User talk:Hoary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Oh

You might like to comment at the WP:GA/R for Agrippina. Cheers, Moreschi 14:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a good article [lowercase]. I glanced at the toing and froing over it and I think I digested the gist of the complaints. I then looked again at the article and I have to say that the dissatisfaction is not completely unreasonable. Consider for example In modern times, Agrippina's critical reputation has rested high among Handel's early works and indeed among his entire career as a whole: either one of "entire" and "as a whole" will suffice, "rested" doesn't sound quite right to me ("remained"?), and "career" seems less likely than "works" (a word that of course is better not repeated so soon). Rather than make a conditional comment about the article ("It's fine, except that/although...."), I thought I'd go through the article making changes and then comment. Some of my "improvements" may of course be unwitting degradations; feel free to revert. -- Hoary 14:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Whack away. Enjoy! Cheers, Moreschi 14:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Once you've done that, of course, feel free to pass it. Or fail it. Or do neither. 'S up to you. Cheers, Moreschi 14:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes yes I'll whack away -- except that acute need of sleep and the demands of the "real world" must come first. While you're cursing the churlish comments you're getting over Agrippina, consider the hell that Badlydrawnjeff is going through. -- Hoary 15:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Christ, poor bastard. One useless peer review there - and then all the stuff that should come up at peer review comes up at the FA nom, and you have to scramble horrifically. Anyway, see you round tomorrow - I'm GMT/exact Wikitime. I look forward to your comments/corrections, and sweet dreams. Cheers, Moreschi 15:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Someday you need to cme up to Massachusetts...

...so I can buy you a beer. Thank you so much for your help on the Babb FA. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feeling generous?

Want to take a gander over at Mom and Dad and see what you might change around? I'd much appreciate it. Thanks either way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The demands of the "real world" are mounting up, and may hinder me in this. Can it wait a little? (You're free to answer either "yes" or "yes".) -- Hoary 05:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, that's not a problem at all. Take your time. Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photography Projects' names

Allo mate. You might be interested in this discussion regarding the names of the WP Projects History of Photography and Photography. What do you think of Girolamo Savonarola's proposition? Pinkville 00:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wotcher, mush.

GS is right, in a way, but jeez. . . . Well, see what I wrote on the project talk page. -- Hoary 08:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1a

Hoary—I like what you did; reminds me of my deficiencies as a writer. If you don't like the acknowledgmeent, please let me know. Tony 03:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Nah, it's not a matter of deficiencies. You're a fine writer. The problem is I think rather that the article to some extent exemplifies what it writes about: precisely because you've done so much work on it, its lingering flaws are particularly hard for you to spot. This too doesn't matter; the only problem is of what happens when somebody is referred (very likely not by you) to the page and is in a truculent mood about it. ¶ As you'll have noticed, we have orthographic differences. I find it hard to get worked up about a lot of the standard shibboleths. (And I tend to combine those elements of "British" and "American" spelling that appeal to me.) However, a comma directly after "i.e." or "e.g." looks odd to me; and while I'd be delighted to have a thin space fore and aft of an em dash, I greatly prefer a bog-standard (20 hex) space to no space at all. Still, it is your article..... -- Hoary 08:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

PS as for the acknowledgment, I appreciate it but I'd rather it wasn't there at least till I've gone through the article. Even in normal circumstances that would take me odd half-hours here and there across several days, but I am in very abnormal circumstances: desperately behind schedule with various "real-world" commitments. (Indeed, I really ought to close up shop here, at least for a month.) All in all I don't expect to do much more work on that page till 2007. -- Hoary 23:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eugene F. Lally

68.225.228.235 added (the red-linked) "Eugene F. Lally" to the List of photographers today, and looking into some of this user's contributions (see here and here - and note a certain other user in the latter) it began to smell slightly fishy... There's a teeny little bit to be found about Lally via Google, though often from user-contributed sources, yet Lally is supposedly the originator of the idea of digital photography! What do you think? Pinkville 22:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Lally has made many significant contributions to society, yet I can't find his name in the Library of Congress Catalogue, though he apparently wrote numerous papers (including "Mosaic Guidance for Interplanetary Travel, which contained the first concept disclosing how to produce still photos in a digital domain", from Timeline of photography technology). According to the article Krafft Arnold Ehricke, he was (with Ehricke) the creative spark for the US space programme; he originated the consumer price index (see Consumer behaviour), etc. But left few traces of this work...? Pinkville 23:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't get very concerned about the articles that people hint that they might make. Yes, Krafft Arnold Ehricke looks very odd (starting with his very name); if Eugene F. Lally indeed turns blue, I'll view it with interest and a handful of "{{fact}}" tags to apply wherever they seem appropriate. -- Hoary 03:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, fair enough. Pinkville 11:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Case Closed

