User talk:Hoary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Request for Mediation (African American Vernacular English)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/African American Vernacular English, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm also listed in this request, and I just wanted to see what the rest of you think before I decide either way. It seems pretty soon after the RFC to go to mediation, but I don't see how the mediator could do any harm, and maybe he'll convince Wikidudeman to give up on the article. What do you think? Makerowner 04:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I dunno. It seems extraordinarily hard to persuade the Dude Man to do even simple things, like read a single worthwhile book on the subject. Really, I think he's grasping for procedural straws. Of course, he has the right to do so, but I've come to resent the amount of my time that he's wasting and I bet I'm not alone in this. I'd feel sorry for any "mediator", too. Let me sleep on it. -- Hoary 04:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

While I suspect that wdm will not accept anything a mediator says that goes against his preexisting biases, if this occurs we may be able to then take administrative action against him personally. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If you think i'm wasting your time then Perhaps you should give up your POV attitude towards this article and allow me to put some criticism of AAVE from cosby and others into the article. It's not too soon after the RFC to do this. Numeorus people (some in support of me) have commented on the AAVE talk page from the RFC. I'm not 'grasping at straws' I'm taking the next logical procedure after yourself and others have violated the 3rr when I tried adding the cosby quotes. You're unwilling to make any compromise so I am forced to seek mediation. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

aeusoes1, I would say that sounds almost like a threat. "take admin action against me personally"? Oh yes...You make personal threats towards me and all I do is try to add NPOV to an article and you are pretentious enough to think I should have Admin action taken against me? You might want to update yourself on Wikipedia policy.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude man, you may be trying to add NPOV to articles, but in the opinion of others you're merely trying to add crap to them. What do you mean by "pretentious"? (Do you perhaps mean "presumptuous"? Do please get your beloved polysyllabic words straight.) -- Hoary 02:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You have your own biases and think what Bill Cosby says is "crap". However preventing anyone from adding what he says to the article based on your own biases is against wikipedia policy. That article has no mention of criticism of the use of Ebonics even though criticism is vast. You need to keep your biases out of articles. Period. As far as "Pretentious" goes the definition of the word is "Claiming or demanding a position of distinction or merit, especially when unjustified."Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No, Dude Man, I have mastered the elements of linguistics (a closed book to you, it seems) and I know that what Cosby says is "crap". I have also tersely demonstrated the fact that what he says is crap, guessing at what I know know for a fact: That you have no interest in reading extended expository writing and would thus have to be given something short. ¶ How has our fɻɛ̃ⁿd claimed or demanded a position of distinction or merit (justified or otherwise)? No, don't answer: you'll only tie yourself into further knots. But please devote a couple of minutes of your valuable time to this suggestion: There's nothing stupid or dishonorable about choosing the wrong word, or misspelling. (I certainly hope there isn't, as I do it myself.) But once you start disparaging the linguistic abilities of other people -- especially if you do so gratuitously and ignorantly -- you draw attention to your own verbal skills and you invite similar comments to those that you have chosen to make yourself. For a good little essay on language-related ignorance and hypocrisy, you can hardly do better than this page: it will be little more than a screenful, and it should be understandable for anybody with the intellect of an adult who has English as their first language. -- Hoary 03:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, You've "mastered the elements of linguistics" well folks, I'm in the presence of a 'master'. How lucky I must be! You have not demonstrated what Cosby says is 'crap'. All you did was dissect what he said and make absurd comments about his sentences without even commenting on his actual point. For my use of 'pretentious' I was well justified in doing so. aeusoes1 made the assertion that he might try to "take administrative action against me". This is being pretentious because he is assuming he is in a position to do so when he's the only one breaking the rules. I didn't choose the wrong word. So let me say this..There's nothing stupid or dishonorable about falsely criticizing someone for using a word in the wrong context when they didn't, especially when you claim to have 'mastered the elements of linguistics'.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude Man, you're most insistent on "mediation", so I don't want to disappoint you. I wish the mediator well in his or her attempt to converse with you. (I'd recommend short and syntactically simple sentences, and simple vocabulary.) -- Hoary 04:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You've given up I can only assume because you've become tired of me refuting your posts. You were wrong in criticizing me for my use of 'pretentious' and you know it and now you're backing down. As you say yourself, there's nothing wrong with admitting you're wrong.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all, Dude Man. Now go away before you make yourself look even more ridiculous. -- Hoary 04:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advice

