User:Hoary/Archive19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Emotional Freedom Technique[edit]

Hello Hoary,

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

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

What would you recommend?

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

Hi. I noticed this message yesterday but was coming down with a cold and had little time. I still have the cold (so my brain isn't working quite right), but I do have a little more time now.
Perhaps as a result of the cold, I don't fully understand what you're saying above. Let's look at your most recent edit to that article. This adds:
This research deviates from the scientific method.
The facts in layman's terms, are very simple. In the EFT training DVDs, the viewer is taught to tap with as many fingers as they can, as it can stimulate the finger meridians. The viewer is also shown extra tapping points not in the standard EFT sequence and is told that there are many other points that can be tapped on. This is illustrated and corroborated by expert guests on the DVD. Additionally, the viewer is shown tapping on non-standard EFT points. All this was published before this research took place.
With this in mind, so-called sham points and tapping on dolls' faces is not too different from tapping the standard EFT sequence and therefore is useless as a control in a scientific study.
It is right and necessary to criticize any method, including EFT. However, the researchers did not learn what EFT was in the first place. One cannot criticize what one does not know.
First, a minor technical point. Rather than writing "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method scientific method]", you can simply write "[[scientific method]]". (Of course nobody is criticizing you for this little slip.)
The section on "the EFT training DVDs" is a bit dodgy in itself as the reader isn't told precisely what they are (or it is). But perhaps you omitted the information because you were in a rush and intended to add it later. Now, I think that I can refer directly to what's said in a non-fiction DVD such as that of Born into Brothels as this is widely and cheaply available, but I wonder if the same can be said of EFT DVDs. Further, your statement that something is "corroborated by expert guests on the DVD" is problematic: "expert" in which sense(s)?
Obviously you're dissatisfied with the research. Yes indeed you are right to say that Just because [research] was accepted by a respected journal does not make it correctly carried out. But in order to say that the research was faulty, you are going to have to cite an authoritative (expert, disinterested) statement that it was faulty. If you are certain that you can prove it was faulty, you are welcome to say this -- but somewhere else, not Wikipedia. That's how Wikipedia works: there are rules against both "original research" and "original synthesis". At one time or another these rules annoy a very large number of editors, certainly including myself; but they're firmly in place and they are not going to disappear.
You say I have edited past the 3-edit rule, which quite honestly, I did not know about, so I got banned from editing a page. I'm not at all sure that you broke the 3-revert rule. Mastcell didn't tell you you'd broken it; rather, he warned you that you were in danger of breaking it. People are banned from editing certain pages but this is rare and it hasn't happened to you. Also, you've never been blocked from editing.
Clearly you have a strong opinion about EFT and you think the article about it is defective. You're free to edit it, but as practice toward doing so I recommend that you do a bit of editing on some unrelated and innocuous subject that happens to interest you: the skills you'll painlessly pick up there will help you later. -- Hoary (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hoary,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previously, you wrote in the article that there's something wrong with a study that the article cites; this time, you're telling me. You're not breaking any rule by telling me, but it will have no effect. Instead, you have to cite a disinterested, authoritative study saying that something is wrong with that published study.
Two minor points: I couldn't find the EFT DVDs at WorldCat (though I might have missed something); and emofree.com sells them in a set for $150, which may be good value for what you get but is not what I'd call a low price for a DVD package. (Amazon.com is selling Born into Brothels for under $14.)
Again, I recommend that you practice editing in some subject about which you feel less passionately before moving to EFT. -- Hoary (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Josef Jindrich Sechtl[edit]

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

About the following:

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

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

Thanks a lot and happy new year ;)

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

Happy New Year yourself, and I'm delighted to see you back and surprised that my message got such a fast response.
Some of them have ISBN already listed / [cough] That's because I added those ISBNs during the last couple of hours. I'm ashamed to say that over the last few months I forgot all about our friend Josef Jindřich Šechtl, but he was on my "watchlist" and I noticed that people have been (benevolently) fiddling with the article recently; that's why I took another look and decided to act upon the (my?) little complaints in <!-- SGML comments -->; I went to WorldCat and looked up what I could. (Incidentally, I changed the place of publication of Tábor jak jej fotografovali v letech 1876-1996 Šechtlovi in accordance with what WorldCat says. Of course if you were sure you were right, please change it back.)
Albrecht, V. 25 roků ve službách černého umění / I've encountered very informative Konishiroku publications in the past and I realize that mere catalogues can be informative (if used with care). But let's specify Herr (?) Albrecht's first name: this might help in somebody's search. And let's give the publisher. And since this isn't at Worldcat, it might be a good idea to add a <ref>footnote identifying one archive where this may be found<ref> (wild guess: a certain museum).
Český svět, č. 1-18., 1918. / Is "č." the same as "volume"? But no, that wouldn't make sense. Pages 1-18 of an annual? Of course I realize that my question may seem (or be) a bit silly, as 99.9% of people sufficiently interested in this to want to pursue it will understand what "č." means, but let's be informative anyway. (For one thing, this helps avoid complaints by busybodies.)
Slovanský sokol, Cizinecký ruch. 1912. Pp. 258-260. / Is this pp 258-260 of a magazine that was paginated continuously (so that one issue might have started at p.312)? If not, again, shouldn't this have additional date information?
Why am I bothering? (And why am I bothering you?) Because I've been fascinated by Josef Jindřich Šechtl (not least because he was completely unknown to me); and although I have a rather dim idea of the process by which articles are certified as "Good", I think it could be fun (as well as frustrating and irritating) to submit this. However, the preparation should all be done before submitting it.
Czech photographers are an interesting bunch. I suppose I've only heard of 0.1% of those who merit consideration; but among these I've always wondered why it is that Saudek has mass international appeal (to me, his stuff is mere gimmickry); why posthumous books of the works of Sudek (excellent though they are) reach such crazy prices; why somebody as good as Cudlín is virtually unknown, etc.; and of course I've recently marveled over the way in which the admittedly bizarre would-be pornography of Tichý is discussed most seriously by museum curators and the like. -- Hoary (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