Well I have been banned from the Presley article. Bemusement best describes my emotion. I think I am done with Wikipedia for a while. Something just doesn't seem right. Regardless, thank you for your involvement. You strike me as a decent sort. All the best. Lochdale 04:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the process really fucked you over. (Why mince words about it?) I've been looking at it now and again with increasing distaste. If I stand back from this and look at the article and what came up in the RfAr, I have to concede that (i) your antagonist's methods had improved a lot since the time of the previous RfAr, (ii) perhaps his goal wasn't as simply horrible as I'd thought, and [sorry but] (iii) you had done some things you shouldn't have and perhaps should be censured for it. However, the way in which Bauder seemed to seize on the simplistic "User A added sourced facts, User B deleted them" (without consideration of what the facts were), the swingeing penalty proposed for this, and the way in which the little arbitrettes all dutifully followed the boss man -- they all seem grotesque or laughable. ¶ For different reasons, I stay away from Presley and from anything that smacks of "arbitration". I hope some other people come along to sort out the former. As for the latter, I've decided to pay some attention to the "elections" that are going on right now. I'll vote. ¶ Take a break from Wikipedia, yes. But if/when you feel like it (and I hope you do), please return to work on some other area. Or, perhaps better, forget areas and instead help here and there with articles that are already pretty good and whose primary authors have invited and appreciate help. Peer review seems promising. In the meantime, thank you for trying; I'm sorry it screwed up, but the sky isn't falling. -- Hoary 06:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments and admire your optimisim! I think I am going to focus on Irish-related articles (with an emphasis on cleaning up some of the soccer bios) and I will also have a look at the peer review section. I agree with you that I certainly made significant editing errors. I put it down to hubris, inexperience and sheer frustration at the one editor. I do not agree, however, that his agenda is anything other than malicious in nature. I also think I may have suffered from Fred Bauder's issues with Ted Wilkes (and his many "alter-egos" it seems). Not much I can do about that. I do think, however, that they system is a little flawed as I don't feel that the arbitrators actually looked at the edits in question. That said, this is still a volunteer site so one can't complain too much. Thanks again for your involvement. It was nice to know that I wasn't always banging my head against a brick wall! Lochdale 17:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about his agenda. I used to think it was malicious; recently I've started to wonder if he simply has a sort of tabloid mind, interested in gossip in general and sleazy gossip in particular. If it's the latter, maybe he

s representative of the millions of goofballs who buy crappy magazines. And I suppose it could be said that gossip-obsessed goofballs deserve their own 'Pedia -- it's just not a 'Pedia that interests me. ¶ Funny, all this would-be denigration of people by saying they resemble Wilkes (or even that they are Wilkes). As I remember him, Wilkes went over the top at times but in general was a fine editor. -- Hoary 15:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1a

Hoary, I was delighted with almost all of your edits. Please go ahead; it's so nice to be on the receiving end of a good copy-editor with ... ahem ... strategic distance. I'm working on a little offshoot—how to find copy-editors—so that I can thrust it at FAC nominees who ask how they can locate good people. Tony 11:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hoary. It just happens that you are in such a list (given by Sandy to Balloonman), and that I am in such a position! Tony and others consider (correctly I'm afraid) that Serial Experiments Lain is too poorly written to pass its FAC. Would you mind having a look and sharing your thoughts about it? Thanks in advance.--SidiLemine 12:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoary, I wonder whether you'd mind having a quick look at User:Tony1/How_to_find_good_copy-editors—am I wasting my time? Is it likely to result in nuisance requests to good copy-editors? :-) Tony 12:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry SidiLemine, I appreciate your polite request (while wondering if I should go after Sandy with a blunt instrument*) but despite (or perhaps because of) my (Top Secret) Geographical Location, I've got some sort of anime/manga block. How about putting it in this list? -- Hoary 13:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC) ¶ * NB This Is A Joke. [Note for people who are very solemn and/or thick. And the legal profession.]