Thanks for the good advice Hoary, I'll bear it in mind if ever I'm struck by some kind of affliction that makes admining look attractive - is there an admin-only bar? Discount magnums of champers quaffed by battle hardened admins as R&R reward for battling vandalism??? (quaff is my current word of the week - Thinking it was just a tabloid word for drinking, as in - "They quaffed bollinger in their love nest", it turns out that the quaff is actually the name of the metal thing that holds the cork in. Hence quaffing, 'the removal of quaffs', but I'm sure this is all common knowledge in the Admin bar. :-) thanks again and take care. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You're pretty close, Mcginnly, but actually this admin generally quaffs Krug. Of course the same old Krug day in, day out gets a bit monotonous, so when I'm in a musical mood and need a spring in my step, I take something a wee bit stronger -- "a drink-drink", as you might say (Jackendoff, Foundations of Language, 162). Thank you for the noun quaff, though; my own word o' th' week is cabbage to mean US banknotes.-- Hoary

[edit] International Biographical Centre

G'day and thank you for your work on the IBC article and cleaning up my messy references. I need to learn how to do those properly. Anyway, thanks for the janitorial work. It is essential but often under-rated. With best wishes, Maustrauser 13:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. I vaguely remember having a good laugh over the "exclusive invitation" in which IBC offered to list my obscure self in its grandly described publication. One warning, though. I see that you've put this outfit in Category:Fraud. Is it fraudulent, or does it merely depend on people's vanity and silliness? Might it take offense at the label of "fraud" or even decide that this label was actionable? -- Hoary 01:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I was offered Man of the Year. My wife laughed heartily at this joke! Yes, I've pondered long and hard over whether to use the category fraud. I used it for American Biographical Institute and I upset a few people. But I have done so because looking at how some people use IBC and ABI 'awards' in their resumes and CVs seems to me to amount to fraud. They are trying to deceive people in thinking that they have wide recognition for their work by an influential institution. I note that non-English speakers use their awards often and are also cited in the media for their awards. So I think it is more than vanity. Appreciate your advice on this. Maustrauser 06:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a sad joke. That said, you're now accusing people other than IBC of making fraudulent use of this stupidity. Clearly its manufacturer bears some degree of responsibility, just as a gun manufacturer can hardly claim after yet another homicide that its products were just intended for target practice. Still, the article is primarily about the outfit that runs this racket: the seller, not the buyers. I admit that WP is not the most reliable source on criminology, but the Fraud article does start: In the broadest sense, a fraud is a deception made for personal gain. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and is also a civil law violation. It seems to me that your categorization of IBC as "Fraud" could easily be taken to imply that IBC has been found guilty of a criminal offense. Has it? -- Hoary 10:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your views. I have no evidence that it has been found guilty of a criminal offence but it has been investigated by Consumer Affairs bodies. I might delete the fraud category and simply leave it as a confidence trick. Maustrauser 11:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Viona Ielegems

Warning flags not neccesary anymore. Changes are made, references are done. Please check out article. Thanks a lot.Armilos 13:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/African American Vernacular English. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] Cats and dogs...

Your rephrasing on the talk was hilarious, and it should dispel all WP:SYNT worries ;) --Merzul 23:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AAVE

Sorry about any feelings rubbed the wrong way. Ive taken on a few cases at once and as such am sort of jumping past the various points of view and simply stating my interpretation of policy -typically just NPOV - in a way thats rational and clear. Im sorry that it seems ive come down hard on your position, but given a choice between m:exclusionism and m:inclusionism I generally go with the latter. Moreso if the exclusionistic view appears motivated by an opinion rather than an appeal to making the article more NPOV. Anyway, Ill see you over on talk:AAVE. -Ste|vertigo 02:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"To be a good mediator you must be a good listener." Im reading what I can. Of those six mediations, only a couple have subtle arguments which require some discussion. If we can limit our discussion to the matters presented in the article, rather than get into issues of whether Im somehow unfit to mediate, then we can make some progress. Again, Im sorry if what I have said so far has upset you - I felt it best to state my own views out front, and let people respond with their best points. You make some valid points, and as such I am considering my position. I hope you are also considering the points I have made. Regards -Ste|vertigo 07:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Stoskus-sf.jpg

