From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Don't edit or post replies to this archive page.

This archive page covers the period from 13 November 2004 to 23 February 2005.

If you want to reply to anything here, do so on the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary.


Hello, Hoary/Archive01, welcome to Wikipedia.

You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Task Center for brief guides.)

Fix spelling and grammar

More...Learn how
Fix wikilinks

More...Learn how
Update with new information

More...Learn how
Expand short articles

More...Learn how
Check and add references

More...Learn how
Fix original research issues

More...Learn how
Improve lead sections

More...Learn how
Add an image

More...Learn how

Translate and clean up

More...Learn how

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.
Help improve popular low quality articles.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! —Plato

Exploding Wales[edit]

I think you can speedy that... ClockworkTroll 02:46, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deleting articles[edit]

Hoary, it's probably best if you keep the following order in the procedure for deleting articles:

  1. First put a {{subst:vfd}} notice on the page.
  2. Then click on the red its entry link. Create the new page like this:
    ===[[Page to be deleted]]===
  3. And after that, add {{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Page to be deleted}} to Wikipedia:VfD.

If you switch steps 2 and 3, people can't see the entry immediately after VfD has been modified. Hope this helps, and welcome to Wikipedia! JRM 02:56, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I think (and hope) I got it right -- my guess is that you gave me the nudge because my delay suggested that I'd given up the effort halfway. ("I'll just suggest deletion. What, I have to do all that as well? Forget it!") Actually the reason for my delay was simple: this is the first time I've suggested a deletion, and I didn't want to make a mistake, so I had to keep referring to the fact-filled manual. Hoary 03:04, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's only positive; we should have a lot more people who actually read things through first. :-) Incidentally, though a strict reading of the policy on Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion rules out hoaxes and jokes, most administrators silently agree that these are amenable to speedy deletion (VfD is overloaded as it is). In clear-cut cases like these, you can probably get away with adding "{{nonsense}}" to the article. But test first—sometimes articles are just really badly written, or deal with an obscure but legitimate topic—so when in doubt, don't list it for any sort of deletion at all, but mention the problem on the talk page. JRM 03:11, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)


Hey, check your user page. I left a gift for you there. — David Remahl 03:17, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, very nice of you to put it that way! As my own self-congratulation, I think I'll now award myself some lunch! Hoary 03:22, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Michael Heath[edit]

Thanks for dealing with the Michael Heath article. Tim Ivorson 22:07, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • My pleasure. Actually I just looked up Michael Heath (the cartoonist) and was a bit disappointed to find that he wasn't present -- and then amused to find that the computer scientist Michael Heath (of whom I'd never heard) was credited with winning Olympic medals for swimming. Hoary 22:11, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Band geek[edit]

I've modified my reason for listing slightly, but am telling you so you have a chance to change your vote if you feel you need to. Thanks! - Ta bu shi da yu 23:46, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

John Glashan[edit]


yep, the link was there (but it was so prominent I missed it!) and usually people only link to the first mention of a word. Feel free to revert.

I think your idea for requiring a username to create a new page is a good one.

best wishes

Robinh 12:00, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

. . . and I wasn't at all surprised to read that yes, the latter issue has been well discussed. (See a message below.) Hoary 08:09, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hello again Hoary

I reckon the best way forward would be to create a new page entitled Guidebooks by Glashan and Routh, paste your excellent material on the Jonathan Routh page into the new one, and add a link. The new page would seem to me to be substantive (sic) enough to justify its existence.