AdminReview[edit]

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

Request[edit]

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

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

AfD nomination of Ohm Phanphiroj[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

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

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

have you seen this[edit]

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

No, I hadn't seen it. Thank you for pointing it out. I had a feeling that there was some Big Thing that I'd missed, so I'm only partly surprised to see it.
I haven't carefully read what's at "The list returns" but a quick look shows a mixture of thoughtfully expressed concerns and people who seem to be in an unencyclopedic tizzy, throwing around dodgy analogies and the like, plus the odd person whose degree of affrontedness beggars belief and who seems to be relishing the opportunity to dramatize. (No, I'm not going to name names.)
A world history of racism (for want of a familiar word akin to "ethnicism") would be a long and depressing work that more depressingly would have to be updated again, and again, and again. Racism merits study. It seems to generate or be generated by or rise and fall with ethnic stereotypes. The ethnic stereotypes themselves merit study. Deecee appeared to be writing something related to their study. I thought that your simple description of what she wrote was wrong, and I still think that it was wrong.
NB I'm not condoning any edit warring on behalf of the list, or doubting your "GF" or motives. And I see an unfortunately strident tone in Deecee's responses to you. However, your warning of the likelihood of a ban did look like the threat that it wasn't.
Thank you for unblocking her and I hope that this works out well. -- Hoary (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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

I've seen it. Some of it, perhaps a lot of it, seems reasonable. Some doesn't. A significant amount seems quite wrong-headed. There's a notable "GF" deficiency. There may be reasons for this.
Clearly this is an emotive issue and I'm willing to believe that Deecee went about it in entirely the wrong way. She does tend to resort to "this is the flip side of the crap that I have to take" [my words, not hers] rather quickly, and of course "othercrapexists" is no justification, but she happens to have a skin color that certainly does take a lot of crap on WP (from drunk white boys, I suppose) and I can see where the anger comes from.
Additionally, what she added wasn't crap, at least when viewed as a complete package.
I think there's a wider problem here, one that is very hard to deal with in the WP model in which anyone (of course including the underinformed and misinformed) can edit by default. It's of what to do about currents of debunked once-science, pseudoscience, mass delusions, mindlessly repeated received ideas (in the Bouvardian sense), and so on that have arguably (or even obviously) had some effect (often bad) on society at some point. It appears most obviously in an article such as this one which bounces to and from AfD, etc; but of course it's also behind well established nightmare articles such as negroid, and it pops up in places such as AAVE (which you, Deecee, I and others have taken turns defending) where a sociolinguist could reasonably claim that social attitudes, however misinformed, toward a lect have major social consequences and that you therefore have to (a) describe the misinformation (here, that for example speakers are "too lazy" to "get the grammar right") in order to explain its impact rather than (b) dismiss it as peripheral or ignore it. Of course it would be better if editors, particularly those who have already been blocked, approached this stuff very warily indeed; but the informed and the ignorant, the genuinely educated and the horribly miseducated, the reckless and the feckless are all told to "be bold" and exceptions to this have to be justified laboriously.
Meanwhile, if you look through my editing history for the last 24 hours or so you'll see that I narrowly escaped accusations of homophobia, which (with 20-20 hindsight) I now think would have been partly justifiable. You got the spotlight, I didn't; it could easily have been the other way around. -- Hoary (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The computer I'm using today doesn't like newfangled things such as Google maps. I tried, I waited, I chose the "simple HTML" option, and then I got a largish scale map with no "W" and indeed little or no roman script: only Hebrew script, and little of that, at least till I reached "Jerusalem". I zoomed out a few times: more of the same. You're saying that GM has links to en:WP?
IP/browser-sniffing may be an issue, even though I'm using Google Maps Canada. Yes, there probably is browser-sniffing, because if there weren't then I'd expect a link to a French-language alternative. Perhaps I'm looking at maps for which nobody has yet bothered to transliterate into katakana.
The problem with the great majority of Palestinian subjects, I suppose, is that a significant percentage of people wanting to edit have an almost religious -- or indeed religious, or even fundamentalist -- commitment to broadcasting their faction's truth. If they aren't greatly outnumbered by others, these others will become worn out and walk away.
It's a horrible problem and one that's probably related to the one I brought up, but I think they're separable.
Yours is a political (and not only political) issue of what's covered and how. Another is apolitical. While there's a lot of first-rate work done on [what's now] unpopular culture, there's much more on "popular culture". No surprise that the popular is popular, but a lot of popcult approaches mere market-research-driven product, and a lot of the material here on this is more or less "in-universe". So the articles recycle the vendors' selling points to a considerable extent.
(My thoughts on product are fueled by having twice in recent days seen the Japanese boy band "Exile" on the boob tube. All the [numerous] members are tall, youngish, and [I suppose] handsome; the costumes are coordinated with a certain degree of studied pseudo casualness; the hairstyles are "edgy"; the boys look and smile at each other knowingly as they prance and croon with what I inexpertly guess is just a hint of homoeroticism for additional perceived "edginess"; and the music they produce is utterly bland and conservative and even mildly retrogressive. So the consumers can experience a frisson of daring as they hand over the loot for a sort of youthful Japanese Barry Manilow, sounds that will keep mums and grandmas happy too. The concerts are wildly popular and you'll see "edgily" dressed teens and twenty-somethings in the train coming home from these and clutching their "Exile" branded tie-in products.)
Hoary (talk) 06:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
It's not a put down of Wikipedia to say that pop culture drives mega traffic and Wikipedia lives by the mega traffic pop culture pulls in (with all the soundbite politics thrown in). I look stuff up on Wikipedia every day and far more often than not, it's an obscure enough topic that someone, after 7 years, has at least done a clean and helpful job spinning up a sourced overview which, if I want to know more, has references I can click on. Yesterday I looked up the history of the Eastern and Western Norse settlements on Greenland. The article isn't stunning, but it is helpful and it launched me into a more thorough read elsewhere. Meanwhile, the flaws in articles like Gaza are canny echoes of the flaws in secondary sources and outlooks drummed endlessly by the media in English speaking countries. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Yes, I'd noticed Franklin-related articles (oddly, via Spilsby). They've attracted a lot of interest. Virtually all that I've noticed has seemed well intentioned and at least partly well informed, but sometimes rather worrisomely intent on citing this or that book, which may or may not be authoritative (I wouldn't know). I don't have the time to educate myself in this, and "my" library would hardly be equipped for it even if I were. I can only suggest that you express your qualms on the article's talk page and then perhaps draw attention to them on the talk pages of what might be relevant projects. -- Hoary (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
For a quick, spooky tale having to do with Franklin, have a look at this. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has moved elsewhere on my watchlist. Please don't continue it here. Thank you -- Hoary (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Seth Sabal Sourced in HTML[edit]