You really like to push Assume Good Faith to the limit, don't you. I can't see anything wrong with the copyright status of this image as uploaded, cited and justified by Hoary and I dare say I know a little bit more about photographs and copyright than you. Stop wasting people's time. Pinkville 20:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop attempting to impede the quest for truthiness, Pinkville! Uh, I mean, let's move the discussion to Image talk:Stoskus-sf.jpg. Thank you. -- Hoary 01:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I head for the appropriate page, properly chastened... :~) Pinkville 03:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some lighter fare

To break the... irritation. I just came across this ancient edit you made, and I can't think why you wanted to delete such a fine article as this was on 1 May 2005! The kicker is that the subject of the article is a good friend of mine from way back! :~) Ah well, back to the trenches. Pinkville 02:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

PS I haven't forgotten The Turk, whom I believe is very close to being vaulted into the ranks of the Olympians (if he doesn't object, due to age-old rivalries). I want to look at it again with closer attention and then I'll get back to you. Also, I've got "my" library back! A new contract (working on this cat - with a much-improved remuneration! Pinkville 02:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, how's your email situation? I responded (without much hope) to yours yesterday, but just got the friendly Mailer-Daemon reply... Pinkville 03:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

SNAFU. I do have a working address (well, it was working yesterday), though, and I've just informed you of this via the "email this user" thingie. Congratulations on the job! -- Hoary 03:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Double helpings of thank you! Pinkville 13:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Possibly well intentioned but unfortunate usernames

Yeah, I know. I was kidding. :-P Nishkid64 17:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Polite warnings

Not a problem. I don't have much else to contribute to the site, but I enjoy helping out by cleaning up vandalism. However, I see what you mean about spending too much time doing so, so I'm going to lay off a bit. Thanks for your help and have a good weekend! --Ann Stouter 04:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tabling

While I didn't want to emphasize this, I don't intend the tabling to be permanent (I believe the word "table" means simply putting off discussion for the time being). Currently, the discussion is going around in circles at a rapid rate and I don't see any harm in taking a break from it, especially if we can use that time to gather resources to cite. In addition, we editors can still use our user talk pages to discuss the matter. If you don't want someone in your talk page, just ignore them. Perhaps I should have been more specific and said "table the discussion of Cosby." That's where the real tension lies anyway. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AAVE

You're doing great work there. Thank you. If you're ever bored could you take a look at Race and intelligence I've been fighting an uphill battle to add more balenced information there and it could really use some outsid eyes. Thanks! futurebird 22:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked this.

I don't know what it is about nitwits that draws them to write rubbish about African Americans on WP. As I look through some of this stuff, my opinion about the depths to which the "intellect" can sink are revised downward. Since language is something about which I know at least as much as average people, I've been intermittently keeping an eye on AAVE. Things have now quietened down there, but I don't kid myself that this will last. Perhaps I'll be proved wrong and it will last; if so, when I've recovered from all the time I wasted at AAVE I'll take a look at "Race and intelligence" (whose very title I find depressing). -- Hoary 09:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Essjay

Hi! Would you mind trimming or removing your recent comments on Essjay's page? I'd like to remove the inflammatory language, and your comments echo some of the bits I just removed. Thanks, William Pietri 08:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd accept that invitation in the genial spirit with which it was made; however, you shouldn't be removing other stuff in view of this prominent instruction at the top: Do not, under any circumstances, remove posts from this page without my permission. Non-vandalism posts, regardless of merit, should not be removed or reverted; anyone observing the removal of information from this page by anyone other than myself should blanket revert on sight. Not that I intend to revert your removal, but I couldn't argue with somebody else who did do so. -- Hoary 09:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I wrestled with that. I made sure to leave the post, and as much substance as I could find in it. I don't want to suppress information, but so many people are on edge about this that I don't want trolls starting content-free arguments. William Pietri 09:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