Hmm. It's a very unappealing title though. Let's move it to such a new page IFF we can come up with a better title. Hoary 08:09, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous users should not be allowed to create articles[edit]

Please note that the username requirement is a very old debate on Wikipedia— the horse is not necessarily dead, but I don't see it racing down the tracks any time soon either. See m:Anonymous users should not be allowed to edit articles, the long discussion, and the related spoof m:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles. While you are "only" proposing that anons should not be allowed to create new articles, much of the same reasons apply: the idea behind the Wiki is that there is essentially zero overhead to editing it. There are real examples of new articles by anons that turned out to be pretty valuable (this is hearsay, though, I can't give you any myself :-)

The reasoning is not "well, if people really care that much, they'll get accounts anyway" but "anyone should be allowed to instantly contribute anything". Note, though, that there is a sizeable minority that agrees with you. (I just don't happen to be in it, incidentally. :-) In the future, as the vandalism/real contribution ratio goes up, some such proposals might get broader support. JRM 12:40, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, JRM! The fundamental problem was a simple one: I hadn't discovered the "meta" area of this edifice-in-the-making. There's a lot of interesting stuff there. Well, I'm still an "exclusionist" but I see a lot of virtue in the arguments of the other side and anyway I'll try to shut up about the (non?) issue until I have something to say that might be new. Hoary 08:26, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No sweat. Caring is half the job. :-) The accepted term is "deletionist", incidentally (and see also m:Association of Deletionist Wikipedians). This confused the hell out of me first, too—damn Wikipedians wouldn't know consistency if it painted itself purple and danced naked on a harpsichord singing "consistency is here again", to rip off Blackadder. JRM 09:44, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)
I'm afraid my job here is coming to an extended pause. There are lots of things I could be doing to the 'pedia, but other obligations call. I'll be doing some tweaking here and there, but don't foresee any major additions till December or so. Pity, as this is more interesting than exercising the skills that pay the bills. Hoary 11:29, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Another opportunity for me to throw in a gratuitous link: Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. Sorry to hear that pesky real life is interfering—we'll keep your spot warm for you. Well met, and au revoir. JRM 11:33, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

CMP Media[edit]

I removed the delete tag from the CMP Media article, as it does not quite meet the criteria for speedy deletion. However, you are still welcome to nominate the article for vfd under the criteria you gave. Cheers. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:16, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

No need to apologize for the tone of your post; I know what it's like to get frustrated rummaging through all of the fancruft on Wikipedia. The problem is that there are pretty well-defined rules for what falls under candidates for vfd, and it didn't meet any of the criteria; the correct procedure was probably to list it as a copyvio. After a quick google, I found the exact original text was lifted from here. However, as you've already reworded the article, I think it can stay because "CMP Media" gets over 2 million hits on Google. Cheers. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 02:00, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
OK then! Hoary 02:03, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Have you thought about transfering your considerable energies to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. You will find the articles of considerably more interest, they all have to be pretty good to get there in the first place. The cut and thrust of debate is still there, exept one's comments can often make a difference. At the end of the day those obscure little stubs that survive VfD are only condemmed to remain unvisited and unloved for years, who cares if they lie buried and forgotten? Take my advice and go from the bottom end, to the top end of wikipedia. Giano 08:48, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You certainly have a point, Giano, but I'm busy. If I have time and energy on my hands, I'd prefer to write a new article or improve an old one. If I don't, well, I find myself in a bad mood and do the Wiki equivalent of picking up a scythe and do my Grim Reaper act. Our Considerable Energies Department (now off duty) points out that one area where W'pedia might be expected to do well and doesn't is that of cartoonists and illustrators: in their very different ways, Nicolas Bentley, Charles Burns, Jean-Marc Reiser, Arnold Roth deserve articles. (I'm amazed but happy to see that "Kazuo Umezu" -- "Umezu Kazuo" to us in Japan -- does have a little article, accurate if very inadequate.) But all this is child's play, really. Look at this mind-boggling page of part of what Charles Matthews has achieved -- that's the kind of thing us adults could be up to. I couldn't do that even if I had the time, but given enough time I ought to be able to do something about linguistics: as it is, Minimalist syntax redirects to Transformational grammar, which it shouldn't, and what's written about it is OK as far as it goes -- but it goes nowhere near far enough. Hoary 10:06, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Leaning tower[edit]

