User talk:Hoary

If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page to avoid fragmenting the discussion. If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will be watching it, so you're most welcome to reply there rather than here.

I've assiduously followed the advice on this page and have shunted earlier banter and repartee to:

• Archive 1 (13 Nov 2004 to 23 Feb 2005)
• Archive 2 (24 Feb 2004 to 27 May 2005)
• Archive 3 (29 May 2005 to 17 Sep 2005)
• Archive 4 (18 Sep 2005 to 9 Nov 2005)
• Archive 5 (13 Nov 2005 to 22 May 2006)
• Archive 6 (23 May 2006 to 4 Oct 2006)

Good service indeed

Thanks. Jkelly 16:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to leave a note at User talk:NicholasTurnbull. Jkelly 16:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hidesawa Sudo Proposed Deletion

Hi Hoary,

An editor has proposed deleting of the article Hidesawa Sudo, to which you contributed. You might wish to support or protest the nomination for deletion.

Fg2 00:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. As I understand it, it's a "prod" that I can either ignore (fail to oppose) or oppose: active support isn't necessary. I don't disagree with it so don't intend to do anything, though if nobody else objects I may be the person who deletes the article five days from now.

Actually I was thinking of prodding both this and (the very different) Martin Ryter myself. -- Hoary 01:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: List of photographers

Re your message: Not a problem. It took me awhile to figure out what that editor was up to as I thought he was just a new editor who didn't know how to start a new article. Then he uploaded a sample of his work... uh, yeah...

I don't know a whole lot about photography or photographers (unlike you), so I'm not sure if I would be of much help in adopting one of the photographers. -- Gogo Dodo

Re your message: Yeah, RC patrolling can get rather frustrating and disappointing, but then I just turn off the computer and walk away for awhile. However, sometimes it can get hilarious watching the efforts that some people will go through to try to vandalize.

Thank you for the token. I'll have browse around for a good book. =) -- Gogo Dodo 04:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"Agnes" versus "AGNES"

AGNES was supposed to be all caps in some articles so it should have been AGNES I do know this much about the gallery They were particular about it .... written at 03:33, 9 October 2006 by Artintegrated

Meanwhile, I know for a fact that Sanyo is particular about the FULL CAPS of "SANYO". Wikipedia rightly ignores such vanity; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). -- Hoary 03:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Something you might be interested in

Since you requested deletion for the One Peice attacks, I thought you could help out here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dragon Ball special abilities. Hydromasta231 04:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Better understanding WP:NPOV and WP:V

There is a general misunderstanding of late as to the true intent of WP:NPOV and WP:V. To state a "fact" (or, if you prefer, a "generally held belief") which is supported by virtually all sources and contradicted by few if any, it is not appropriate to slap a "" tag on, just for one's jollies. "Abraham Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents." One DOES NOT have to provide a source for such a statement!!! There is where y'all are a little unclear about the rules here. To even attempt to name "one source" for the above comment about Lincoln is ridiculous. If, instead, you know of a source that contradicts it, it is your onus to find one. Perhaps you also disagree that Lincoln was the 16th president. If you think he was the 15th or 17th, go prove it. Slapping here and there might be enjoyable to you, but that is not the appropriate response to accepted fact. This clarification is intended not towards any one editor in particularly, but clearly it has become a trend, and a very immature one. Best, LorenzoPerosi1898 00:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder. Which edit(s) of mine triggered it? Yours jollily, Hoary 03:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

RfB With A Smile :)

Stylin'