Tony, your new page looks good. I may later post my usual list of tiresome niggles or my list of tiresome niggly "fixes", but they'd be incidental; it's an excellent start. -- Hoary 13:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC) PS Um, do you have any blunt instruments with which to go after Sandy?

Thanks; Sandy has proposed a number of improvements, so it's still work in progress. Tony 06:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the advice, I'll do that right away. Please note that Sandy didn't point you to me for help, bu rather for help on Military Brats to Balloonman. Cheers!--SidiLemine 14:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Captions in 1a

Eight centuries ago, writing was such a rare and elaborate skill that it was displayed with great artistry. This Apocalyse manuscript shows St John's writing to the seven churches of Asia.

I'm no expert and lack the time to check, but my impression was that vellum or parchment or whatever the medium was at the time was hugely more difficult to procure in quantity than paper was in, say, the 18th century (let alone than it is now). It was also long-lasting, and there was an assumption that Biblical and similar writings would be just as valuable in the future as the present. Imagine that inkjet printers and even cornerstore photo marts didn't exist, and all we had was archival-quality photo paper, priced to match. Well, you'd be nuts not to focus your enlarger and time it just right.

I'm being dumb: do you mean that writing was displayed with great artistry not because it was a rare and elaborate skill, but becasue the medium was hard to procure?

Rather than saying anything, I'm speculating that because the medium was valuable and longevity assumed, writing was done sparingly and with great care: care with handwriting would have been obviously appropriate.

Perhaps: but now the caption is going to be elaborate ... unsure what to do.

Me too. Let's leave it for now, attaching a virtual question mark to it. When time permits, we can reexamine it.

The power of writing has changed the world. Here, Mahatma Gandhi writes at Birla House, Mumbai in August 1942, five years before India gained independence from Britain.

It would be good to come up with something that he wrote and that demonstrably had an effect. I'm sure that there is plenty.

Are you suggesting a quote or citation within the caption? The Gandhi article provides links, but wouldn't that be overkill?

A citation, if it could be done neatly. (I'm as opposed to overkill as you are.) I'd add the cite myself, if I knew what I should cite.

The Story of My Experiments with Truth? See this?

I skimread the former article. Probably inadequate, I know, but I got the impression that the book was reflective and highly regarded but perhaps not as obviously inspirational (or even "incendiary") as some others. Let's think a little more about this, too.

Grammar at its worst.

No! In "Recruitment at It's Best" [ugh!], the grammar is fine. It's the orthography that's screwed up.

"Recruitment at it is best?" The grammar is wrong. I agree that you could see the added apostrophe as a spelling issue—or a typo—but it's the grammatical option that I've chosen, because that's more apposite to the surrounding text.

Try saying "Recruitment at It's Best" and then "Recruitment at its best" out loud. They sound the same: a strong hint that grammatically they're identical. The former is indeed not intended as "Recruitment at it is best" (if it were, there would indeed be a grammatical error); so it's just a matter of orthography. (NB I don't like it any more than you do.) The problem (?) is that normal people (as opposed to aphasics, etc.) make very few grammatical errors in their first language; other perhaps than in the eyes of the most died-in-the-wool prescriptivists (on whom see such books as American Tongue and Cheek.)

Maybe you're winning that one. But say "might of" and "might have" or even "might've" at conversational speed. With an ellided "h" and a schwa, they sound identical. Is it a spelling mistake when this person writes the first instead of the second?