"Good lord. It's like arguing with a lump of depleted uranium." Hey, if it's me you're referring to, (a) smile when you say that, and (b) can't you upgrade my predepleted self to plutonium? Erm, that little matter aside, I was outside the Leaning Tower the year before last. Its leaningness lets too many people overlook what a lovely building it was supposed to be, and still is. Shortly after seeing it I saw a wonderful photo book devoted to it. Italian text only, and I didn't buy it because it was big and expensive and I'd already bought too many books, and I stupidly omitted to make a note of the photographer, title, ISBN. Extensive websearches have failed to turn up anything. D'you happen to know the book I'm talking about? -- Hoary 02:39, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay in replying. Not sure if plutonium is denser than depleted uranium, but it's certainly more radioactive and has a really weird metallurgy on top of that. (Yes, I'm a geek.) I just read a book on the leaning tower; I added the book link for Tilt at the bottom of the Leaning Tower of Pisa page. It was a good overview, and it made clear with pictures and text that it really was a good-looking building, quite different from most other towers in Italy. I've never been there myself, but as an engineering geek I would have to go if I was anywhere nearby. I have not come across the book you mentioned, but you might have a look at this place which seems to have a number of books when you put in title words like "torre pisa" or "torre pendente." Sounds like the kind of thing I would get. I'm a book geek too, and I spent part of my trip to Ireland a few years back trolling used book shops and quickly increased my baggage weight by enough to make getting back to America without extra charges a serious question. Good luck with your search! May Sollog guide you (or not!)...... A2Kafir 19:43, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Etoile de Grange[edit]

Oui elle est jolie, comme ton travail dans l'inferne de Sollog! A plus! Wyss 07:19, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Heya, are you just temporarily distracted or did you forget to add the entry at WP:VFD for Elbert bill? I'd add it for you, but I'm not entirely sure something wonderful couldn't blossom out of that ugly little substub yet... --fvw* 09:29, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

Didn't mean to hurry you, just trying to prevent orphan VfDs. --fvw* 12:13, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

These things cannot be explained[edit]

Hi Hoary Knowing your love of the unexplained check out User:Junesix/Tahoe Trip list, should we put our names down, it sounds like fun Giano 19:30, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No forget it, it just seems its a private party - shame! Giano 19:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

EMD E2[edit]

Under the current VfD mechanism, generally things aren't removed till the vote ends except possibly if the article ends up being speedy deleted. Don't worry about it, though; the reason VfD exists is so that if you have a question about an article's existence, you can ask instead of possibly making a mistake by deleting it.

As created by User:Rmeier, the article was indeed not all that good; it was pretty much a template only, without saying anything about why the locomotive type was notable, interesting or anything else. Thus, your listing it ensured it got improved, so don't kick yourself about it! —Morven 05:02, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Morven. I was starting to think that the business of zapping lame new pages (not to mention my part in the [non-]dialogue with the ever-multiplying sock-puppets of John P. Ennis) was addling my brain. -- Hoary 05:24, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

By the time I saw it, I liked it... and anyway I have a thing for cats and trains ;) Wyss 03:39, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In a strange way, I have to thank you for your Vfd on the EMD E2 article, as I only discovered the full scope of the train articles here on Wikipedia after seeing your Vfd fly by. I'm a lapsed model railroader (one never really quits) so I look forward to reading more of these articles during the upcoming holidays.

Anyways, I wish you a swift recovery from any deleterious effects you may be still suffering from your S****G editing experiences. — DV 14:26, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, DV. As I've written in the discussion page, I suppose the voting procedure will run its course, and the result will be, oh, maybe 25 to zero, and my tail will be between my legs for several days and this will all be to the good in the end. -- Hoary 03:03, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)


I've replied to your comment point by point on the article discussion page, would like to hear your reply. Alkivar 06:25, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me here; I'll post any reply there rather than here. -- Hoary 08:58, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Otakorp[edit]

I wanted to express my appreciation for the cooperative attitude you showed in your nomination of Otakorp. Seeking consensus before making what could have been a controversial move is something we don't see enough of. That said, I think you also could have been bold and just done it. Edits, even radical edits, do not destroy history and can be easily reversed if they turn out to be controversial. Deletions, on the other hand, do destroy history. That's why we generally reserve the extraordinary (and many would say extraordinarily painful) VfD process for deletions. A pleasure meeting you. Rossami (talk) 00:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciative words, Rossami, but while I too agree that I would have been within my rights in deleting 95% of the article, doing so would have only nominally been a rewrite; it would have been closer to a deletion. Also, it would have left that 5% that I also thought was superfluous. I don't think it's so obviously awful that it justifies a speedy, so the alternatives were nominating it for VfD or ignoring it. (Since there are fewer than 40 hours in a day, I ignore most of the horrors that I see.) -- Hoary 07:56, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