Hello, I referenced statments to HTML based webpage to confrim my new article. I would like it to be undeleted, I have done everything unbiased and by the book. This is my valid fashion entry is there anything else you need? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhotobloggerNYT (talkcontribs) 09:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just now answered a very similar question on your own talk page. Let's keep the discussion there. -- Hoary (talk) 10:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Seth Sabal[edit]

Hello, I just made a page of a notable photographer named Seth Sabal, he is the person that I choose for my specific class assignment to add a notable fashion person to Wiki. This is a brand new artical with very clear refereces and it doesn't qualify for deletion under the reasons you deleted it. I have sourced the references, I didnt infringe on copyrights, and I did this by the book. I do not understand why it is deleted. There are far less accomplished photographers in the "fashion photography" section. This encyclopedia entry is at least a fashion photographer, notable, and published consistantly. Can you explain? I do not believe that previous articles non related to my new article - should effect the deletion process. How to I go about contesting this to a higher entity, This is my class assignment and my group will not except my failure.

(I have clearly proven relevance with the sourced links)

Sarah :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhotobloggerNYT (talkcontribs) 09:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just now answered a very similar question on your own talk page. Let's keep the discussion there. -- Hoary (talk) 10:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Seth Sabal - I do not understand-[edit]

I really do not understand the enter workings of this appeall process, I honestly believe that my artical was cut sort without really giving thought. Possibly from previous Seth Sabal articles, clearly not referenced articles? I am so confused about how to post a change to the article, how to appeal the deletion. I dont understand, why clearly a talented unbiased editor like yourself would kill my article.

Especially, after I gave you the HTML links... you requested..

I put the references you requested, I did everything by the book. I just want my article back, want to turn in my part of the class project and call it a day... I am just so tired, and I dont know how to get it up. It merits the encyclopedia entry. This appeal process is not going to make any sense to me, I am brand new to Wiki, and never anticipated this sort of animosity. Sarah —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhotobloggerNYT (talkcontribs) 10:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no animosity, and you can tell your classmates and teacher that there's been an administrative snag and that the article is temporarily at User:PhotobloggerNYT/Sandbox, where you are free to improve it. -- Hoary (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just made one of my fairly rare WP drop-ins these days to see an old favorite reappear (and then disappear). Isn't it interesting that all of S. Sabal's partisans over the years make the same spelling and grammar errors? Really a remarkable coincidence.... Keep up the good work. Robertissimo (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Stylistic similarities -- why yes, since you mention it. To think that I'd never noticed this..... Hoary (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I wanted to submit the article to you again. I believe that I have made my case fairly. I just dont know how to get it undeleted. I don't understand your above comments about my grammar mistakes. If your insinuating what I think you are, I take great offense to it. Its pretty apparent that you have something against this photographer. My article in the scope of a fashion photographer section. http://bestfashionphotography.com/tips-for-vogue-fashion-photography.html

As I have already said, I have nothing against Sabal.
As I have repeatedly said, you should take the matter to "WP:DRV". -- Hoary (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

New Information, Requesting Review[edit]

I have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the deletion review of October 2006. This photographers work was not sourceable at the time this article was removed, giving it total ground for removal. The new artical sources all the notable claims, including Vogue Magazine, Surface Magazines top emerging photographer award, fashion "notability" given the status of the supermodels found on his photographic agencies webpage, and youtube video. I am kindly requesting the new artical be reviewed again. This photographer has significant "notability" and sourceable information available in 2009 that was not available in 2006. I believe the article does not quality for grounds of removal but, I am brand new and maybe don't know how about getting this article in a publishable form. I kindly ask Sam Blanningor Hoary to review the new article. If there is anything missing or not cited, I will be glad to help this article be reintroduced. Thank you for your time. PhotobloggerNYT (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Please post a message such as this to WP:DRV. There's no point in asking me to do anything there, because I'm already aware of your request; and there's no point asking Blanning, as he has left (as I've already said). -- Hoary (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Seth Sabal[edit]

