User talk:Hoary

If I've posted something on your talk page, please reply there rather than here. Any new question or comment at the bottom of the page, please. If you post something here, I'll reply here.

Personal attack

Sorry to bother you with this. Unhappily I don't know other admin that I find trustable on these issues.

Here [1], I am (and not for the first time) accused of being "obsessed" about things Portuguese.

As I have already said, I am not Portuguese, I am not "proud" of being of Portuguese descent, and I have nothing particular in favour, or against, Portugal and the Portuguese. Needless to say, I don't consider myself "obsessed", be it with Portugal or the Portuguese, or with anything else.

I very much resent those accusations, I think they are unfair and unwarranted, and I take them as personal attacks, which, as I understand, are explicitly forbidden by Wikipedia rules. So I want this kind of things stopped, now and for once. Can you please enforce the rules in this case? Ninguém (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that he has accused you of anything, although of course what he wrote is compatible with an accusation. But anyway I've asked him about it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you once more, Hoary. Ninguém (talk) 10:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

For the moment, it seems reasonable to me to wait for the weekend to see if he answers to your queries. But I am still interested in his explanations, or lack thereof. Disqualifying other editors contributions by attributing "hidden" and disonest (or even base, as racism) motives to them - he has made too much of this, and not just against me. It is time for that to stop. Ninguém (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the weekend came and went, and he didnt find the time to clarify, or rectify, or take back his accusations, that I am "obsessed" with Portugal or that I am trying to "sell" some ideas in Wikipedia. If this was something occasional, I would gladly let it go. But it isn't. It is a systematic behaviour. Everybody who disagrees with Opinoso is a vandal, or edits on "hidden" motivations, or is "trying to sell" some personal opinion, or is a racist. Or at least everybody who disagrees with Opinoso and is Brazilian (or is Portuguese, or perhaps reads Portuguese) - to be fair I don't remember him making these things to English-speaking Wikipedians (I just don't know if this makes things better or worse). Nobody ever makes good faith mistakes, not to even mention the possibility that others could express a valid, if partial, opinion, or, *gast* be simply correct.

Also if he had a solid grasp on the subjects he edits I would be able to understand his behaviour. But he hasn't. His contributions to Wikipedia show how poorly he understands the subjects on which he is so eager to call others ignorant and ill-intentioned. "Nobody celebrates Carnival in Mato Grosso", "Sicilians have nothing to do with immigration to Brazil", "speaking German in 1940s Brazil was punished with a torture penalty", "illegal penalty", "Xuxa Meneghel is not Italian Brazilian", "Nelson is a Portuguese name", are some of the gems we have seen Opinoso stating in Wikipedia, all of them revealing the superficiality of his knowledge about these matters. So it is not the case of some actual authority on these subjects getting angry with the ignorance of other editors.

And it it is not the only problem with his edits. We have seen him removing fact tags from unsourced "information" in articles, and claiming the the person who placed them should instead find the sources for the information (which, according to him, was "easy", even though those sources never appeared at all). We have seen him reporting sources as saying the exact opposite of what they actually say, reporting figures that can't be found in the source, etc. In fact, his understandment of his sources seem to be a huge problem. One of his preferred authors is Darcy Ribeiro, a Brazilian nationalist and a supporter of Vargas (whom he deems the greatest Brazilian statesman ever) and Vargas' dictatorship - but Ribeiro is somehow reinterpreted as a supporter of post-modern multi-culturalism.

I really think this has to stop. Wikipedia has rules against this behaviour: they are called "Article Ownership" (WP:OWN), "Assume Good Faith (WP:AGF), "Accusing others of bad faith" (WP:AOBF), "Demonstrate Good Faith" (WP:DGF), "Civility" (WP:CIV), "No Personal Attacks" (WP:NPA), etc. His edits, edit summaries, ect., constantly violate those rules. He has been repeatedly warned to avoid this behaviour, and was even blocked a few times for it. He has never stopped it; in fact, he has sophisticated it, making his personal attacks less obvious, but his general line of reasoning never changed: every Portuguese-speaking editor who edits Opinoso's two areas of interest (Brazilian demography, particularly race and ethnicity in Brazil, and Brazilian celebrities, particularly race and ethnic origins of Brazilian celebrities) and is in disagreement with his ideas is not only wrong, but acting in bad faith to impose some agenda or express some "obsession": Ninguém, Lecen, Grenzen22, João Felipe C.S., Hentzer, Quissamã, etc. This was recently expanded to Chileans like Likeminas and Kusamanic, too.