NLP article[edit]

In listing a copyvio I happened to notice your comment about NLP when you listed L. Michael Hall. It may very well be a dodgy therapy, but it has spawned quite a large number of books, websites, practitioners, etc. It's not something that's just trying to exploit Wikipedia for publicity; it's objectively significant and merits an article. Our article at Neuro-linguistic programming gives at least some attention to criticism of the field, but if the NLP website triggered your bullshit detector and you want to augment the reporting of the criticism, that would be the place to do it. JamesMLane 10:36, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yup, the old bullshit detector was flashing furiously. Well, all we really need to know is (as so often) at, as linked. Also, I've wasted so much time on the nonentity "Sollog" that right now I have little appetite for more. (For the "predictions" of the latter, "Play Sollog Lotto" says it all.) -- Hoary 10:44, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
I'm no big NLP booster, but I think it's several cuts above Sollog. (Talk about faint praise....) From what I know, NLP seems to take a few basic ideas and gussy them up with new jargon, etc., but some of the underlying ideas are actually sound -- just not very original. Anyway, thanks for the Lotto link! JamesMLane 11:02, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lea De Mae[edit]

...on VfD. Sadly, her story is true. I've also expanded and referenced the article somewhat. It would be nice if you could come back and cast a vote when you can. Dan100 10:23, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

I think you make a strong case for inclusion, but there also seems a case for deletion: I haven't yet decided. I can also see reasons why the Vfd tag should be removed -- after all, if the original "plaintiff" (?) has changed his/her mind, why continue? But the process was started and should be left to run until completion, which after all will be in less than five days' time. -- Hoary 01:47, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

Money creation[edit]

Can you give the article a look and explain your VfD nomination on the VfD subpage and add it to the listing on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion? Mgm|(talk) 11:41, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Done! -- Hoary 03:00, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)


Out of curiosity, what is the widest rectilinear wideangle lens? I went to the trouble of buying an old Russian FED-5 so that I could have something to mount a cheap 15mm Heliar on, but somewhere along the way I seem to have lost it, and that's a darned shame. -Ashley Pomeroy 20:47, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The 12mm CV lens was certainly the widest ever sold, but I don't know about odd experiments and prototypes. However, there's now at least one (Sigma?) 12mm-and-narrower zoom, so the CV is no longer unique. Also, I believe that Canon has brought out a 10mm-and-narrower zoom for use with digital cameras only (with their smaller-than-36x24 CCDs, of course). I don't know more about this and lack the time and effort to find out more, but it's imaginable that it when (mis)used with a film camera it obtains a vignetted or otherwise poor image that's a bit wider than that of a 12mm lens. As for your loss, you could pick up a Bessa L (small, light, cheap) if you want a meter, or a Canon P with a dud finder if you don't want the meter and want quality. (Finder aside, the Canon P is a superb machine by any standard.) -- Hoary 03:11, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)


Hehe... I couldn't resist. Besides, most of the edits he's making are good ones. The thing with the M*A*S*H announcers is a little odd, but I don't mind an antisocial editor making good edits. Oh, well... back to patrol. Happy editing! SWAdair | Talk 03:36, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Odd, isn't it? Like a split personality. Take a look at yesterday's change to Wikipedia:Administrators. -- Hoary 03:42, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
Hehe... I think you're right. User talk:Nova77 is interesting, as well. Seems to make mostly solid edits, with an occasional odd edit trying to get attention. 'Gonna have to watch this one. SWAdair | Talk 03:52, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I already have been on User:'s case - see their talk: page. But the more eyes on them, the better (and that they know they are being watched). Noel (talk) 13:55, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you have a point there. So I've just left another little message there. He's pretty monotonous, isn't he? By contrast John P. Ennis is a bundle of (seemingly unintended) laughs. -- Hoary 14:24, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)