I'm one of those who feel that commas are usually over-used, though I also believe their use is often a matter of personal style (as well as UK vs. US standards, with Canada typically caught between the two). When I submitted Felice Beato as a FAC the old guy was subjected to massive comma additions, many of which seemed to me to be superfluous or even damaging to the article. But then I also have self doubts - maybe I'm missing something (besides commas)? Rossier was just given the comma treatment by an editor and so I thought I'd pass the changes by you for your erudite comment. Of course, it's a pretty trivial matter, and yet: At the age of 16, he became a teacher at a school in a neighbouring village but, by 1855, he had made a career change--for in that year, he was issued... (from the paragraph beginning "Until very recently..." in the Identity and origins section) is the sort of punctuation that raises hairs on the back of my neck. Any thoughts on this minor matter? Pinkville 02:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this kind of thing is irritating. We can accept that different people have different tastes in comma use. Some (non-)uses are plain wrong; very many are a just matter of individual taste; and some are somewhere in between, whereby we could say that this or that (non-)use is strange but permissible. Even granted that nobody "owns" an article on WP, it seems odd that a late arrival to an article that's already polished would adjust the already-acceptable orthography of article so that it exactly fits his or her own taste rather than the exemplary but different taste of the editor who has most recently made substantial changes. Moreover, the oddity (or potential for disagreement) of doing so is I think what underlies the general ban on changing standardized "American" spellings to "British" ones and vice versa. ¶ I looked at the version before the most recent changes and that after it and I preferred the former. I then tried to forget about the former as I redid certain aspects of the latest version the article "my way"; something I normally wouldn't do but did here as (i) I think "my way" is probably no worse (or better) than others' ways and (ii) I thought I'd been given a quasi-invitation by the creator of the article. You are very, very welcome to undo any or all of my little changes. -- Hoary 03:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You read my mind! And all your changes are improvements. I'm suddenly perplexed by Yoshio Kesai, though. My sources all use Japanese name order, so I'm wondering how I got "Yoshio Kesai"? Ididn't notice the anomaly till now... Pinkville 13:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

another dubious entry

You can probably add Brent Murray to your growing collection of dubious entries/possible AfDs on the List of photographers... Pinkville 22:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Shall do. Erm, hang on a sec -- could it be your turn to start the "proceedings", perhaps? -- Hoary 23:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Watchoo talkin' about, Willis? Oh yeah, probably. :~) Pinkville 01:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Eric Rudolph

I believe that, Christianity, section was deleted because it was loaded with weasel words. Also, according to the new policy for biographies poorly sourced or highly controversial topics should be removed. If you look into the article's talk page, you'll notice this issue has remained unsolved for a while now. Fighting for Justice 05:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Puffery

Puffapedia? It can certainly seem like it at times; in fact, I think I went toward "Keep" on Brent Murray mostly because, after spending too much time on, for example, the various outcroppings of Linza-iana, he at least actually had proof, once the vanicruft was stripped away, of being associated with a major outlet. I should have considered the context more carefully, and familiarized myself with the photographers category (which does appear to be heavy on autohagiography and "legends"). Robertissimo 06:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Puffery 2.0

Thanks for the praise. I actually stumbled onto Avila by accident while familiarizing myself with photographers' articles in light of Brent Murray's AfD, ditto Sabal, and thought it odd, given his claimed status, that I'd never heard of him (big fan of Hollywood portraits). The category in general does seem to be heavy on autobiographical cruft, and "legendary" is rapidly gaining the status of "interestingly" on my list of annoyances. I wonder if there is somewhere out there an evocative Avila study of a certain legendarily handsome seigneurial olive magnate? Robertissimo 05:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion?

Have fun deleting productive material? I was making a point, or was it too hard to comprehend? Crud3w4re 08:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This deletion? It was a mere rant (with lots of exclamation points, three mentions that you were laughing out loud, and even "I am not just here to rant"); and it about the subject, not the article. Don't bother to reply. -- Hoary 08:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I did add productive material that I thought was POV, but it was after you deleted my original statement. And how wasn't it productive? I was pointing out that the article needed its own section for those that oppose AA and its racist philosophy. Crud3w4re 08:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

Hi, you recently blocked an AOL IP - probably not a brilliant idea. Just to let you know.

--ReviewDude 15:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please let them run riot throughout the encyclopedia, threatening to kill more people as they were... much smarter!!! Glen 15:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Which AOL IP? I've blocked two or just this evening (my time) and have no qualms about either. For both, I only blocked non-signed-in use and the creation of new accounts. Any existing user is free to use either IP. -- Hoary 15:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The link is given. And to Glen, I'm talking about blocking a whole IP being a bad idea, as many new users on that particular one may feel they are being adversely affected... --ReviewDude 18:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, right, that one. Well, this is AOL. From my observation many AOL users flit among many IP numbers, and some stay with just one for a long period. If that IP number is one of those that AOL users flit among, then the block was pointless but on the other hand an unrelated, innocent AOL user who happened first to try with that IP number would be able to edit a few seconds later from a different IP number. If on the other hand this is the new, more or less fixed IP number of some sociopath or drunk, then my block spared WP from his edits for 24 hours (was it?). -- Hoary 23:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

lol...