So I am posting this to make clear that I have lost no interest in this issue, and to reinstate my request of rule enforcement in Opinoso's case. His statements about my "Portuguese obsession", his denounciation of my ill intentions in "selling" a "personal theory" on the unimportance of non-Portuguese demographic contributions to Brazil and of "selling" the idea that averages imply the idea that none of the figures taken in account for the average is null, presumably constitute personal attacks; his unability to explain those statements as something else confirms that this is exactly what they are. These personal attacks are nothing new in Opinoso's behaviour, nor are them a rare event; as well, his disruptive behaviour concerning this is nothing new: he is the editor who falsely accused me (twice!) of racism and who made a call-to-arms claiming that "Italians (were) under attack!", as if discussing figures of immigration could constitute somehow an attack on Italian ethnicity; so he shouldn't get a mere 24 hours block as if it was the first time he makes such baseless accusations. Ninguém (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

He's found no time in the last week to respond to the questions I put to him on his talk page, but he's also found no time during that period to write anything, anywhere. I'm not going to take action concerning the behavior of somebody who isn't here. -- Hoary (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That's fine with me, as long as his absence doesn't mean that when he comes back my complaints get too old. Ninguém (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Hoary. As you may see ([2], [3], [4]), the user is back, making quite weird edits (take a look, for instance, at Rio Grande do Sul), and, of course, avoiding addressing your questions to him. What should be done now? Ninguém (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

My complaints

Hi Hoary,

Your answer was actually exactly what I would have recommended to the OP: Buy a new, huge hard disk, and use something like Ghost, or, I suppose, Clonezilla, to copy the C: drive data to it, and then the software tweaks the partition table to embiggen the partition, and then use the new drive as the C: drive. So, on to my complaints about your answer. (A) "Or you can pay money for a shrinkwrapped box containing some alternative to Clonezilla that has no advantage over it, and use this instead of Clonezilla." I found it weird that in a Refdesk answer to a general question, you found the need to plant a flag claiming Clonezilla is strictly superior to all other, similar products. Ghost does have several features Clonezilla doesn't; and in any case, the OP doesn't really care. Why not just tell the OP to use Clonezilla or similar software, some of which is listed at our List of disk cloning software article? (B) I think it is pretty well established that "Use Linux" or "Use a Mac" or "Use Windows" answers are, at best, quite unhelpful to the querents; and, at worst, troll and flame bait. The poor OP just wanted to know about moving some files around on his drives, and you suggest switching operating systems? I didn't like that at all.

Thanks - Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(a continuation from this)

Hang on. First, I hardly claimed that "Clonezilla is strictly superior to all other, similar products"; rather, I implied that it might be at least as good as an alternative in a shrinkwrapped box. Which I think is true. Secondly, among other options, I mentioned the possibility of an alternative to Windows; I didn't push this at all. Aren't you reading too much into the dislikable parts of my response? (Though of course you are fully within your rights to dislike it, and to express the dislike.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder

Hello!

Thanks for the reminder. I was a bit nervous at his behaviour and the damage that he has done to Brazilian subjects (and it is not only me who thinks this way). And I think that nationality plays no role in deciding who will contribute (he is Brazilian I guess). What I wanted to express is my good intention, that was all.

Cheers Grenzer22 (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hoary, in your reminder to Grenzer22, you wrote the following:

The very link that you provided showed Opinoso politely giving a good reason to say that Nelson was a Portuguese name.

Please, have a second look at that link. Here is how Opinoso ends it:

By the way, I don't need to claim any remote "colonial Portuguese ancestry" to know enough about Portugal. On the other hand, there are people who seem to be so proud of their remote Portuguese ancestry but know nothing about Portugal. What a shame.

This seems to me far from polite. It is another of his accusations of hidden motivations by other editors. In this case, it means that my contributions are driven by my ancestry. It is also a lie: nowhere have I ever stated or implied that I am proud of my ancestry (in fact, in these matters, I am in agreement with Bertrand Russel: talking about one's ancestry usually only shows one's decadence).

To make it clear, I don't care about Portugal or the Portuguese. For instance, I don't go to articles about the United States or Canada and try to inflate, or underline, Portuguese "contribution" to the demography of those countries. I know it exists; I don't care if it was bigger than the Italian or the Afghan one. Nor do I think it would somehow benefit (or conversely, damage) Portugal if it was bigger or smaller. Evidently, if I knew for sure that it was almost insignificant and saw in those articles it being inflated to the point of saying that something like ten percent of the US population is "Portuguese American", I would try to remove the misinformation - which is what I have been trying to do with the gross exaggerations about "Italian Brazilians", "Arab Brazilians", "German Brazilians", and practically anything-Brazilian.