It's a bit odd. SoWhy declined a speedy on this, and you apparently deleted it three minutes later. I temporarily restored it to look at it because the editor in question queried it on Mattisse's talk page (not sure why there). I suggest you settle it with SoWhy, I'm not going to redelete it, I'll leave it up to you guys.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Damn, I should have seen the talk page discussion here and read it. I'm still not touching it again though.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Hi. I was about to help the editor with editing and formatting of the article Seth Sabal when it was suddenly deleted. From what I saw of the article, it good enough not to be deleted. He had references and such, although I did not have time to check them out. I believe the editor is well meaning and writing about a bonofide photographer. Is it possible that the article could be restored so I could help the editor improve it? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

When I deleted the article, I posted it to User:PhotobloggerNYT/Sandbox. I invited PhotobloggerNYT to use that opportunity to improve it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Verifiable Notoriety[edit]

I have updated the Seth Sabal Section. He is a Vogue contributor, its verifiable and it qualifies him beyond the majority of the section. Are we going to fix this or not? PhotobloggerNYT (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If you think that Sabal merits an article and that you now have a worthy draft for this, please raise the matter at WP:DRV, of course linking to your draft. -- Hoary (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not know how to do that. Can you please help? PhotobloggerNYT (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure. In the relevant place (i.e. right under today's date) you post {{subst:Newdelrev|pg=Seth Sabal|ns=Article|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}}. As for "UNDELETE_REASON", I can even provide you with a draft, which you're free to use, adapt or of course ignore:
The article was previously deleted as the result of an AfD. Believing that Sabal merited an article and that I could create a substantively new article and one that would meet Wikipedia's relevant criteria, I created and posted my attempt at such an article. User:Hoary, who had nominated the article for deletion in the first place, deleted this, but did move my article to my userspace. I would normally appeal to the administrator who closed the AfD, but his user page makes it clear that he has retired and is unavailable. Hoary has advised me to appeal here. Please view my proposed draft. I have tried to make it conform to Wikipedia's various rules but please bear in mind that I am a new and inexperienced editor. Thank you.
Hoary (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see what you edited- can we post this please PhotobloggerNYT (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see your edit, would love to get this article undeleted, can you please let me know how to move forward. Sarah PhotobloggerNYT (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you might try a little harder and spend less time blanking other pages,[1] and accusing Hoary of sabotage.[2] The latter, by the way, is my job.
If he's a well-known photographer, has had spreads in American Vogue and been in the news or in other major fashion magazines--W would be best--let me know, and I'll be glad to help write the article. I could not find any reliable sources, though, and can't find him in any of my handy copies of W, Italian Vogue or in any on-line books, or any independent notable shoots. --KP Botany (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Whoa, KP, let's keep it cool: I don't much mind being accused of sabotage. (Thick upper lip, stiff skin and all that.) But if you do have anything on Sabal, yes, let's hear it. -- Hoary (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Also! If he's a Spanish photographer I have a stack of recent Spanish Vogues around here, somewhere, and they love having shoots by the locals, so I'll check there also. Don't redirect the page to something else, that's why you blanked it, I see, not necessarily on purpose--I've done the same! --KP Botany (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
See recipe below for the fix.
KP -- botany, esoteric programming languages, fashion mags ... when do you have time to sleep?-- Hoary (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The stuff of life.
Fashion--it's in my blood! That's what I make a living at, didn't you know? I'm an arteest, a fiburr arteest. As I've said before, if they don't have more google hits than me, they ain't notable. --KP Botany (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Ummy yummy! But I have a question. It's my impression (e.g. from a recent exhibition of stuff by Martin Parr) that fashion bigwigs (and surely you're no less) get kissed all the time. Do people in the fashion world brush their teeth regularly? -- Hoary (talk) 05:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm an arteeest--it's strictly air kisses on the cheeks, dear. --KP Botany (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're asking about. You asked what to do on a page that already explains what to do, I explained; you need to present a reason for undeletion, so I even provided a draft for this, above. (I haven't posted it anywhere else, if that's what you're asking: I'm inviting you to post it, of course after you've altered it to your satisfaction.)
The only thing that may be hard to see is your draft for the article. I have no idea why you turned it into a redirect; but since you did turn it into a redirect, instead of "[[User:PhotobloggerNYT/Sandbox|my proposed draft]]" above you can choose from any of the options listed in the history and write for example "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PhotobloggerNYT/Sandbox&oldid=263501528 my proposed draft]". Or, better, you can use that page history to find the best version previous to conversion to a redirect, and save that, thereby restoring it as an independent page within your userspace.
I am not going to post the appeal for undeletion myself, because I'm not at all sure that the article should be undeleted. IFF there's a debate on the matter, I'll explain my doubts there and then. -- Hoary (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Spanish Vogue Link in the Artical Brazilian Vogue Link in Article PhotobloggerNYT (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Honestly KP Botany, I dont know how to edit very well, I didnt mean to delete anyone's editing. Can you help me please. thank you Sarah PhotobloggerNYT (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The redirect was a mistake, Hoary--I did the same thing just a few weeks ago, made a page into a redirect by mistake, then tried to edit the redirect, and actually deleted the article--I think it did it to AN/I! I remembered it because I almost did it again when I tried to correct it.
Still, work on the article, Sarah, get good sources, give me that exact issue of Spanish Vogue, write the article up, as if it were for an encyclopedia, not for fans of the photographer, and I'll format and help, and, if it looks like it will fly, I'll let you know. Honestly, though, I can't find many sources at all, none that I would consider verifiable, reliable, and usable to establish notability. And, my criteria for articles are much lower than Hoary's.
Also, work with Hoary, not against him, he's one of the few people around here with a sense of humor--and there's no way I can help with posting the DRV. Don't hurry the article, through, just write and source the article, get it looking good, don't antagonize people, then see if the article meets the criteria. --KP Botany (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry, I don't antagonize easily. But KP's right: If an article is merited, then take your time and thereby ensure that its value is clear, so maximizing your chances for success at DRV or wherever. -- Hoary (talk) 05:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok Hoary thank you!! I have come to the realisation that your not out to get me. I just was new to all this and thought I was being attacked, Looking back on it, thank you; youve made me more aware of everything I write on wiki. (good teacher) I realize now why you are stickler on sources, it really makes a difference. I am going to help get this section into tip top shape, and plan to add more over time. I know your here to help me now, I realise the estrogen was too kicking in strong if you know what I mean. :) I have edited the sandbox and wanted to know if you could take a look at it. best, Sarah PhotobloggerNYT (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, a little later. -- Hoary (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion Let's move this discussion, or the continuation of this discussion about reliable sources to one location, User talk:PhotobloggerNYT. I'd mark this closed or something, Hoary, but immature administrators watching your talk page would have adrenaline surges. --KP Botany (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You want to do what I already wanted to do. I'll close it, eventually giving it a green background or something. -- Hoary (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Think Pinku[edit]