OK; I have redacted every naughty word. There was only one, actually: the simple (monosyllabic), well-established word -- oops, no, mustn't say it. -- Hoary 09:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate that! And I think you know this, but I'm perfectly ok with obcenities here. It's only incivility that worries me. And I recognize you were being completely civil; I just didn't want some overwrought person seeing what you wrote and getting the wrong idea. Thanks again, William Pietri 09:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they really were (are?) working themselves into a tizzy. The particular person to whom I was responding looks like a mere troll or chronic malcontent; but extremes like that aside, I'm amazed by all the excitement. SJ did something stupid and then bad; I suppose he should apologize or resign his janitorial posts or both. OK, so give him 48 hours; the sky won't fall in the meantime. But perhaps my problem is that I don't have a telly and therefore haven't had my brain fried by CNN (all talk, all repetition, all the time). -- Hoary 10:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

Dear Hoary,

Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency in the "References" section for the Ohio Wesleyan University article. I believe I took whatever was the actual title as it was written on the inside page. I fixed the inconsistency. Thank you, once again, for pointing that out! LaSaltarella 18:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to have been of some very minor help. -- Hoary 23:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Have a beer!

Thanks for your support on my RfA. It passed with 55/0/0. I'll try my best to be worthy of the trust the community has put in me. If there are any of my actions you have a problem with or a question about, please feel free to discuss this with me and if needed to revert me. If there is anything else I can help you with (backlogs, comments, ...), you can always contact me on my talk page. Fram 14:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kikai

Surely it's nearly time for FAC! It's looking very good indeed. Pinkville 14:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but no. As you may have noticed, I've been busily ironing out oddities within it. However, I already know of more oddities within it that I just haven't got around to yet. And there are more peacefully black words and phrases that I am going to turn into nasty redlinks and only later blue out. At that point, the details may all be fixed -- except that I've heard rumors that at least one more book will probably be out by then. (His publishability shot up in 2003; I don't know about sales and royalties, but publishers seem to want to keep on trying.) So more writing up, more loose ends, more loose-end tying. And then what? I think the result will be a detailed article that tells us a lot of what we really don't need to know, but doesn't tell us why his photos are better or more interesting than others' photographs. Even when writing for entirely different purposes, I have enormous difficulty explaining this kind of thing to my own satisfaction; when I worry about people wandering around with big sticks labeled "NPoV" it gets even harder. The simple way is to summarize others' PoV and attribute these to them; I can do a little of that, but what little critical commentary I've seen I omitted to photocopy and also most of it is by people whose names mean little or nothing to most people here (including myself). ¶ Contrast that with Kimura; a wonderful little book on his work published this year has essays by Araki, Takanashi, Kuwabara, and at least three other photographers I can't be bothered to list. Not that Kimura doesn't deserve all the adulation. ¶ Incidentally, there's something of a Kikai/Takanashi contest right now: unintentional, I'm sure, but each has a book out of rather incongruous Tokyo exteriors. Kikai's photos are of course square and monochrome (and dark), Takanashi's are oblong and Martin Parr–style color; their interests and sensibilities are different and on balance I prefer Kikai's, but Takanashi's work is very good, a rebound from his last one or two books and not at all what I'd expect from a seventy-year-old. ¶ Another thing: I wonder if the idea of a model FA isn't solidifying into something that I neither like nor want: see the near-consensus on Ohio Wesleyan University and my comments on that article, and consider the gulf between them and me. -- Hoary 15:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

PS "them" now even includes Giano. Clearly it's me who's out of line. ¶ How about you, BDJ and I get stuck into faccing this dude? -- Hoary 15:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Eew. That OWU situation is very telling. When I put Beato up for FA there was no mention of inline citations - the references were (are) copious and easy enough to follow, I believe (I've been very slowly adding the citations anyway, because:) but the article was later briefly waved over the fire of FA demotion for not having inline citations (though only a particularly vivid imagination could conjur an image of heated controversy over the life details of such an obscure historical figure...). Well, inline citations are simply a lazy editor's way of judging the value of an article. What have I seen in FAC comments? Mostly obsessions with inline citations, punctuation styles, red-linked text, and jingoism. Much less in the way of real analysis of writing style and content. paragraph thingeeWhat we should do, really, is create a simple collaborative website to present decent articles - particularly on subjects that are seldom covered - or only covered superficially. Rather than a wiki or an editorial board, a collective (that anyone serious can join) that administers the site. Subject matter needn't be confined to one field - the site could be a curio shop of photography, art, politics... and certainly anime and computer games.