"tired and emotional"'s right! Good grief what a comment to make! :) Glen 15:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, I see there's even an article on it. I even met George Brown once (just for a few seconds, while he signed a book). -- Hoary 15:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of LOL, I actually did, and nearly upset a drink on my laptop. That Thackeray joke killed (and there's a phrase not often used, I wager)... Robertissimo 15:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: "the it" (passim)

Sorry for that. I did not write the semi automated peer review javascript and can't (as far as I know) edit it, but AndyZ is back from a Wikibreak and I will pass along your message to him (as he did write it). Thanks and take care, Ruhrfisch 18:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. I guess I shouldn't advise others to use "a thorough copyediting" if I can't even do that myself ;). AZ _t 21:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure that you care but...

You were referenced [here] with regard to the proposed Presley arbitration. I believe you are the admin he is refering too though perhaps I am mistaken. Lochdale 21:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I can think of few things less enticing than an RfA over this business. I don't know if I'll say anything. Meanwhile, a tip: run any proposed comments through a spelling checker before posting it! -- Hoary 01:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for intervening with regard to that vandal. --Nlu (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.

deeceevoice

Mr. Crud3w4re, esq.

Hiya, Thanks for the helpful clarification on my talk page. I have my suspicions that Crud3w4re is a new incarnation of the various JJsockpuppets. Then again, maybe he's merely another scattershot ultra-right shit-flinger. Either way, he wants attention... unfortunately. Pinkville 11:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Whiffle

I know that trying to reason with him seems futile, but I had to give it a shot. He's been spreading his banter around a page I'm currently mediating (Yoshiaki Omura) and, while he is rather frustrating to deal with, he seems to be quite intelligent and insightful when he wants to be. So I had to at least try, in the hopes that he would respond to reason. Thanks for your concern, though, and your comments. Input is always appreciated :) Peace - Che Nuevara 01:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

He certainly has a literate (when not merely whimsical) prose style, but I think he has devoted much too large a percentage of his intelligence to milking a situation of his own making for all that it's worth. He announces that he's leaving, presumably to produce a reaction (he could instead have just left). Then he gets his reaction. Then he complains about the reaction he's got as someone who's left -- though of course his very complaint proves that he hasn't left. Et cetera. As for the complaint that the way users treat each other here has no parallel in the "real world", there is of course some truth to this, so what else is new? Meanwhile, his complaints here about an imagined insult to his intelligence or whatever are plain silly, and your reactions to them exemplary. He has already wasted far too much of your time and attention; ignore him. -- Hoary 04:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it has progressed beyond the point of reasoning. But thank you -- I take your compliment to heart.

Happy wiki'ing - Che 05:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Thank you for drawing my attention to my error. I have no idea yet how that happened. I have just included the AFD as an a involved in a request for mediation on another MFD because the instructions said to put the template at the top of all articles involved and I feel this could be considered to been to an extent. --Zeraeph 11:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Zeraeph, I completely concur in the necessity of including the AFD because, for one, it helps demonstrate the PRIOR exchanges between you and Psychonaut, demonstrating how you conducted yourself with decorum. Secondly, it helps demonstrate how you and I related, as well as how I typically conduct myself and express myself. As we stand accused of being, our deepest characters and intentions having been vilified, the vital role of the AFD absolutely MUST be included. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 21:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who'd like to continue this conversation should do so elsewhere. Thanks. -- Hoary 03:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Where to discuss at Wiki?