To be more clear, I find the idea that stating in an "online encyclopaedia" that there are 436436326+ Brazilians "Somewherelandese Brazilians" somehow benefits Somewhereland puerile - in a sort of ten-year-old puerility. Similarly, the idea that Brazil has the largest, or second largest, or n-th largest population of Japanese, African, or Tadjik descent is something that for some reason Brazilians could be "proud" of strikes me as something I might have thought when I was a pre-teenager - which, alas, means long, long ago.

In your reminder to Grenzer22, you also say this:

His argument may be defective and may not convince you, but it is an argument. He actually comes off there as educated and informed. Flatly saying that you're better educated and informed than somebody else can only be counterproductive.

In that edit, that you call "educated and informed", Opinoso does something quite similar to what you are complaining about in Grenzer22's post, the main difference being in the adbverb "flatly". If stating things like "there are people who seem to be so proud of their remote Portuguese ancestry but know nothing about Portugal" instead of flatly saying that he is better educated and informed than User Ninguém - which is what he meant - makes the difference between shooting one's foot and coming off as educated and informed, then it may follow that making stealthy insinuations about other users intelligence or knowledge is the way to win "contests between editors".

And, by the way, you asked Opinoso to clarify two statements about myself and/or my contributions, that might constitute personal attacks. Quite typically, he has yet to answer that. I am reminding you of that, and hoping you won't find this an abuse of your patience from my part, because I have found that allowing these things to get old without insisting on them tends to benefit rule breakers. So, can you please remind him that he should explain what he means when he mentions a "ridiculous obsession" or the "sale" of "personal opinions" in connection to my contributions?

Thank you again, Hoary, and sorry to again involve you in this foolery. I know I am somehow punishing you for being a good admin, but what can I do when the standard behaviour is to chime in to say things like "I don't care how many Brazilians of this or that descent there are, and I find the subject ridiculous/boring/unimportant, ergo both 'sides' are in the wrong"? Ninguém (talk) 11:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Very well pointed out Ninguém. Thanks. Grenzer22 (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with much that you say above, Ninguém. And I am also well aware that Opinoso has not yet replied to my remarks on his talk page. Right now, this is all that I would like to say on the matter; please do not take this to mean that I have lost interest in it. -- Hoary (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Hoary. I hope you don't mind if I keep, from time to time, making sure that I also have not lost interest in it. In the past, I have found myself often lamenting being unduly complacent with this kind of things, and dormientibus non succurrit jus. Ninguém (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Jan Grarup

Hello Hoary. I have finally found a Dane who can match up to your friend Zoriah Miller's infamy! If you don't know him already, have a look at the article. And also the Foto8 write-up about him here. Thanks also for continuing your boring work on the references in Photography in Denmark. Sorry about mixing up da and dk. The problem is that when everything appears perfect in the updated version, there's no obvious reason to check every letter out - unless you somehow know there is a problem (as you seem to). Ipigott (talk) 12:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice "dk" myself till yesterday; I don't blame you for not doing so.

Grarup does indeed look interesting. I'll investigate. (What puzzles me is the excitement over Sobol's Japan book. I saw it some time ago; it looked humdrum. I read more praise of it, thought that I might have misjudged it, looked at it again, came to the same conclusion. I mentioned it to a friend who's a big fan of Moriyama; he agreed with me. Maybe we're both missing something.)

I've just today heard of this for the first time. There's some really good work here. I'd just like to think that there were news magazines bringing it to the attention of people who don't already happen to be interested in photography. -- Hoary (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Some very good stuff on Anthropographia. Could be a candidate for a WP article. But I don't really agree we don't get enough press coverage of the human rights issues. I subscribe to Time and it always seems full of the stuff, ditto BBC news. Take a look, for example, at this. The problem to me seems to be that the richer countries are all spending too much on the organized conflicts in which they are involved - so however loud people shout, there's simply nothing left for the really deserving causes. As for I, Tokyo, I agree that many of the pictures seem to be a repeat of Sabine with a Japanese girl substituting for a Greenlandic one. But some of the outdoor stuff is not too bad. I suppose you are referring to reviews like this. Sometimes I wonder how much reviewers are being paid (and by whom) to write positive reviews. There are certainly similarities with Morijama, especially the black and white contrast and the suggestive pictures of semi-naked or naked individuals. Ipigott (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I should look again at Time: I don't recall opening a copy for at least a year, long after I'd concluded that it had diluted its previous identity (already hardly a thrilling one for me) with that of advice for the affluent middle-aged on how to spend yet more money on housing, cosmetics, oddly passive vacations, consumer durables, etc. You make BBC News sound good too. I haven't seen Sobol's Greenland work; I'll take a look. -- Hoary (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Am I reading something into nothing?

