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.

John Asfukzenski

John Asfukzenski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) — he's gotta be kidding, right? I mean "Ass-fucks-inski"? Surely he could be permablocked on the username alone? ► RATEL ◄ 07:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The resemblance hadn't occurred to me, and now that you bring it to my attention I find it unremarkable. Still, you're welcome to bring it up here. -- Hoary (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You can also use the template {{uw-username}} to express your concern about the username. WP:UAA is not the place to go as the username has been around for a little bit (just about four months, in fact). WP:UAA is only for recently-created usernames. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. Anyway, I'm much more concerned about Asfukzenski's bizarre editing pattern, delayed but not altered by a block, than I am about his name. -- Hoary (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how much longer User:John Asfukzenski's unexplained content removal will be tolerated? Despite two blocks and multiple warnings, his editing pattern has not improved. APK because, he says, it's true 09:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. -- Hoary (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 15:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Basket.

Well well, what a to-do. If posterity is interested, the Great Debate may be found here. -- Hoary (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Opinoso

Hi

Thanks for your contributions. It was an outburst after I realized that Opinoso (a foreigner) has been controlling Brazilian related themes at wikipedia, and he has bullied Brazilians (check the history of his posts, some are contributive, but in most cases he bullies Brazilian posters). Opinoso claims to be Brazilian, but he is not, he is definitely a liar. As for the "lier" instead of "liar" I apologize.

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by WielandDerSchmitzFreiheit (talk • contribs) 14:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Holtby

Hey, I'm only messaging you because you currently seem to be active :) Could you please take care of the speedy on Holtby‎ please so I can move the page back? Thank you :) Jeni ^(talk) 12:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It was a pleasure (a pleasant change from unrelated silliness). -- Hoary (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! While a small act alone doesn't deserve a barnstar, you can have a picture of one instead! Jeni ^(talk) 13:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Block request

Hi! Are you doing OK? Please block this user. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why? I took a quick look at his talk page and saw lots of stern messages about his edits, but when I looked through his recent edits I didn't see anything that merited a block. (Irritation, maybe; block, no.) In one article I saw what seemed like a low intensity edit war between both of you, but I didn't see any sources adduced by either side, or any attempt to discuss matters on the talk page. Perhaps I'm wrong and you're right; it's past my bedtime. -- Hoary (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Because he seems to be a reincarnation of this banned user who never used talk page when other users suggested and drove us nuts. Both users' edits are basically the same. Irritation, yes, yes, yes. But it's OK. I trust your judgment. Sleep tight and have a good and dirty pinku dream, Sir! Oda Mari (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Welsh placenames

Leave the Welsh placenames until you get agreement to add them. Any other addition will be regarded as vandalism. Skinmeister (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[Non] conversation closed. (Anyone wanting earlier and later messages should see here.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Henri Cartier-Bresson

If his work generally can't be described as photojournalism, then he shouldn't have been in "photojournalists" in the first place. If "photographers" is more appropriate and accurate, then he can certainly be in that one instead — but it's not necessary or desirable for a person to be in both categories at the same time. I'd note, however, that the article's lead paragraph describes him as essentially the father of photojournalism. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd disagree on all counts. If a substantial amount of his work is photojournalism, then he's a photojournalist; and even if this is true, if a substantial amount of his photographic work is not photojournalism, then he's also a photographer aside from being a photojournalist. His fatherhood of anything is irrelevant here. (The last time I looked at it, the [poor] article said that he was the father of modern journalism, or similar [a statement that might actually mean something if elaborated; until then, one might as well say that Salomon or Peress or somebody else was the father]; but it didn't say he was the father of photojournalism, which would be plain wrong.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hedvig Malina

Hi, I'm a bit confused by your actions at this article. It would seem that you are engaging in the edit war,[1] but also using your admin tools to then protect the article on your version.[2] Your comments on the talkpage also seem uncivil, as you are repeatedly referring to "boneheadedness".[3][4] Is it possible that you are too close to the situation to be using admin tools? Or am I missing something? --Elonka 15:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted an edit made by a freshly created puppet of an indefinitely blocked user. As far as I remember, that's been my sole change to that article. Further, I haven't edited any related article in months. (I'm thinking of Bratislava, which I observed descending from FA status to a battlefield thanks to boneheadedness on both sides of a dreary ethnic feud.) In the recent history of article (about somebody of whom I'd never heard until this evening), I saw evidence of what I could most easily call boneheadedness. (I've no reason to think that either side has a monopoly or even majority of this boneheadedness, and don't think I suggested otherwise.) As the article was being edited by a puppet of a bad-tempered and freshly blocked person, sprotecting seemed an excellent idea. The version is not "my" version, it's the version preceding the edit by the puppet. I have no opinion on which version is better, just as I have no opinion or knowledge of the facts of the sordid little story described in the article. I hope this answers your questions. -- Hoary (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps a bit. I've done quite a bit of admin work in the Hungary/Slovakia area, so I know how complex some of these situations can be! I agree with the semi-protection, though it probably wasn't a good idea for an admin to do any reverting directly since I'm sure the normal editors on that page would have jumped on it. If an admin does do such a revert, it probably would have been better to include a more detailed edit summary, such as "reverting BLP violation" or "reverting edit by banned user (name)".