Hoary, I agree with you that "talking somewhere else" about Dr Donna Hobgood's ideas is best.. But where to do that? I would have normally have invited everyone to the NPA talk page. Or even to the AfD talk page. But neither one of them will be around very long at all. One will be deleted and the other will be archived. I am emailing Donna what I've posted this evening, but do you have any idea of how a discussion like this could be hosted somewhere? Could someone's talk pages be used? a sub-talk page? Thanks in advance if you have ideas. Thanks, too, just for listening, if if nothing sounds feasible. --A green Kiwi in learning mode

Simply and perhaps a bit brutally: Nowhere on Wikipedia. This isn't the site to argue the pros and cons of NPA, just as it isn't the site to argue the pros and cons of the tabula rasa model, Freudian theory, or sociobiology. Argue the pros and cons of having an article about it, yes; and (if the result is "keep") argue the pros and cons of approaches to writing it up. But look, it's like something as different as (say) cameras: if you want to discuss WP articles on cameras, WP is the place; if you want to discuss cameras themselves, then you instead do so at for example Photo.net. -- Hoary 13:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Pierre Rossier

Âllo P., I've just rewritten the intro (aka lead) to this article with a view to future Main Page considerations. Is it acceptable, is it better or worse, do you think? You can easily compare it and the previous versions at this rendezvous point. Thanks for your input. Pinkville 22:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Userpage

I just removed an edit to your Userpage that you might want to review. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 09:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• FYI - I reported it at AN/I. I don't know if it will help, but threats piss me off, even the uninspired and mediocre threats of a third rate troll. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 09:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert, Doc, but this particular troll is an odd one: he can spell correctly. But I'd never heard of him; perhaps he mistook me for somebody else. Or again, perhaps I'd heard of him but had forgotten him: I have brief encounters with so many trolls that I mix them up. -- Hoary 10:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC) handling of

LOL, this one's already been indefblocked. Damn I love our admins :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 10:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

-- and it seems I had good reason never to have heard of him, what with his limited edit history. With his unusual (among trolls) ability to spell, perhaps he'll spend his time elsewhere. But I doubt it. -- Hoary 10:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Crud3w4re

Howdy (living up to my western - Alberta - upbringing)! I think you've dealt with this user before, and you may have seen an earlier message of mine in reference to Crud3w4re. S/He has been blanking their own talk page thereby removing various warnings, etc., and providing Allowed to blank outdated news as an edit summary. I don't recall anyone being allowed to blank warnings from their talk page, especially warnings that date back just over a month. I received this message and follow-up on my own talk page when I reverted one of these blanking incidents. Any comments would be welcome. Pinkville 21:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. Right now I'm connected via modem (remember them?); I'll look and perhaps act a few hours from now. -- Hoary 23:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no rush. It's like a slow suppuration. But I'm a little perturbed by the admin's response.... Also, I have a suspicion that Crud3w4re may be a sockpuppet of Jerry Jones, et al. I do remember modems, they look like Maxwell Smart's shoe. Pinkville 23:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Net access is now faster (and cheaper), but deadlines of the "real world" loom. I've posted this question; you may wish to keep an eye out for any answer(s). Incidentally, the person who I think you mean by "the admin" doesn't seem to be one (though I didn't bother to look him up in the Observer's Book of Admins) -- not that this should matter anyway, though I'll concede that on average (and with considerable standard deviation) admins have a better grasp of da rules than do non-admins. Meanwhile, I don't think I know of "Jerry Jones" and I have a strong hunch that I've been lucky not to know. -- Hoary 03:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the question, etc. I see now - or don't see - the name of "the admin" - though I've certainly communicated with and seen the name often enough... You are indeed fortunate to have missed out on the JJStroker/JerryJones/Woofie fiasco... but then, you've had the King to deal with! Thanks again. Pinkville 04:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That blog post

Yeah.. that was actually mine. :)

I realised that I'd got parts of it wrong a little while ago, so I've rewritten it to relate it more accurately (as far as I can tell). It would certainly be helpful if I could view the history for both articles, though. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 09:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

And yes, I realise it wasn't actually the hoax that I announced it to be, but rather an obscure, non-notable theory (important difference, yes) - but I can't change the content of the slashdot post, once submitted. Damnit. :( Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 10:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, not to worry. If your first description got it a bit wrong, the description has later been corrected. I've been most amused by the suggestion of one writer that Project Gutenberg is reliable. I suppose that some of the etexts are, but what's in a library is better -- if you have access to a good library, and I suspect that most /. writers do, if they can summon the energy to move away from their computer keyboards. -- Hoary 11:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, your original point stands: this hardly /.'s finest article, and my finest post. I apologised to Mr Benis, too.