Yes, I think it is. Native speakers of English learn to say "might've" before they learn to write it. It's an interesting one as somehow I don't think many would write "Could you of left early?" yet I can't think of a principled explanation why this would be less common than "You could of left earlier". But anyway I don't think speakers would regard it as possessive. More thoughtful speakers would note its interchangability with stressed "have" and would link the two, but I've a hunch that stressed "have" ("You could have left earlier") is acquired later and could be understood as separate. Thoughtful writers might be expected to wonder what part of speech "of" could be within "You could of left earlier", but then again English offers lots of many apparent anomalies; for example, though we learn that "very" is an adverb that fortifies an adjective ("very hungry"), we also see it used to modify a noun ("the very bag I was after"), so I don't think it would be crazy to infer that "of" doubles as a nonfinite verb form. [I'm sleepy now; I hope this makes sense.] -- Hoary 15:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hope you guys don't mind if I crash your party with an example re: normal people... make very few grammatical errors in their first language... Consider the increasingly common American formulation, "if I would of..." for "if I had...". The genuinely erudite Michael Franti even had this perplexing lyric in one of his songs, "if ever I would stop thinking about music and politics...". No particular point, just a morsel to chew on. Pinkville 19:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You've left me a bit confused, Pink. I'll agree that the lyric sounds odd to me, but (focusing away from the trees and instead to the forest) there seems to be considerable haziness among native speakers of English [may I abbreviate this to "L1 English speakers"?] about conditionals. Without actually bothering to consult Huddleston and Pullum's Cambridge Grammar, I'll speculate that these are in some sort of diachronic flux. For even syntax does change over time: note how any verb could be moved for an interrogative in Shakespeare's time ("Know you...?"), whereas now anything other than a modal or other auxiliary requires "do-support" ("Do you know...?"). There seems a great difference in syntactic competence between even near-native L2 speakers and L1 speakers: for English, consider tag questions (complete "You know that, don't you?"); difficult for L2 speakers, child's play for L1 speakers. It really seems that grammar is what L1 speakers "get"; and that once we put aside aphasics and the like and discount "slips of the tongue" that would be quickly acknowledged by the speaker, any time an alleged "grammatical mistake" is found in the speech of an L1 speaker, it's actually something else. -- Hoary 02:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I imagine the conditional situation is in flux, the upshot for the time being (until it settles into a comparatively stable form) is a fog of meaning that's difficult to penetrate. But the example also suggests that there isn't one grammar within a given language anyway, that there may be several "correct" grammatical forms for a particular meaning at any given time... But what the hell do I know, I'm no student of this level of linguistics, just an armchair enthusiast. Pinkville 14:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The model writing postcards, (1906) by Swedish painter Carl Larsson (1853–1919), famous for his idyllic watercolours

Splendid, a gratuitous display of nipples! Or one nipple, at least. Joe Bob Briggs would be proud of this. But forget about Joe Bob; I like it

To make out such a tiny detail you must have hit on the pic to enlarge it. Perhaps you have the advantage in that respect, since I'm gay and can derive only uniform pleasure from all parts of the watercolour—table, chairs, flowers, body. I had to look up Briggs to see what you meant.Tony 11:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Lucky man! Yup, I'm just a hetero vulgarian. But society is to blame for what I have become. (Tip of the hat to Repo Man.) -- Hoary 11:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Your query about commas in the direction of: yes, I can't understand it myself, so will look into recasting that sentence, or removing it. Tony 01:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephanie Adams

I am not sure if you know the whole history there, but I recommend treading lightly. Work really hard to be NPOV and gentle in the talk page, because this has been a bit of a flamewar article in the past. :) Be firm about citing sources, and I would actually recommend proposing changes on the talk page first and then making them only after some consensus has been made.

Otherwise, I am likely to get calls on my personal cellphone about this. I prefer that not happen. :) NPOV is non-negotiable, but let's also be gentle and move slowly to preserve harmony when possible.--Jimbo Wales 23:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, to me "an advocate on [xyz] issues" implies somebody who has letters published in newspapers, has articles published in magazines, makes speeches in rallies, appears on television, or some alternative (I'm open minded) at about that level. Seeing no sign of that, I inserted a FACT tag some days ago. That was answered with two references, which said that she'd (yes, newsworthily) appeared at one or two rallies. To me, appearance is less than notable advocacy. I'd be inclined to scrap the reference entirely, and thought I was being very indulgent to reword instead of scrap. I'm surprised then to see a reversion of what I did with the edit summary Do a search on Adams and you will find that she has donated time and funds to several gay non-profit organizations. Further clarification can be provided if necessary. What is your problem? Since I'm asked: My problems are that donating time and funds to NPOs seems less than "advocacy", and that the further clarification was just what I had asked for and what could still be, but is not, provided. ¶ I'm very sorry to hear about calls to your cellphone, though. Its number must be hugely more public than mine is, or than I'd ever want mine to be. I hope you're not disturbed any further. -- Hoary 01:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kana