I also still have strong concerns that language such as "boneheadedness" was used at the talkpage, and I'd appreciate if you'd refactor your posts to something more neutral. Especially in this topic area, it's very important that administrators, who are perceived as authority figures, set a good example. Or in other words, if one of the normal edit warriors were routinely calling other editors "boneheads", or referring to their edits as such, I'd probably give them a civility warning, and then if they continued, I'd block them. So it sends mixed messages if an administrator is using the same language (with seeming impunity) that other editors might be blocked for!

Thanks for listening, --Elonka 16:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, done. Sorry for lacking the stamina to elaborate, but it's already an hour or so after my desired bedtime. I wish you luck dealing with the miscellaneously aggrieved parties. -- Hoary (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much.  :) One of the reasons I was so concerned about this, is that I know from experience that the Hedvig Malina article is a "flashpoint" article that most of the parties (on both sides) have on their watchlists. Disputes at that article can rapidly overflow to multiple other articles. I do appreciate your administrative help in this topic area though, and would be delighted if you would stick around to help! The more admins to help stabilize things, the better! In any case, sleep well, --Elonka 16:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

for this block. I have grown SO tired of Mary Surratt dancing her way into our dreams and that pathetic little addition detailing her hanging. The only edits I tend to see at that article is that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That blocked user

Hi Hoary! The blocked user Magyar nem ember, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Magyar_nem_ember contribs) who made the disruptive edits at article Hedvig Malina returned as IPuser: 195.30.17.81 and user:78.99.230.65. Please check this edit, and his contributions and compare them with user:78.99.230.65's edits, (his contributions).--B@xter⁹ 21:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Or this with this and this--B@xter⁹ 22:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

"Magyar nem ember" is blocked as a username. As far as I know, the person who used that username is not blocked as a user. As long as he isn't, he is in principle welcome to edit without logging in via whichever IP happens to be available. This is of course not a license for him to indulge in an edit war, just as nobody else has a license to indulge in an edit war with him. -- Hoary (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

From User: Magyar nem ember's talkpage: "This user has been blocked indefinitely because it is suspected that he or she has abusively used one or more accounts." From User: magyar nem ember 1:This account is a sock puppet of Magyar nem ember and has been blocked indefinitely." This means that he is "Violating WP:SOCK" or not? (+ Do you think that it is a good thing that a racist person is "principle welcome to edit"--B@xter⁹ 23:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

From User: Magyar nem ember's talkpage: "This user has been blocked indefinitely because it is suspected that he or she has abusively used one or more accounts." | I think this template is misplaced, but the person who placed it there states on his own page that he's not available for questioning.

From User: magyar nem ember 1:This account is a sock puppet of Magyar nem ember and has been blocked indefinitely." | Yes, no question about this.

This means that he is "Violating WP:SOCK" or not? | I don't think he is violating it when he posts as an IP, no.

(+ Do you think that it is a good thing that a racist person is "[in] principle welcome to edit" | Will you next ask me when I stopped beating my wife? If you're asking me whether I think it's good that racists are allowed to edit articles about this kind of thing, then I'd answer no, I think it's very bad indeed. Moreover, I'd rather that there were hugely more stringent requirements than just "not a racist": would-be editors would have to prove that they were openminded, sceptical, and dispassionate. But this is just my own personal opinion.

Back from what I think to what Wikipedia tends to think collectively. Your own editing history, compounded by the design of your user page, suggests that you may not approach the dreary disputes between some Slovaks and some Hungarians with a neutral point of view. This being so, if you see any editing behavior that both (a) appears to be partisan and (b) appears to break this or that (partisanship-irrelevant) Wikipedia rule, and if you then revert it on the grounds that it breaks some (partisanship-irrelevant) rule, it's likely that your own reversion will be (rightly or wrongly) decried as partisan. So don't revert. Instead, bring the matter up as dispassionately as possible at WP:AN/I or some other place where uninvolved people may see it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, from WP:COI "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." So would you explain to me how could a Slovak racist editor with a name "Hungarians don't belong to the Human race" edit a Hungary-Slovakia related article without violating this or WP:NPOV?

"the design of your user page, suggests that you may not approach the dreary disputes between some Slovaks and some Hungarians with a neutral point of view." You mean that I am not neutral???? Why do you think so? Would you specify this? Design??? You mean I have a "Hungarian pogácsa" on my userpage or what?! And exactly what is the problem with my contribution list???