I wonder what your take on this is. User_talk:Tony1#Achtung.21

Danish photography books

Just in case you do not see this on the Photography in Denmark talk page, here are some suggestions.

The only good book I could find on the subject is Dansk Fotografihistorie, but of course it is in Danish, as would be most of the other books you would find in a Danish bookshop. If you really want to research the subject in detail, why not use your local library. Japan has ILL (Inter-Library Loan) agreements with the rest of the world.

There is also the excellent site you had difficulties in accessing and asked me to delete as a reference. It's here. If you still have difficulties, please let me know and I'll send you the text. -- Ipigott (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to research the subject in detail; I just don't have the time. My point, poorly expressed, was that I have background knowledge of the history of photography in, say, Japan and Britain. (NB I don't claim to be a historian of or particularly knowledgable about either; merely to be significantly knowledgable about both.) If this were instead a history of the photography of either nation, I'd immediately think of people who aren't mentioned in, say, the Oxford Companion to the Photograph (as well as forget about people who are there) and check the article against my ideas. For Denmark, I can't do this kind of thing. So if the question is of whether the article is sufficiently comprehensive, I can't help.

Really, I'm less familiar with the process of becoming a GA than with that of becoming a FA. The latter is something I tend to view with horror or amusement. Anyway, it seems that consistency and rulekeeping are highly valued where they are of least importance, and that certain kinds of authoritarian personalities just hang around and make life miserable for others. To minimize the risk that they'll get carried away, I recommend doing everything to perfection first.

I remember complaining that I couldn't access a certain site. The complaint wasn't directed at the site, at you, or at the citation of pages on the site. I don't remember asking for a reference to be deleted, but if I did then it wasn't because I distrusted that site, which does indeed look good. -- Hoary (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

For once, I'm a bit confused by your comments. It's not too clear whether you would prefer to go straight for FA rather than risk a fail on GA. I don't know when you last looked at the criteria for GA, but I seem to find them much less scary than you do. If you go down them one by one, I don't really think there's a danger of a fail but I would expect some feedback on improvements required for example on the prose, the images, and the level of detail (too much, too little?). I'm not too clear either whether you think it is necessary to go through all the references again for total consistency. As you have already spent a lot of time yourself on this, I would guess that they are now all in pretty good shape. In any case, I am now spending more and more time on Music of Denmark and related topics where a great deal of work is required.

So please let me know if you think I should go ahead and submit it for GA assessment or if you would be happier to drop it. I am not too bothered either way. It's just that when you put an article up for GA, it attracts a lot more attention and interest. What's more, WikiPortal Denmark is sadly lacking in well-rated articles, especially GAs, and I have been trying to improve the siituation. Ipigott (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Briefly, you certainly shouldn't drop it, but you also shouldn't submit it quite yet. Just hang on a couple of weeks. -- Hoary (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. As the French say, "Il est urgent d'attendre." If you think there is anything I should do with the article, just let me know. -- Ipigott (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

List of photographers

I have just been looking at List_of_photographers which appears at the bottom of Template:Photography. As far as I can see, this list needs to be updated whenever a new photographer article appears in WP. Which means I really need to go back to all my Danish photographers and make sure they are on the list. I must say I was surprised to see there was no slot for press photographers, the nearest general heading being documentary. Does anyone maintain this list properly, e.g. on the basis of evolving categories, or is it a free for all? -- Ipigott (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a free for all, really.

The list is next to worthless for almost any purpose that I can think of. However, it seems harmless and it's obviously on the watchlist of several people, who obviously use it, as I do, to alert them to the arrival of what's presumably a small percentage of the new articles.