Wikipedia Home to Freespeech? I think not[edit]

Thanks for joining in the discussion, the more the merrier. And I don't think I've ever been called admirably succinct, thanks for that too... Oddly enough, this is the second time in as many weeks I've been called pompous here. I suspect I might be doing something right :). --fvw* 09:19, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

My pleasure, Fvw. I didn't see what the plaintiff (?!) was complaining about, and I must say that my first inclination (resisted so far) when faced with any halfway respectful page about GWB is to piss all over it. But what a windbag this guy is! Quite apart from the distinction between facts and opinions, he probably made the page more boring. Meanwhile, the twits who've infested your main page deserve some warnings; sorry, right now I'm connected slowly and expensively (via modem) so I can't do it for you. -- Hoary 09:26, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)


:) Wyss 07:02, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, Wyss. Wikipedia is very slow today, even allowing for my slow connection. And for my browser to crash (consistently) was the last straw. All in all this may mean that legions of fictional radio stations within computer games, vanity pages for jewelry sellers, weapons used in Star Wars, alien cosmologies referred to in Star Trek, subgenres of big-eye manga design, etc etc are safe from me for the next few days. Please be extra vigilant! Hoary 07:31, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

Re : Timo Noko[edit]

Noted, thanks for your message. The history seems to be gone, so I can't comment too much on why I put CSD on the article in question earlier on.

The mention of sea-kayaking in the article doesn't seem to be the main purpose to me. With the lead/first line saying that he claims to be "an professional hobo", it looks like vanity. (definition of hobo - tramp: a disreputable vagrant). I don't spend time to check and explore through every single external link on every article. If the article is written with the main purpose of potraying as a sports professional, I would be more than happy to have wikified and marked it as a sport stub instead.

Mailer Diablo 17:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't blame you for marking it as a speedy, though it's my (mis?) understanding that even blatant vanity pages don't qualify for speedying. (I wish they did, instead of invoking the RfD rigmarole.) Incidentally, the version you're commenting on above is the one that follows my clean-up -- what you speedied was a lot worse, or so I'd like to think. -- Hoary 02:45, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

Re: nitwit at large[edit]

You're welcome. I did block the fool for 15 minutes; it seemed to suffice. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:43, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC), cretin[edit]

N/P, just give me something to do while i think up new articles, and if i were admin i would do the same thing. --Boothy443 05:07, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

Please refrain from making slights in edit summaries. For instance, on the Sollog article you have an edit summary "rv. Anonymous AOL nitwit and Ennis -- a match made in heaven?". This specifically implies that Ennis is an idiot and that those who use AOL are less than intelligent. The edit summaries are not a forum for commentary, they are to detail what you have done in the edit. Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:53, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to be polite, and I understand that edit summaries aren't for attempting to make rhetorical points, etc. Sorry! (But...) Hoary 08:40, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
On a similar score, you might want to respond to my comments on Talk:Cascading Style Sheets#Recent deletions. --Nigelj 09:53, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Done! Hoary 12:59, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

Grazer, Howard[edit]

Thanks for the notice. This user drives me nuts, let me tell ya... —tregoweth 21:38, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Single-minded contributors[edit]

Comment: the only contributions ( of voter Archambault have been to this article and this vote list; the only contributions ( of voter Hmv montreal have been to this vote list. -- Hoary 02:21, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

maybe because they took the freakin account to protest about your elitist point of view, what do you think??? stay in your closed minded world -- 06:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I tend to think that it was because he (singular) took the account to protest about my allegedly elitist PoV. Incidentally, I'm interested in your suggestion that my PoV is elitist -- could you elaborate? -- Hoary 07:53, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