Should I count how many times did I post a comment at ANI?--B@xter⁹ 00:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"A suggests that there is a possibility that B is true" does not imply "B is true". Please reread what I wrote, carefully and slowly. -- Hoary (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so what gives you the "suggestion"?--B@xter⁹ 01:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You know what? I will do what the other Hungarians (87%) did in the last years.... If you want to find out why, read article Hungary–Slovakia relations and ask user:Elonka. Thank you.--B@xter⁹ 01:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have some knowledge of Hungary–Slovakia relations. I do not know what you are referring to when you talk of what 87% of Hungarians did in recent years, but I am not going to trouble Elonka with a request to explain other editors' allusions or intentions. Now, the article Language law of Slovakia is a dreary partisan battlefield, with many sane and informative parts and also some parts that are so bad that they are unintentionally (if only blackly) amusing. I hope that you can help improve the article. One way to do so would be to source some of what is now unsourced. -- Hoary (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The design of your user page emphasizes Hungary, Hungary, Hungary, Hungary. As, of course, is your right. Now, if you participate in some editorial dispute that can rightly or wrongly be interpreted as a Hungarian/Slovak dispute, then it's unlikely that you will be perceived as disinterested. Please do not ask me again to spell out what really should be obvious. -- Hoary (talk) 01:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Question on usernames

Hoary do you find usernames like "Jews are not human" "Blacks are not human" and analogous usernames acceptable? Do you think a person with that type of attitude should be editing wikipedia under any account or circumstance? Do you find such name as prima facie evidence of it's user being a fascist editor, or do you view it as something not to worry about? Please answer these questions. Hobartimus (talk) 08:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No I do not find such usernames acceptable. Do I think people who'd choose such usernames should be editing an encyclopedia under these usernames, under innocuous usernames, or with no usernames? No I do not. Choice of such a username is compatible with fascism, but hardly evidence of fascism. Fascist or otherwise, I worry about it. I hope that I have answered your questions. ¶ However, I wonder why you ask what I think is and isn't right. I suspect that you presume that I suppose that this encyclopedia is run as I'd like it to be run. It is not. For one thing, if this were instead Hoaripedia (let's call it), then the right to edit would be not only easier to lose but also harder to get. And another: in Hoaripedia, a lot of other policies would be very different from the way they are now: fascists, racists and the like would be out the door very fast. Here in Wikipedia, however, such people are, by default, entitled to edit, whether you or I like it or not. -- Hoary (talk) 08:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Translation help

A problem with a translation of a few words could be solved very easily and in multiple ways. If you visit this link [5] you see a bunch of irrelevant text and this "If your Hungarian is poor, you can leave us a message in English [[6]]." the word "here" points to a place in the Hungarian wikipedia where there are hundreds of users who could help in translating two words ("nem" and "ember") as Magyar is already available in our own wiki. Or you can request the translation of the whole "sentence". Or alternatively you can use google translate to find out the meaning of these two words "nem" [7] and "ember" [8]. Hope that helped the issue. Hobartimus (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

More Marilyn

Well, "that film" has re-appeared in Marilyn Monroe. I've left comments on the talk page. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

First you have "that film" and soon thereafter you have discreet little plugs here and there for this dreck to video. I quote: "Warning! This synopsis contains spoilers". Let's spell it out: she's dead. The non-necrophile majority have got over it; but some people just continue to go rouge. -- Hoary (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Block Reason

I have to ask, "Being silly" is a real reason to block some one now? Now I don't question that s/he had it coming, but being silly, really? By the by, very quick, was it reported at WP:AIV or did you just notice it in the RCs? Rgoodermote  08:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm disinclined to expend more than four syllables on attention-seeking nitwits and I'm reluctant to aggrandize their silliness by calling it "vandalism". As you said, "s/he had it coming". If somebody wants to report me somewhere for abuse of something or other, then, if I may quote a bad movie, "Make my day." (Not that I mind your polite question, of course.) ¶ I saw a couple of the edits in my watchlist. -- Hoary (talk) 09:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I was just wondering, I didn't mean to imply that I thought you did anything wrong, just was a rather odd block reason and a right funny one at that. Rgoodermote  09:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Glad to satisfy your curiosity. Happy editing! (Me, I'll mostly be editing WP-unrelated stuff for the "RL" for the next few days.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, talk about arrogance. Not only did you not want to answer his simple inquiry you called him an attention seeking moron in return. I understand there is no rigor in Wikipedia's administrator recruit policies but come on, it's as if you're trying to fit the definition by being a carefree asshole. Ytny 11:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Magibon

I've re-nominated her for deletion. Pisomojado (talk) 07:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)