Yes, "documentary" is problematic, because the meaning can be anywhere from (A) the ingredients of what many people would call a document to (Z) any photography that's neither abstract nor completely staged. "Press photographer" would be a great improvement. -- Hoary (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate your interaction with WikiProject Visual Arts on Photography in Denmark. Good to attract wider attention. Thanks also for explaining my involvement although without your own work and your useful suggestions, the article would not be nearly as good as it is. Now I am continuing to work on Music of Denmark where I am trying to apply some of the lessons I have learnt from you. Have a quick look if you want - and let me know where to concentrate future effort. -- Ipigott (talk) 12:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Demi's Birthday Suit

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Demi's Birthday Suit/GA2. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Couple favors

Hi Hoary, your bosom companion here. Have a couple favors to ask. First, your opinion on an article title over which Oda Mari and I have a question: Inflatable Sex Doll of the Wastelands. The Japanese word for this common household appliance is "ダッチワイフ", and I've seen some (probably most, actually) English titles use the term "Dutch Wife". However, I'm not aware that this is an English term. Could it possibly be a British-ism? The title I used for the article comes from the first large English-language book on pink cinema (Thomas & Yuko Mihara Weisser's Japanese Cinema Encyclopedia: The Sex Films), and, personally, I like it better. But if it actually is used in English, that might sway me over to the "Dutch" camp... Second, would it be within your authority as Admin to create/delete/& "salt" the page: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dekkappai? Consider it a "statement" I can't make, not having the "salt" tools in my arsenal, just primitive old sarcasm coupled with dodgy morphology. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

On favor one: I note our article Dutch wife redirects to Sex doll, and a description of the "Dutch" usage only in Japan, sourced, naturally, to a deleted Mainichi article. Urban Dictionary defines the term without reference to Japan, but I find Urban Dictionary to be spectacularly crappy as a source, and note that the more rational definitions seem to be cribbed from our own. So that won't sway me. On favor two: take a look at the glory that is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MichaelQSchmidt and you'll see why my interest in having no interest in Adminship has been rekindled. Dekkappai (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "Dutch wife" is a well-established term in British English. In my faraway yoof it was the standard term, at least among the majority who regarded Dutch wives and their users as a joke: I've no idea of what they were called by their users. I can easily believe that the term has fallen out of use even in Britain. I assume that the term derives from the ridicule with which the English long regarded the Dutch (cf "Dutch courage" and the rest). Dutch wife does not redirect to Sex doll, but anyway what the latter says about the term "Dutch wife" looks highly implausible to me. Time, energy and memory permitting, I'll look up "Dutch wife" in the OED.

I looked at that AfD RfA just now but became drowsy before I could work out what all the fuss was about. I did notice that the candidate used "opine" rather a lot. It's a word that makes me giggle, for some reason. Apropos of which, see the latest addition to this (and one of these days I really must add to it some of the gems from the lower half of this).

AfDs RfAs shouldn't be difficult. Figure out what the likely questions are and think of answers for them. Be brief: the less you say, the less chance there is that you'll put your foot in your mouth. Announce at the start that, time willing, you'll answer all questions directly asked of you but will ignore any comment. Then watch the fun and participate only when you have to. My own was simple but I don't suppose that if it were now I'd be bothered to answer all the questions I'd be asked. As I look at some recent questions, I do tend to think that my answer would be "I don't know, and this doesn't worry me in the slightest"; I suppose I'd be rejected for lack of due solemnity. -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Hoary-- so it's obsolete British English? That tips the scales a little more in favor of the "Dutch Wife" title-variants. Now I'll edit-war with a little less hostility when someone moves the article (just joking-- any of the titles would be fine with me.) We colonials do have vestiges of some ancient contempt for the Dutch in our bastardized lingo as well... Dutch treat, Dutch oven, Dutch uncle come to mind... The AfD candidate is a perfectly fine, calm, helpful, enthusiastic chap who would make an excellent Admin, but happens to be a little too "inclusionist", and so after a 100% approval rate for a day or so, got ambushed... I figure there are some advantages to having no ambition towards Adminship too-- for example I can tell Scott MacDonald to kiss my ass in so many words, and just get away with a day or two Wiki-holiday, and not have to worry about explaining it later before the Grand Inquisitor ;-) Dekkappai (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Ebonics link. Is it supposed to be satire? If so, well done. (I'm reminded of a talk I had with a young Korean gentleman recently. The conversation drifted to language, and he mentioned that he'd heard Korean was related to Finnish. Highly probable, he thought. And I had to bring up the many similarities I find between the Korean and Japanese languages and cultures (beyond the obvious borrowings from Chinese). The reaction was predictable: "COINCIDENCE!" ;) A glance at your RfA-- with no reflection on you, of course-- lends me to suspect that these things have changed drastically over the past four years, and not at all for the better... As to what their owners called them (Dutch Wives)... perhaps Gladys? Muriel? Dierdre?... Dekkappai (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