Sorry, but kana are not letters, they are syllables. The kana form a syllabery. Japanese does not have letters, which are sub-syllable components. Please volountarily revert your reversion. Do you read and speak Japanese? Akihabara 22:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As it happens I do, though I don't see why this should be an issue. You're choosing a restricted meaning of "letter"; I believe that it also has a wider meaning that encompasses members of a syllabary. (The only dictionary I happen to have at hand now has an entry for "letter" that's disappointingly vague about this.) ¶ I've reexamined the edit; the problem was that syllables (which are sounds, not graphemes) were being transliterated, which I understand to mean converted from one writing system to another. ¶ Is what's written true? I'd have guessed that "Tokio" resulted from an aversion to "kyo" as somehow strange and, well, unEnglish; but offhand I have no evidence for this. -- Hoary 23:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for removing the question from my Talk page. Not sure why he posted that. I don't recognize him. Oh, well. =) -- Gogo Dodo 05:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess

Dear Hoary—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 04:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Ryūkyū vs. Ryukyu poll

Hello. You participated in the Ryūkyū Islands vs. Ryukyu Islands vote that resulted in no consensus at Talk:Ryūkyū Islands. As you are probably aware, that vote is being redone at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Japan-related_articles)#Poll:_.22Ry.C5.ABky.C5.AB.22_instead_of_.22Ryukyu.22. . If you still have an opinion, please participate in the new poll before it is concluded. Bendono 00:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] spellbound?

By my typos? Maybe; I'm surprised there are so many. Should have pasted it into Word and spell-checked. Which were the pompous bits of the date-link proposal? Contend? Tony 08:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a compelling need to create an additional syntax for autoformatting but not linking dates. (Currently, the autoformatting and linking functions are conflated.) Please consider this matter urgently, and if possible make the mark-up for the new decoupled syntax as easy to key in as the current [[linking mark-up]].

The new syntax is conceived not as a replacement but as an alternative, retaining the option to link to a chronological article where useful, and the huge number of date-links already marked up in the project.

There are significant advantages to allowing autoformatted dates to be black rather than blue, where there is consensus to do so in an article. Specifically, reducing the density of blued-out text will:

(1) improve the readability of the text;

(2) improve the aesthetic appearance of the text;

(3) remove low-value chronological links that may lead readers to a pages that are irrelevant to an article;

(4) increase the prominence of valuable links;

(5) reduce the spill-over effect, in which editors feel they should link centuries, decades, and bare years, months and days of the week; and

(6) reduce conflict.

NAMES

Howzat? -- Hoary 08:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As usual, much better than my first version. I've implemented this one, with minor changes. Thanks! Tony 06:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Carl Timothy Jones

You lost me. Are you seconding Kim's opinion that the block was excessive? If so, can you give me some reasons why you believe this user isn't a troll, and perhaps what you'd do for an alternate remedy? You can see some of my thoughts at User_talk:Kim_Bruning#User:Carl_Timothy_Jones. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm seconding the opinion that the block was premature. I don't believe he isn't a troll; while I don't like some of what I see, I'm not yet convinced that he is a troll. Of course he's not a new user; he's a new incarnation of an older one. Until we know that the older one is banned, being a sock is no reason to ban him. Alternative remedy? Just wait a couple of days or until he edits some more; see what he does, and act on this. Incidentally, his existence came to my notice when I saw that something had happened to Alan Lodge. If nominating this for AfD is trollery, you're going to have to deal pretty stringently with the perp of this edit (but you may wish to consider that he's an editor in excellent standing and that I'd rush to his defense too). -- Hoary 03:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, let's try to keep this discussion at a higher level. I didn't say that the AfD of Alan Lodge was the reason I blocked him, so your "counterexample" is just a strawman, and your use of it isn't very respectful to me. I'm not that cavalier with the broom.