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

Oh hello, 'Ppai. I'm glad the book lives up to expectations. At the very tail end of the old year I went to Sōkyūsha and bought half a dozen photo books (these on top of half a dozen other books I'd bought during the previous couple of weeks); at the very beginning of this year I went to a sale at Kinokuniya and bought six volumes, or 2400 pages, of More Serious Fare; for the next few weeks I think I'll restrain myself in ordering yet more parcels from that US monopolist I sometimes patronize. My most recent parcel from the latter contained DVDs of two minor blaxploitation flicks that I haven't yet got around to seeing; I wish the company that flogs 50 dodgy films on 20 discs for about $15 would do a blaxploitation special as I'd be happy to explore the barrel-scrapings of that genre if they come at a barrel-scraping price: no matter how bad a blaxplo's plot, script, acting, etc, there's usually something to gape at in disbelief. Often pimp vine, of course. -- Hoary (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I haven't got into blaxploitation yet-- except for ogling at Pam Grier, Tamara Dobson, and some others whose names-- but not faces-- escape me at the moment-- but your enthusiasm for the genre has me looking over some possible future purchases... I've seen those 50-film packs too, but was a bit leery about the quality. These BCI "Drive-in Cult" releases are very good quality, for this genre. They treat the films with some deal of respect, which is nice. If you want to take your morbid interest in trash cinema to its ultimate, I challenge you to watch volume 2's They Saved Hitler's Brain and The Creeping Terror back-to-back. I may never recover :) Dekkappai (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Tamara Dobson: good looking, but my fading memory tells me that her best-known (only?) "vehicle" is a very humdrum affair; it's not much more than a TV program where the faces happen to be black and the clothes are more amusing than normal. I am, erm, aware of a possible special interest of yours in Pam Grier, and she won't disappoint; but that aside she's fun to watch as she credibly plays characters who stick it to The Man, or anyway some man. (I loathe summary "justice" in reality, but my inner simian appreciates it in Pam Grier flicks, in the closing chapters of Carl Hiaasen novels, etc.) Films such as The Big Doll House of course have no redeeming qualities if you're as appalled by their gratuitous voyeurism, etc, as you are fully justified in being; but as I'm not so appalled, I don't need any redeeming qualities. And after watching and enjoying these things, I then have the additional (and greater) satisfaction of watching them with Jack Hill as my guide; he's somehow the ideal retrospective commentatutidinalizor. I'll definitely order those drive-in specials together with my next pile of Serious Fare. -- Hoary (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

thx[edit]

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

I'm glad to help. I had mixed feelings about uncategorizating (or whatever) this; doing so renders it less conspicuous to those who might improve it, but also less conspicuous to those who might (wrongly) harrumph that it was an unsuitable use of userspace. I had a quick Google for the subject but couldn't find anything that appeared to add anything to its "notability" (in the WP sense) and that I actually understood -- which does not mean that I'm happy for it to remain deleted, merely that I couldn't help it. Hoary (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
It's one of those issues where it's not a big web presence--and, it's mostly in the know among experts and others in AI or folks who focus on algorithms rather than programming. In other words, rather technical
I think it was mostly deleted because the person who nominated it for deletion seemed to think it's only been around for a year or so, and couldn't understand what was added from other sources, again, too technical--even though one of the references is from 2003. However, it's good enough now to be an article, and its sources are just fine.
I actually think it's better to uncat in user space. --KP Botany (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What Would Krampus Do?[edit]

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

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

Ozawa[edit]

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

Got it. Thank you! Enough is understandable for me to get the flavor. Hm, I'm whelmed. -- Hoary (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I found these. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. But nothing could be found about 2009 kokuten. Instead of ake..., make up a nicer name for chicken gizzards. Sand liver? Oda Mari (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

DenSchliker.com[edit]

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

Hi Geoff. Yes, I saw them. But I don't know what to make of them because I can't understand Russian or Ukrainian, or even manipulate the Cyrillic alphabet. Please improve the article: you're basically allowed to do anything you like with it other than remove the "Articles for Deletion" template from the top.
When you edit the article, I urge you to err on the sides of understatement and of pedantic, detailed citation.
I'm sorry, I can't undertake to vote "keep" on this one. My hunch is that Schliker has made a good start but isn't there yet. Well, he's very young. However, my mind's still open. Persuade me. (Tip: there's nothing like hype to piss me off.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