for your info, i have one account and arcchambault and hmv are not me, i know the ruleshere, but some people knows my band and have the right to talk about it. You are not the final word when it comes to music, especially since i suspect you never put a foot in canada, let alone quebec, so you don't know how OUR record industry works. and regarding the signature, maybe because they are also new to the wiki thing, dont you think? you knew it all on your first day?! --tb 17:19, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(i) Let's suppose for a moment that arcchambault, hmv and you are indeed all different. You (plural) certainly do have the right to express your opinion, but their opinions will count for nothing because they have no editing history. (ii) I'm certainly not the final word when it comes to music. My opinion is worth no more than that of anybody else who's contributed here. Are you suggesting that it's worth less -- that (for example) only québecois can judge the notability of phenomena from Québec? That's an interesting idea, but it's not the way the rules work at the moment. (iii) It's true that I don't know how the record industry of Québec works. That's why I suggested evidence of one non-vanity-published "album"-length CD as one possible criterion for notability. It's certainly not the only criterion -- if landing a recording contract is tough, why not follow the suggestions posted on the VfD page by Mozzerati or Alexandre Van de Sande? -- Hoary 02:28, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

Nguyet Anh Duong[edit]

-The Vietnamese American National Gala noted Nguyet Anh Duong "Scientist who developed the bomb that ended the war with Afghanistan." please see link: and goto Science & Technology.--Bnguyen 07:43, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen this. But it doesn't explain anything, does it? -- Hoary 08:07, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

Uh-oh -- JPE is back[edit]

Or anyway is having more fun than any one user deserves -- on the talk page of the article on one of Philadelphia's less noteworthy exports. I'd get ready to slap a protect thingie on the article. -- Hoary 15:04, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

Sorry, my wikipediation was rudely interrupted by real life and so I wasn't around. The IP you linked appears to be a sollog puppet though, did you perhaps copy and paste the wrong thing? --fvw* 21:07, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
No mistake! Ennis is always having more fun hereabouts than any one user deserves. Shortly after my warning notice, he switched IP number and continued. But I think the uppers he took have worn off by now. Gotta rush off now -- my "real life" (paying job) interrupts. -- Hoary 00:48, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)


I've been deleting pages that you have tagged. You're doing a good job, keep it up. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 05:03, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Ben. Alas my other occupation (the one where I employ the skills that pay the bills) is going to constrain me a bit, but I'll try to do at least a little every day. -- Hoary 05:19, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
I can certainly understand that. While contributing a lot is good, doing it to the point of burning out and contributing nothing does no one any good. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 05:44, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for the kind words, Hoary. Did you know I stole the pastel box from the top of this page, and had it on my own talk page for a few months? I took it down, though, when my watchlist broke 1000. dbenbenn | talk 05:04, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dbenbenn, if you stole a box from me, you were just repeating the best-form-of-flattery that I performed on some other person's site. I've long forgotten whose that was. However, I shouldn't have nicked anything from anywhere; I should have written it myself -- as it happens, right now I have HTML and CSS coming out of my ears as I'm revising my quasi-company's quasi-corporate website. (I got frustrated in attempting to deal with the people who were supposed to be paid for us for doing the job -- by the time I've explained that accessibility, etc., are very big issues for us even if not for 90% of the world's websites, I might as well do the whole bloody thing myself.) Wikipedia is on the back-burner for me right now, which is a pity. I hope to bounce back fairly soon, though. -- Hoary 05:36, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I just found time to check my watchlist and saw that you had reverted my user page. Thank you. In another (actual) VfD, he admits to being a sockpuppet. I wonder who... Hehe. SWAdair | Talk 07:47, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Glad to have been of help, S W. I didn't pay any attention to who this was, though. Wikipedia is full of twerps; I'd need hours more in every day if I was to restart attempting to work out which was which. Restart, as for a short period I did make a certain effort related to the numerous inventions of John P Ennis -- but it was all so silly that I gave up pretty quick. -- Hoary 08:24, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

re: VfD/John Hampsey[edit]

Thanks for the catch. There are a couple of words that, no matter how much I try, I continue to misspell. "Believe" is another one. I learned the "ie" backwards in third grade and have been trying to unlearn that ever since.