I went for an indef-block because he's an established user, masquerading as a newbie, who is clearly here to either harass another user or violate WP:POINT or perhaps both at once. It is possible (likely?) that he's a sock of a blocked user. Now, it is undeniable that he's targeting User_talk:WietsE; see User_talk:WietsE#Self_promotion for both evidence that there was something personal behind his edits and more evidence that he had familiarity with wikipolicies beyond what any two-day-old Wikipedian would have. He's also arguing quite strenuously in those AfDs, responding to every "keep" comment that I found. Whether this is a WP:POINT violation is debatable; I'm more concerned with him harassing another user through the deletion process. Even if every deletion suggestion is valid, it's still a bad use of a critical Wikipedia procedure, and is something to be discouraged. If it's a sock of a user in good standing, it also likely falls under the forbidden uses of sock puppets (good hand/bad hand). The user in question also seems to have no interest in making productive edits; he made 20-odd edits, all of which were csd, prod, or afd tags.

It's not any one of those things, although I'm troubled by the appearance of harassment. It's *all* of those things together which point to someone who's bent on making trouble here. Now, if someone can give me reasonable doubt on these points, I'm open to an unblock with a short leash. But I just don't see that evidence, and I'm concerned about giving this user a chance to make more mischief. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm in a rush today and I hope that goes some way to explaining any apparent brusqueness in what I write. No, I didn't think you banned him for nominating that one article. He may have done much worse; but even if he didn't his apparent monomania was cause for concern. I'd have asked him questions more forcefully than Kim did. If the editing pattern persisted and good answers weren't forthcoming, I'd have given him a stiff warning. And if that didn't do the trick I'd ban him. I wouldn't drag this process out, but I'd be willing to let it take a couple of days, during which I'd leave a message asking WietsE for patience. Of Jones's "contributions" that I've looked at, those within the Lodge AfD seem the most sustained. His comments within it are lucid and (though perhaps very wrong) apparently reasonable; I think the AfD should have been allowed to proceed, though I wouldn't kick up a fuss about this and I realize that it wasn't you who closed it. -- Hoary 09:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Check out ...

Dmacw6 Good copy-editor, it seems. Tony 11:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, (s)he seems to be doing lots of good work. Some of the articles are on subjects that don't obviously deserve such an abundant application of a scarce resource (editing power), but each to his own. -- Hoary 14:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Colvin

Hoary I just dont understand you or your ilk. My problem is I just try to add info as I have limited time and I want to contribute what I can. You just seem to delete info but not just that you add your sarcasm too. That sarcasm Hoary is NOT needed. You really need to learn to nuance. Like a bull in the china shop. Shame.

Example you say on Colvin's page it only shows one pic at Dobbins site but if you had taken another second you may have figured out that art sites are different than other sites and you may have even thought about clicking it and if you would have clicked it you would realize that there is a whole other section that lets you see much more of Colvin's work.

All of these so-called editors and this whole art section with people editing it who know very little about how artists feel or how its handled should not and I repeat should NOT be BULLS in China Shops and shouldn't even try. Artsojourner 04:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's put aside shops and bulls for a moment and look at the example. I didn't say that the Dobbins site only shows one picture; I said that the link shows one picture, assuming that the link meant the page and not the whole site. How was that? Well, I clicked the link and saw a single image in the Javascript popup. At the time I was using a different browser than I'm using now, and I speculate that either something hid the scrollbar or that I was too sleepy to notice the scrollbar. That's why I misdescribed the link. I've corrected this now. I'm sorry if I have made any other mistakes; if I have done so, please let me know. (Meanwhile, I don't see any sarcasm.) -- Hoary 07:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Isaacs

Thank you THANK you!!!!!!!! Artsojourner 19:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, heh heh, that was quite a change of mood. I'm glad to have been of some help.

Notes ("references") are simple once you've figured them out. Within the body of the text:

This is an assertion.<ref>This is where its veracity can be checked.</ref>

Somewhere near the foot of the article, a single instance (probably under the subheading "Notes") of:

<references />

One warning note: If during revision you do something like forgetting to provide a needed </ref>, you can screw up the resulting article very seriously indeed. (I speak from embarrassing first-hand experience.) So if you're doing a lot of work on notes, it's better to hit the "Show preview" button after you think each note is done. -- Hoary 06:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)