Brazilian, 17:38, 25 May 2009.

His understanding, of course, includes something very original:

It does not say this penalty was legal, because torture is not legal in Brazil since the end of slavery in 1888. However, it's an "illegal penalty" widely used in the country, even today. Opinoso, in Talk:German Brazilian, 17:25, 29 May 2009

The new, and unheard of, concept of "illegal penalty".

To me, the correct attitude was preciselly summarised by you:

Clearly you mustn't misrepresent what A Colônia Suíça de Nova Friburgo (or anything else) says. But you also don't want to misrepresent the truth as you can (well-informedly) agree to it. Hoary, in Talk:White Brazilian, 03:45, 23 May 2009

This is exactly what is happening here. Wikipedia is misrepresenting the truth.

As to the substance of this debate, there are three different, though equally awful, things that may, or may not have happened:

1. actual or suspected Nazis were tortured by the Brazilian police to obtain confessions or information about their networks (this is quite certain to have happened; I wouldn't even question it if stated without sources);
2. "suspected Nazis" might have included people who were "suspected" of being Nazis just because they spoke German (and perhaps Yidish or Polish?) in public places (this seems less likely, though I would say it definitely possible; a reliable source is necessary to substantiate this, preferably with names of actual people who suffered this);
3. people were tortured (illegally) for the sole reason of speaking German (etc.) in public (this seems quite unlikely, and would need quite good sources, with names, dates, and follow up, to be taken in serious);

I am open to debate the reality or unreality of any of those - if, and only if, I am not subjected to things like,

• Be neutral, and do not change the Historic facts. It's not encyclopedical to try to hide facts of the past just because they do not seem "correct".
• Unless you do, it seems you're trying to "soften" the case.
• You're not the one indicated to determine if a source is reliable or not, because you frequently write unsourced personal theories in articles. I remember when you tried to use Phone Books as source, like you did before claiming that most people in Brazilian Phone Books have Portuguese surnames, then they're all whites of direct Portuguese descent.
• The fact is that you're trying to "hide" the anti-ethical attitudes towards Germans during the Getúlio Vargas government, saying they're "sensationalist claims".
• Please, do not try to "soften" the historic facts and try to sell the idea that everything works well in Brazil, and that the law is respected here. It is not respected. Everybody knows the problems of Brazil, you do not need to try to hide them.

But evidently, my participation has two conditions: first, that the reference to "torture penalty" is previously removed; and second, that abuse like the reported above no longer goes on unpunished. Ninguém (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Your second condition: If another editor's behavior merits investigation and perhaps censure (or a block or even a ban), then let it get them. I'm not going to instigate any investigation myself, and if somebody else does then I'll probably stay away. I'm just too busy.

Your first condition: You were working on this. It has no reference to any "torture penalty" (because this has already been struck out and then removed). -- Hoary (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, last things first.

2. There is a simpler, easier, way to avoid the mistreatment I described before: not editing Wikipedia anymore. As of now, I think I have at least disentangled my name from this mess (except perhaps for this: ), so whether it is accurate or not is no longer a personal issue to me. If anyone asks me about Wikipedia offline, I can always answer what I really think, without any thought police being able to do anything.

Meanwhile, we have watched, in real time, another good faith user being effectively sent away from editing Opinoso's articles.

1. You have now two versions for the same article. I will no longer work on mine; Opinoso never worked on his, so it is unlikely that either are going to change (a third version is equally unlikely, for reasons discussed under #2 above). Choose the one you rate less flawed, and place it in the article.

Thank your for your time, effort, and patience; you were the first admin here to actually try and do something about this issue. If there were more like you, this project might work. Ninguém (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)