Looking at the post now, do you think there are any major problems that remain? I've tried to keep it reasonably NPOV, but if you catch anything that needs changing, tell me about it. The post is receiving over 1,000 hits per hour, so mistakes need to be fixed immediately. :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 11:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

In your message to Benis, you write "That posting has not received"; do you mean "not" or "now"?

I find your blog entry rather bizarre and, at this point, gratuitously offensive. Its URL (which you can't change easily), its title (in the HTML sense) and its header (both of which you can change easily) all talk of "vandalism". The text points to the WP page on vandalism, which tells me: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Benis and others arguably made a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia. I'm not sure that they did, but I'm certainly not sure that they didn't. I think what he/they did was mistaken and that's why I voted to delete the articles and don't regret my vote. You write "it’s comforting to think that this particular piece of egregious vandalism is now gone" (my emphasis), but Benis and his supporters did little or nothing (I can't be be bothered to check) in articles outside these two to boost the importance of NPA or Benis, and it's not even clear that anyone wrote any untruth about NPA, let alone any of its alternatives. If you call this egregious vandalism, perhaps you haven't seen the way other editors change names and figures in a mendacious but superficially plausible way (or at a much more puerile level add "Suck my dick" etc.). Think a bit less of what you're going to write on this man's talk page, a bit more about your own page that you say is getting 1000 hits per hour.

When you're through with that, consider this. I haven't started to investigate it, and shan't have time to do so soon, but I think you'll agree that there's a powerful reek of self-promotion. (You might also consider the edit history in view of the last part of the article.) If this article is as awful as I suspect (and one reason why I can't investigate is that the site requires some plug-in that I refuse to download and run), then I'd rush to vote for its deletion -- but I still wouldn't call it vandalism, let alone egregious deletion. -- Hoary 11:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed response -- while I know you dislike my blog post (man, I'm so sensitive), I'm grateful that you provided an outside opinion for consideration. I don't want to commit libel, or anything. Some notes:

• The title at that blog post can be changed, and I've done so to be (arguably) more accurate, and more along these lines.
• "Not" should certainly have been "now", and has been corrected.
• I've left the claim of promoting the article, per the AfD: "Benis himself heavily promotes the NPA Wikipedia article on his websites", and I'm not sure what to call this, though, since it appears to be a violation of the GNU FDL (as I understand it). Between him and D-Katana, there appears to be definite promotion here. Of course, without the history, this is now considerably harder to investigate, although Google's cache does confirm that he used Wikipedia as a means of supporting his theory.
• "Egregious vandalism", and other mentions of such behaviour in the post has been corrected to refer to specific, demonstrable allegations such as the above.

Needless to say, I did all of the above before I posted about it here. I'll take a look at your article above tomorrow, shall I? Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 12:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

In the interests of accuracy, would you be able to identify the user that made the comments you quote here? It's natural to assume it was Benis, but I'd rather check than assume they were his words. I certainly understand if you can't remember the name of the user a week later, but it'd be helpful. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 13:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I have an exam in fourteen hours, so I'm going to bed. Thanks again for taking the time to reasonably explain your position on the post, and I hope you're at least vaguely satisfied with the changes I've made. As far as I can tell the filename itself cannot be changed to remove the reference to vandalism without breaking the link (at least, not from within the WordPress interface, and I don't have FTP access to the server it's hosted on -- if you can help with this, I'd be very grateful), but the rest of the alterations should have changed the overall message somewhat. I'm hoping this has all produced a more reasonable post. Cheers, Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 13:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Peer review of Minamata disease

Hoary, thanks very much for your comments in the peer review of Minamata disease. I really appreciate you reading through the whole article and making so many little changes, and spotting the small mistakes which I missed. I've made most of the changes and included the information you requested. I'm going to be working on the article more over the next few weeks to improve the sections from 1973 onwards, and also the Democratization section. I didn't write that myself, so I intend to thouroughly re-work it.

File:Minamata Chisso Industrial Waste.jpg

Could I ask you to comment on the wastewater pipe photograph of Smith's that I would like to use. Do you think I can use it as fair-use?

Once I've got the article in a bit of a better state, would it be ok to ask you to look at it again?

Again, many thanks. Bobo12345 12:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)