No, 28 isn't at all young for a fashion photographer. But it's young for undeniable notability to have emerged. And I've never denied that what Schliker does is fashion photography. Indeed, I've argued against MagazineHound's bizarre claim that what Schliker does is "irrelevant" to fashion photography. -- Hoary (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
1) Den Schliker's works were presented at least at several exhibitions;
2) his works were published in the book about Russian/Ukrainian legendary photographers;
3) his works were published in misc. magz (fashion and business ones);
4) there were found citations about him in several Ukrainian newspapers.
Isn't it enough facts about his notability? GeoffBarrenger (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Please don't spend your time pleading with me or anybody else. Instead, put your time and effort into improving the article.
  1. You talk of "several exhibitions". The article lists just two. What are the others? Source them.
  2. Avoid gushy language such as "legendary". It doesn't impress me at the best of times; instead, it shouts "Promotion!" and makes me start to yawn. ("Iconic" rivals it as a vapid indicator of bullshit.) What's the precise title of this book, in Russian or Ukrainian? Precisely where does Schliker appear in it?
  3. Let's have specifics on where Schliker's works appeared; or, better, citation of an authoritative statement -- not from him or in a blog, but in a newspaper/magazine article -- that he's had them published here or there.
  4. So which Ukrainian newspapers? Where within them?
Again, please don't tell me. Instead, improve the article. -- Hoary (talk) 12:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your questions:

(1)two exhibitions - those I found - isn't TWO not enough?
(2)"citation of an authoritative statement". Newspapers - isnt' it an authoritative statement? I gave you three citations from nespapers (not his blog as u say..but newspapers)
(3) I presented four facts - references to three newspapers' articles + reference to a book. If u need to see the exact page with Den Schliker's work published in a book - here u go, that's from the publisher's site: a direct link to the page with his work in this book: http://fotoloft.ru/Admin/GetFile.ashx?id=263 The same photo is among his works: http://www.denschliker.com/photos/genre/scream.jpg What would u say to these arguments? GeoffBarrenger (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm used to writing up photographers who have entire books to their name. (All of them, or almost all, are over 30.) Anyway, again: don't try to persuade me; instead, improve the article. -- Hoary (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
It's already improved. So why does the AFD mark still there? GeoffBarrenger (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The AfD template is still on it because the AfD discussion continues. It will either stay there until the AfD winds up with "keep" or "no consensus" and the article survives, or it will go down with the article if the AfD winds up with "delete". -- Hoary (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Perelet[edit]

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

AfD nomination of Victoria Perelet[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

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

Deletion request[edit]

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

Blammo! Zapped by administratitudinal ray gun. -- Hoary (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, but it had a spectacular fossil in it. Thx. --KP Botany (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

You raise most interesting questions, KP. First, please rejoice and praise the Lord for having been spared the ignominy of some more serious punishment. That aside, since we have Deletion Review, we presumably also have Hazing Review. Of course, as the former can conclude that deletion should continue, the later might conclude that hazing should continue. Are you sure that this is an avenue that you want to explore? -- Hoary (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
As my annoying 18-year-old lab partner says, "Bring it on." --KP Botany (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Need your admin/English help[edit]

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

It's OK. User:Aude took care of it. しつこい人なんで、どうしたらいいのかわからなかった。Although outdated, this is funny.Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 09:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad Aude did, because this really isn't my area. As for the link, I particularly liked [when] you start thinking can coffee tastes good. Yes, I tried it once and thought "People pay money for this?" -- Hoary (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

A shit-storm's a-brewin'[edit]

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

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

RfA thankspam[edit]

Admin mop.PNG
Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.

Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board.

Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better.

Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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

vaguely familiar...[edit]

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

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

Errol_Sawyer[edit]

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

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

one-para copy-edit/comment?[edit]

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

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

Zap request[edit]

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

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

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

Should I just turn the ray-gun on myself and end it all? While I'd protest that I'm too old to die young, any notion that I'm not expendable as an admin evaporates in the aura of a contender such as this. -- Hoary (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Funny stuff. I hope the guy remains unblocked just for the continued theatrics. Sort of the Pat Paulsen of Adminship campaigns. :-) Dekkappai (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd never heard of Paulsen but I like the quotes there, starting with "All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian." -- Hoary (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Right, I'd forgotten that quote. <sarcasm>Fortunately he's dead, so you can see what he looked like.</sarcasm> basset hound face with a Buster Keaton dead-pan delivery. I'm old enough to remember his first campaign. His article is in pretty bad shape too... might be worth looking into for editing work, that is if someone doesn't bring an action against me for putting together a list of sources first. :-( Dekkappai (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
"Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts"? I'd never heard of that one. "It is a non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors, to seek perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum." Ah, only on Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. -- Hoary (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah... a first for me too... next step, Goodnight, sweet Dekk, and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest.... :-( Dekkappai (talk) 03:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I hope you still have the vomitorium around here, Hoary. --KP Botany (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh yes thank you; it's over in the other building. -- Hoary (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

I contemplated the first and second. Contemplation of the first took an instant, and the conclusion was "keep". Contemplation of the second did, I must admit, cause a throb in the hoaxamometer, but anyway I tweaked it. I'm puzzled: why the desire to delete? -- Hoary (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm joking! I'm joking! I just want a copy edit! Ahhggg! --KP Botany (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Uh-oh, I seem to be coming down with mind-blindness again. I'll return to the articles later; not only am I too hungry to edit right now but my right arm aches (and DGG knows why). Meanwhile, won't you join me in spewing some bile? -- Hoary (talk) 10:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I puked at puce, then added my own input. --KP Botany (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ima Hogg[edit]