My RfA? Who's arbitrating who now? Oh, that. And then I see that I was writing about "AfD" when I meant RfA. I know I've been busy and short of sleep recently, but this is absurd. I'm just going to have to wake myself up by deleting a few articles [emoticon]. ¶ Anyone who rushes to put down the obvious similarities between Korean and Japanese cultures to coincidence is deluding himself. With the languages, though, it's very problematic. I'm no historical linguist but my impression was that it's pretty much agreed these days that there's insufficient evidence to propose a protolanguage for both Korean and Japanese. Personally I find this disappointing because it's fun to see nihonjinron nutballs going apoplectic at the notion that the language is not "unique" but is just a derivative of proto-Altaic that happens to have flourished. ¶ I think that the gent who's so offended by my utterances at Talk:Ebonics is the person he claims he is, and have to assume that he means what he says. ¶ Sorry, "my" library is closed for a few days while its OPAC is being revamped (I think and hope), so I don't have access to the OED. -- Hoary (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

...Too bad. If I'd known a couple hours earlier I could have checked OED myself. I'll do so in a couple days if you don't though... I'm no linguist, of course, but my gut-feeling is there's got to have been a K-J connection back there somewhere, and not just borrowings from each other. As an English-speaker with a smattering of a non-academic background in Japanese (picked it up from the neighbors growing up), when I was plopped down in the midst of a Korean setting, I was able to pick that language up without much effort at all. The sentence-structure is amazingly similar, and my ear even hears a connection between the native numbers-- which the experts say are so different-- if you figure in at least a couple thousand years of separate evolution. "hana, deul set" "hito- futa- mitts-"... These days my trouble is when I try to speak Japanese, I keep putting in Korean words (the problem used to be vice-versa). Anyway... I'll get to the OED on "Dutch Wife" in a couple days if you don't beat me to it. Dekkappai (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Korean and Japanese do indeed seem related. Though it is of course utterly irrelevant to the question of where they came from, one great (if peripheral) contrast between them is in their writing systems. The Japanese one is, by a great margin, the silliest I've ever heard of; the Korean one is, as far as I understand it, superb. And a peripheral similarity: the inability to agree on (or for Japanese, even to devise) a single good romanization system. (For Japanese, there are variants on two contrastive systems, one sensible but clearly inadequate [it can't handle フィ ヴォ トゥ etc], the other comprehensive but [with "matcha" etc] grotesque.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Korean writing system was similar to the Japanese before the full implementation of hangeul-- mix of native alphabet with Chinese characters. (Take a look at the top line of the Korean film poster File:Madame Aema.jpg from as recent as 1982.) Though, yes, Japanese have the Koreans beat for the silliness of multiple-readings of the hanja/kanji-- in Korean it's usually just one reading... Yes, hangeul is a marvelous writing system. Give it a look sometime-- you can learn it in a day. Not only scientific, the letters are supposedly modeled on the shape of the mouth when making the sounds... As far as inability to be Romanized adequately, I think Korean has Japanese beat by a long-shot. Korean has the more complex sound-system, and, for some reason, the sounds just never fit well in the A-B-Cs. Sticking to any one system always winds up with some uncomfortable constructions. I always wind up just writing it by ear... For another similarity closer to my lecherous little heart, take a look at Kim Ki-young's The Housemaid (HERE you can watch it free online.) Though on a higher artistic plane, I swear, spiced up just a very little it would have fit in perfectly-- thematically and stylistically-- with the early Japanese "pink" cinema I've seen... yet it was made in 1960-- two years before the first pink film was made in Japan. Dekkappai (talk) 03:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Korean sound system is far more complex (and there's the enormous matter of assimilation). Clearly one letter per phoneme won't be adequate. Well then, digraphs, e.g. the "eo" in "Seoul". The romanization systems aren't bad; I wish they'd settle on whichever of them is the best. Hangeul is indeed amazingly easy to learn: I picked it up in less than a day a long time ago and have never quite forgotten it. There's nothing so wrong about sticking Chinese characters within it for names and the like, and indeed this was normal when I was in Korea. (People only used characters for themselves, and Seoul was freakish among placenames for not being written in characters.) Compare Japanese, where both とめる and やめる are commonly and quite unnecessarily written 止める: daft. But Japanese doesn't even need a syllabary: if it were only very slightly adapted, hangeul would suit it just fine. -- Hoary (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the near-total abandoning of Chinese characters, but last I was there-- 5 years ago-- I think the cities were still written in Chinese characters, not sure... Have the Japanese adopt hangeul? Now there's an idea! Think they'll go for it? And you're right-- when I've looked through my wife's Korean-Japanese dictionary, I've noticed how well it works. Dekkappai (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hoary. Here's what I get from the OED on "Dutch Wife":