I agree with your general point that we are wildly inconsistent with our standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. It continues to confuse me that the community routinely votes to keep excruciatingly detailed discussions of current fiction yet supports a filter for actual humans. My own opinion is that there are very strong arguments for much higher standards for all topics associated with current events. That applies to recent fiction, "newsworthy" events and to living persons among others. There are inherent difficulites in keeping such articles verifiable and NPOV and in protecting them from subtle vandalism over the long term. It's easy to say they can be cleaned up now but there are literally billions of potential topics. Right now, there are only a few hundred truly dedicated Wikiholics and mere thousands of users. Even if our user base increased to 10% of all computer users in the world, that's still thousands of articles per person. I can only have so many articles on my watchlist. Who's going to keep each Pokemon character on their watchlist to see if someone four years from now vandalizes the page by falsifying the information in a non-obvious way?

The wiki culture has many things going for it but this is a continuing weakness for us. I don't know the answer and, frankly, part of the reason I continue to participate is to see how the experiment plays out. It really is a fascinating social study.

One final note: If you disagree with the decision on the John Hampsey article, feel free to nominate it for undeletion. If it is nominated, I will do my best to explain my reasoning but have already decided that I will recuse myself from any voting. Thanks again. Rossami (talk) 15:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the unnecessarily patient, thoughtful and discursive reply. I'm not worried by the demise of the (shoddy) article on John Hampsey, who I think would be borderline at best. And even if I were, I'd think very long and hard before attempting to have it undeleted: surely undeletion should follow convincing new evidence, not sour grapes. I agree with you about fiction, though. Wikipedia seems to me to reflect corporate America: millions get poured into (say) a resuscitation of the third-rate Battlestar Galactica, and then a handful of earnest Wikipedians recreate its fictional "world" with a degree of respect that I think is warranted in the real world or in the fictional worlds of, say, Lolita or Les Enfants du paradis. Seems nutty to me. But for tens of thousands, Battlestar Galactica or Gundam or whatever is the real world, or so it seems. -- Hoary 04:47, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Just a quick "thank you" for voting me for admin. Now all I've got to do is find out how to use these worrying new powers... Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 06:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not toilet paper: plagiarism...?[edit]

I see you state that "Wikipedia is not bog paper". It made me wonder if you're aware that this phrase and variants thereof is the official motto of the article User:Bishonen/European toilet paper holder, compare its talk page, and see also Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-02-14/Article hoax. Since you appear to be preoccupied with these matters, though I hope not to an unhealthy degree, perhaps you might care to contribute? Best wishes, Bishonen | Talk 11:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good grief. This is all entirely new to me: I guessed that in saying that Wikipedia was not bog paper I wasn't saying anything new, but it was new to me. I've read the article with admiration. At present I have nothing to add, not least because I'm actually not "preoccupied with these matters".
I fear that my list of contributions suggests that I am preoccupied with these matters; but really, my article on Jonathan Routh (and The Good Loo Guide) derives from my long-standing admiration of John Glashan, while I stuck a VfD on "Scheisse" as my German, though terrible, is adequate for this word to stand out in a list of new articles.
(Rather than writing paragraphs making stylistic ameliorations, and looking through VfD idiocies, I'd very much like to get stuck in to a new, substantive article of my own, but in the "real world" I have to write something substantial, so my conscience doesn't let me put aside a couple of hours -- or much longer -- on anything sustained for Wikipedia: my numerous tiny contributions are made in sanity breaks from my main job.)
I'll keep the article in mind, however. My thanks again for bringing it to my notice. -- Hoary 14:26, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
Congratulations, you did manage to sound quite as if you thought I was going to sue, for a minute there! I'm glad you enjoyed the article, which has lately turned into something of a tug-of-war between those who want to insert more Scheisse, and those—mainly me and Giano and Giano's aunts, see talk page—who strive to keep it on the level of art, culture, history, philosophy, and even religion. Thanks for the pointer to Jonathan Routh, a very nice piece! I didn't really think you "preoccupied" before, but now I believe you're clinically obsessed. ;-) Bishonen | Talk 14:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


A quick thanks for voting me to adminship. utcursch 08:09, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)