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

There's no such policy that I have heard of. People in the Biography project may have come up with some policy of their own, but then they do some pretty strange things and all in all seem oblivious to the way in which many noteworthy people don't easily fit within preconceived classification schemes. Various WikiProjects explicitly advise against them; here's an example. Hogg's article was given a template as part of a spree that included the addition of a template to the recently main-paged Adolfo Farsari, which became an FA without any template and for which the polite suggestion of a template was previously declined.
I don't pretend to be neutral; I'm openly against the use of these things for articles on most kinds of people. But User:Mike Christie generally likes them, yet here he is asking this person to stop adding them willy-nilly. -- Hoary (talk) 09:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. Looks like there's people on both sides. I don't have a strong preference either way. Thanks for your time. Royalbroil 13:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
If I might butt in, Hoary. Question of infobox aside, there is the fact that this article had gone through the FA process... When other editors make what I see to be rather pointless stylistic changes to the only FA I've been involved in-- Anna May Wong-- I revert it just on the grounds that the article went through a pretty brutal review process and should be considered somewhat complete. I'm not against the addition of new information that comes up-- an editor added a recently discovered bit about her grave post-FA-- but I do think that the format, the style of the article has been decided through long review and debate, and shouldn't be subject to change by any editor who just cruises by... These are just my own thoughts, which I've never seen expressed in any kind of policy, and one of these editors I reverted huffed that FAs should be considered no less editable than any other article... Any opinions? (Or, better yet, "rules" I could point to to back up my own opinion ;-) Dekkappai (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
While I'm not going to look up the particular hazing ritual by which that particular article became "featured", these rituals make less and less sense to me. Of course there are some intelligent comments, but there's a huge amount of nincompoopery such as --
People in the Biography project may have come up with some policy of their own, but then they do some pretty strange things and all in all seem oblivious to the way in which many noteworthy people don't easily fit within preconceived classification schemes.
then ambiguous; reword. Comma after things. Note classification not an adjective; try classificatory.
-- which makes me glad that these ninnies are working at FAC; better that they spent their time there than indulge in RL activities that might have some impact on the world.
What I very rarely see at FAC is any real investigation of sourcing. I mean, when an assertion is followed by a note pointing to something looking authoritative, all smiles. On occasion I've smelled something off and looked in the "source", only to find that indeed it says no such thing. I mention that and typically there's no comment, while the ninnies continue wittering away about alleged stylistic [nano]gaffes, which they could have easily fixed instead.
Where was I? Ah, yes, the problem's with "WP:BOLD", a good idea for crap articles but an appalling one for good articles. Once in a while I toy with the idea of drafting an antidote, "WP:TIMID", but laziness overtakes me. -- Hoary (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Right-- I found the FA review to be mostly heated discussions over dashes and semicolons... Flare-ups over whether to use citation templates or not... Major battles over whether an image should be on the right or the left... Those of us who actually put the article together were changing minor stylistic quirks back and forth just to get different people to pass the article... All very discouraging... Anyway, your WP:TIMID sounds like an excellent policy to me. I'll put it in my tool arsenal. (I'm surprised it's red-linked). Dekkappai (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Giano/Jimbo/Hattersley[edit]

Re: [9] - spot on. DuncanHill (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It's now at User:Tango/GH_discussion, if anyone's interested in this "show" that is "over". -- Hoary (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Yep, I saw that! DuncanHill (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
This affair has made me feel more sick than anything else I can remember at Wikipedia. But I've no desire for melodrama (indeed, I'd like very much less showmanship), and I'm happy to note that Giano is back. -- Hoary (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Could it be zapped?[edit]

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

I read in one place that I could delete it if:
The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used
I read elsewhere that I could delete it if it's an example of:
Templates that are not employed in any useful fashion, and are either: substantial duplications of another template, or hardcoded instances of another template where the same functionality could be provided by that other template, may be deleted after being tagged for seven days.
According to the first, I could delete it; according to the second, I couldn't. I went ahead and deleted it anyway; I hope this won't get me into any trouble. -- Hoary (talk) 08:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Maybe yes, maybe no……I knew you couldn't resist zapping. I hope this won't get you into any trouble too. たぶん、だいじょうぶ。But don't blame me if it will do. Happy zapping! Oda Mari (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If you have a tick[edit]

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

I've skimread, and confess that I'm quite lost -- except that I get the impression that as of now no hordes of pitchfork-wielding arbiters are about to push you into a vat of molten lead. -- Hoary (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I was only checking, that I wasn't being wholly clueless about something or whatever. Thanks :) Gwen Gale (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Trouble[edit]