1. 1891 FARMER Slang II. 349 *Dutch-wife, a bolster.
2. 1965 W. YOUNG Eros Denied xxvii. 271 We call..a masturbation machine a Dutch husband or wife.
3. 1966 G. BLACK You want to die, Johnny? vi. 114 ‘What's this great long bolster for?..’ ‘Colonial invention. For the hated Imperialists. Known as a Dutch wife.’
4. 1967 Guardian 19 May 9/6 He will liberate man from dependence on the opposite sex by constructing what seems to be known in Japan as a ‘Dutch Wife’; a kind of life-size mechanical doll with built-in electric heating and all the other refinements.

I wonder if the Guardian quote is a review of Imamura's The Pornographers (1966). Isn't that the one that ends with the lead character building himself the "perfect woman" then sailing off to sea with her? Anyway, the English cite (1965) beats the Japan-related one only by two years... Dekkappai (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Michael Reed

I see you deleted the entry for Kevin Michael Reed. Why did you do that? I work for Kevin and I'd like to get this cleared up and the page returned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.91.122.137 (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As explained by both the "delete" comments within AfD/Kevin Michael Reed. It was a copy of this page of Reed's site. At the foot of that page, we're told "© Kevin Michael Reed. All Rights Reserved." Reservation of all rights is as strong a contradiction as there is to what's required for use here: explicit release by any one of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License, the GFDL, or of course renunciation of any copyright claim.

Additionally, please read "WP:COI". -- Hoary (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Berenice Abbott

Dear Hoary, I added an external link to the Berenice Abbott page to The Joy of Giving Something Permanent Collection. You deleted the edit, perhaps rightfully so. I am just curious as to why? It's not clear to me. Thank you for your response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastsidetruman (talk • contribs) 16:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. It seemed to me that the link didn't comply with what "WP:EL" says. I'm sorry I can't elaborate now (because I'm falling asleep), but if you'd like to ask about WP:EL then try me and I'll answer a few hours from now. -- Hoary (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Hoary, Again, thank you for taking the time to respond...however, the site to which I am linking is a not-for-profit photography organization. Very legt. Not advertising anything. Isn't your dispute really a matter of opinion? And on whose authority do you delete?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastsidetruman (talk • contribs) 04:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not questioned the legitimacy of the site to which you have been linking. I've drawn your attention to WP:EL, which makes no distinction between for-profit and non-profit sites/organizations. I delete on the authority of WP:EL, or rather of my interpretation of it. If you think I misinterpret it, please explain. -- Hoary (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Barn

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Such thorough work, as shown here. Ty 04:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Tyrenius. It was indeed rather laborious. Unfortunately the whole affair leaves an unpleasant flavor in my mouth. It all seems unfortunate, and I suspect that an article about Zheng meeting the guidelines might have been possible. -- Hoary (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Alt text

Have you been following the alternative text for images discussions? I began to look into it all after someone started editing alt messages into one of my articles. Apparently there is some discussion about making them obligatory and some editors are apparently insisting on them for GA articles. I'm a bit worried about it all for two reasons: 1) the messages themselves are not always drafted correctly and do not convey a proper impression of the image; 2) the guidelines do not seem to be very clear to me. Another problem is that it does not seem to be easy to use them in galleries without introducing special templates. There is also the fact that is many cases the caption under the image offers sufficient information anyway. In connection with Photography in Denmark, I was wondering if we should make a start on this before someone else comes along with alt text messages that need reviewing. Or should we just forget about it for now? -- Ipigott (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As you've seen, I've muddied the waters there. Briefly, while I applaud the intentions, I think that in many cases they degrade the page. -- Hoary (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedic English abbreviations

Hi, Hoary. As a native speaker of encyclopedic English, what do you think of this? I'd go for "a.k.a.", rather than "aka" being more "encyclopedic", but writing the whole thing out as "also known as" seems more Anal-retentic than Encyclopedic to me... Seems to me that encyclopedias I've looked at-- Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians for one-- use abbreviations far more than in common English writing-- almost annoyingly so at times. (Or is looking at an actual encyclopedia not considered "cricket" around here?) Maybe we could "compromise" by having all abbreviations followed by the full spelling-out of the text abbreviated? (I'd better keep my mouth shut. That idea's just stupid enough to catch on around here.) Dekkappai (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, right, my favorite among my parents' series of cars was a Saab (Svenska Aeroplan aktiebolag) 95.

I quote: A madman is on the loose, raping and murdering women and sometimes engaging in necrophilia. Aha (or should I say "a.h.a."?), this can only be a Dekkappai movie! My dear fellow, can you not occasionally feign interest in mundane things? (Like Ebonics, for example.)

And now to your thrilling question. First, "also known as" strikes me as a particularly labored substitute for "or". I can't get worked up about the dots of "a.k.a.". I believe that when it's pronounced at all it's still pronounced aykayay, so "a.k.a." doesn't irritate me as does for example "N.A.T.O." -- but I'd still probably skip the dots. But if you want my recommendation, it's "or".

Sorry, I'm falling asleep. The denizens of the MoS talk pages manage to take all this very seriously; you could try them for unintended amusement if nothing else. -- Hoary (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for being one of the 4,726 who viewed Perverted Criminal-- and not all those views were me poking in trying to decide whether to revert to dots or not... Yeah, it's the content-ignoring prissiness of this kind of thing that gets to me. Interacting with some actual MOS people would surely lead to me violating Wiki-etiquette one way or another. Hell with it, I'll just leave it alone, continue writing as I have and ignore the nit-picking. Just had to share my pain with someone... About feigning interest in other matters: I made the mistake of looking in at the big brouhaha over one word in the plot summary of No Country for Old Men, and got a brisk reminder of why I've exiled myself to Wikipedia's back alleys. Too many kooks out there on the main streets... Dekkappai (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I am about to be bold. -- Hoary (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC) ... I have now been bold. Elsewhere, how do you like the way that no building is ever in any city (unless it's me who's just been editing); instead it's located in that city. And people don't live anywhere; instead they reside there. (In their residences there, I suppose.) Such genteelism! -- Hoary (currently located in his residence) 03:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Better be prepared to block someone over the impending edit war... I recall the dirtiest look I ever got from a secretary when I was informed that Mr. So&So who I'd dropped in to see was not in his office "at this point in time". I paused. "You mean 'now'?" And got a scowl... By the way, any time you touch a "Dekkappai article" you'd better wash your hands with hot water and anti-bacterial soap... Dekkappai (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Portuguese

User:Ninguém is only an user who is since the beggining saying that "The overwhelming majority of Brazilian Whites are of Portuguese colonial descent" (his words). He already claimed to be of "colonial Portuguese descent" and even used a strange expression (pêlo-duro, something like "hard animal hair" because pêlo means animal hair and duro hard in Portuguese). I never heard about that "pêlo-duro" expression. It seems an internal expression used to describe people of colonial Portuguese ancestry.

I tried to find when he posted that, but I could not find it, I think it was removed for some reason...

He is always hinting that the numbers of descendants of immigrants of non-Portuguese origin is exaggerated or inflated: [5]; [6];

He is also always finding a way to put anything about Portuguese people in the middle [7]

[8] ("If we can't mention Galicians, let's mention that some of them were actually Portuguese")

The strange part is that I never saw that user saying that any information about Portuguese in Brazil is false or exaggerated. But when it comes about Italians, or Arabs or Germans...the opposite!!

And also, when he posted that (unsourced) information that in Eastern Rio Grande do Sul people are of Portuguese ancestry...([9]) here it goes: Ninguém already said he is from that same area, Eastern Rio Grande do Sul!! And no, people from that area are a mix mostly of Spaniards with Amerindians, not Portuguese!

I see a clear connection between what he writes in Wikipedia and his self-declared "colonial Portuguese" ancestry: he claimed people from Eastern Rio Grande are of colonial Portuguese descent (like he claims to be), when the sources claim the opposite, that they are mostly a mix of Iberians, mainly Spaniards with Amerindians and some Africans (!!!).

Where did he bring the Portuguese from? Nobody knows.

User Ninguém said he has no "proud" of being of "Portuguese ancestry". He should, because Portugal is a nice country and I'm proud of my Portuguese ancestry. He should join the team. But it's not because I'm proud of my remote Portuguese origin that I will say that in Eastern Rio Grande people are of Portuguese descent, when they are not. Let's face the reality. I won't say that "The overwhelming majority of Brazilian Whites are of Portuguese colonial descent" because I know that's far from being the reality...

Do you know what I mean? I'm clear.

By the way, yes I'm "not too busy" but I'm nearly at that point. Happy Easter! Opinoso (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)