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

A fair cop. But fuck me, now I'm really fucking fucked. Hoary (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Three years is but a heartbeat on the Internet, after all. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, well, well. I was right about the future incivility. 60 90 minute block. 30 for each use of the fuck word. Ceoil (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Tsk tsk Hoary, how couldst thou be so fuckin' naughty? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Back off Glen, I am in communication with important people and things I can't understand or explain, they are just too important and they have flashing lights. Know this though; actually I can't tell you that either. Ceoil (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, sorry. Please forgive me? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Fine, you seem to have learned your lesson. Ceoil (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Fuck. I canny have done. Thank you thank you thank you. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I though my scot joke would slip under the water, well spotted. Hoary, ignoring everything I stand for and every thing I said before, because your friend is correct, I'm going to do an about face here with no explination or aplogy, and hope it all goes away. You are now free to edit for free. Cheers. Ceoil (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
While I was blocked, I went away and watched From Russia with Love. That was fun, in a retrosexist way. Can Gwen and me block you now? It's fun, you'll enjoy it! -- Hoary (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I think a spiteful block would be handy :D Meanwhile I've always thought From Russia with Love was by far the most believable of the Bond series. I can sit through Goldfinger, though I don't care for the dumb "nerve gas" plot at the end, it was shot with taste, mostly :) Oh! I forgot to say, Goldfinger was the first movie I ever watched in Japan! Gwen Gale (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Yah, can we speedily delete him with WP:IDONTLIKEHIM? Meanwhile, I'm trying to think what the first film I saw in Japan was. Something in its first run, for sure. Foolish Wives maybe? -- Hoary (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
(EC) I always go dizzy when I see your man, whats his name with the broken nose, walk out of the sea, though showing my age, I have memories of the lovely judy dench throwing a hat a fat bloke painted in gold speeding away in an austin martin?. Crikey its great when I'm confused!
Gwen, sorry I misspelled you name so many times, poor auld Glen has a piryful block record, whoever he is. Eeek ;) Ceoil (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
No, that was Ursula Andress, in The Mustard and Cress File, with a sprinkling of angel dust. -- Hoary (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, Ursula Andress; zzzz--drifts away is dotage-zszz. I dont really have a problem with being blocked out of spite by Hoary, as lomg as the block summary is imaginative and suitably evil. Do your worst. I double dare you. Ceoil (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Ceoil, the snap on your UP is so, so worrisome, I'm utterly beside myself with woe and worry, seeing as how it could stir up notions among the children, of going about shirtless and then offing oneself with a kitchen tool, all on a web-linked webcam. That's not on here at all. I think we should hard ban you now, for the children. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Like Eric Cartman? Ceoil (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

tom hooker deletion[edit]

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

I don't believe that I have ever deleted any such page. However, when you mention "den harrow" that made me think of Thomas Barbèy. One version of his page said that he "was successful in Italy and he moved there for 15 years, where he performed under the name of Tom Hooker" (none of which was backed up with any source).
So, Thomas Barbèy. I didn't delete the article on him. What I did do was propose its deletion. I did that openly, here. Three people agreed that it should be deleted. Somebody using the IP 99.151.186.99 (close to yours) disagreed, saying "Strong Keep The article needs to be expanded, rather than obliterated. Deletion proposition appears to be initiated with envious bias." I replied "how do you propose that it could be expanded? And would you care to specify sources that could be used for the expansion?" There was no response, and so MBisanz deleted the article.
"why not delete den harrow then too?" I can't be bothered to think about Den Harrow right now. If you think it should be deleted, see here whether it indeed qualifies for deletion, and if it does then proceed from there.
I should really "focus on deleting real garbage off wiki"? Hmm, actually I prefer working on stuff that isn't garbage. But yes, when I see real garbage I push it toward deletion. And when you see real garbage you are of course welcome to do the same. -- Hoary (talk) 04:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

... Getting out of hand?...[edit]

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

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

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

By the way-- I noticed that archived copy of the article contained links to even junkier Wai Wai articles which were preserved... Letting my hopes get the best of me, I searched on the perfectly respectable "Porno queen seeks investors' plug as she goes out with a bang"[10] and came up with the dreaded "Blocked Site Error." Dekkappai (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why you shouldn't get webcitation.org [and sorry about the domain name mistake earlier] to back up any web.archive.org page you think might later be liquidated.
I'll keep the page on my watchlist and I'll s-protect it if things get worse. I understand that some nitwit in India (perhaps with an interest in a rival product?) was hitting it as often as three times a day, but his energies seem to have flagged. Hoary (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Browser[edit]

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

Thanks! I know of SeaMonkey, but I haven't tried it or much wanted to because it promises to include a pile of stuff (HTML editor, mail client) that's of no interest to me. (The main constraint with this computer is hard drive space, and more particularly space on C:.) I'd never heard of Sylera and that does sound good. I don't remember how I installed Firefox, but any time any program asks me if I want to install this or that "helpful" offering from Google I say no. (I don't even accept Google's cookies.)
I think that after a long effort to produce browsers that more or less got CSS2 right -- and I'm reliably told that even MSIE is moderately good these days -- the competition among browsers is now again largely one of gimmickry. A Mac at the office has lots of processing power and hard drive space, so I installed the beta of the next version of Safari: the main difference I see from the old one is that it has a pretty way of displaying web pages that it thinks you might want to look at. I hate to think how many CPU cycles that uses up. And before it has "learnt" what you like, it comes with its own suggestions, of course heavily biased toward Mr Average American's shopping preferences. I can't get excited. -- Hoary (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Nigger lover[edit]

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

Yes. Hoary (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, SemBubenny, it's only suggested (strongly, yes, but suggested) that you don't protect pages you're editing. There are no codes or ethics which specifically forbid it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Although to the surprise of all participants, and thanks in large part to a splendid suggestion by 7-bubёn, this minor kerfuffle was sorted out quickly and amicably. -- Hoary (talk) 08:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI: (presumed) discussion of your post[edit]

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

Thank you for the tip, 74.
I continue to be surprised by the loyalty of some people to their operating systems. (If they'd had a hand in creating them, I'd understand.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Piggy[edit]

A prize piglet—cute, don't you think?

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

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

Talk:The Hamsters[edit]

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

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

Remember Otto...[edit]

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

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

Darin Fidika/Exiled Ambition is back[edit]

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

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

Image tagging for File:AlexanderHall.jpg[edit]

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

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

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

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

recent post[edit]

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