Meanwhile... Earlier today I had a look at Mr. Brown, esq. and I would definitely be interested in joining the fray. I know of the Misunderstood and know nothing of RS Brown, but I can probably add lots of commas and inline citations.

(Isn't it funny to have such a large body of ill-written, half-baked, misleading and irrelevant articles loaded with footnotes to lend creedance to and "ground" the whole preposterous mess?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pinkville (talk • contribs) 03:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC). the bot got me! at least I provided an edit summary... Pinkville 03:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your push for deletion of the Walt Sorensen article

Why do you seem to take this article's inclusion in wikipedia so personally? All of the issues you cite are classification and Categorization issues and not inclusion issues. you are also boarding on the line of personal attacks with your "built in photoshop comment.", (sorry i had miss read your comment, at my first reading it looked as if you were saying it was built in photoshop, on second reading i can see you said you could believe it was not built in photoshop and believed the book was real) as per definition of published works: What constitutes "published works" is broad and encompasses published works in all forms, including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. photodude 15:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you seem to take this article's inclusion in wikipedia so personally? That's how you perceive it. Why do you perceive it in this way? I don't know. Do I take it personally? Not at all. ¶ If you want to discuss this article that you created about yourself while its deletion is being reviewed, please do so on the "deletion review" page. Thanks. -- Hoary 16:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't intend to discuss the article here...I wanted to discuss your position on the article's inclusion in wikipedia. your opinion seems to be based more on perception rather then the standards of wikipedia. photodude 17:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feel like a collab effort to bring a couple things to FA level and get our minds off things?

I've done some edits to Mom and Dad and She Shoulda Said No recently to try and see if we can't push them to the next level, but you're much better at the details than me. Mom and Dad is still vexing me due to some of the Babb similarities, but I feel like they're pretty damn close and we work well together. Any input? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I dunno, BDJ. I mean, that stuff's just fiction. Can you dig this groovy cat? Astral, baby. He's for real (er, I think). How about taking him up to FA? Shall we kick out the jams or what? -- Hoary 10:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The eye in the dollar bill seems to be holding me back. Or something. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BIO

I like your changes, but fine tuned them to be more generic to creative professions and substituted "significant" in a few cases for continuity with the other paragraphs. I hope that this is OK. --Kevin Murray 02:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the amicable notification, but I have to say that your changes are radical, and to my mind not improvements. I elaborate on the talk page. I hope we can reach agreement on this. -- Hoary 09:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sinmiyangyo

It's been too long! Do you have any thoughts on this proposal to change the name of this article? Pinkville 01:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Mission accomplished. Not in the Bushian sense, but in the genuine sense. Thanks. Pinkville 13:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it was in the Bushian sense. I should of knowed. Pinkville 17:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems to have been resolved. Which is good, since I know nothing about the incident, the Korean language, or determining consensus when only three people have commented. Jkelly 18:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United States technological and industrial history

It's unfortunate that yours and my concerns about the FA-status of OWU page were largely trampled over by a legion of self-invested editors (especially as the most recent MIT FAR get shot down for less), but no one ever said Wikipedia was perfect. However, given your experience and apparent objectivity, I would appreciate your comments on my new pet project: United States technological and industrial history. It will be going up for RFF, PR, FAR in the coming months, but there is a despondent lack of other editors or activity despite being on two ostensibly large and active WikiProjects (United States and History of Science).Madcoverboy 20:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Offhand I don't remember what RFF stands for. PR can be good, but only if the article isn't open to obvious objections and if you're lucky. I wouldn't recommend it any time very soon.

This is a long article, and there are clear indications of entire paragraphs yet to be written. I think it needs hard thinking before those paragraphs are added. If the whole article is completed to the point where most of it is already completed, won't it be too long?

Two little points on illustrations:

1. Many American[s] began to associate technology with negative consequences in last half of the 20th century accompanied by a photograph of the trail of a rocket breaking apart. Perhaps this did indeed have that effect (it certainly seemed to have a strong and demoralizing effect), but it's a strange example, the technology destroying itself and its passengers (and a load of chances for funding) but not much else. How about something like the Love Canal?
2. I'm sure Dolly the sheep had a lot of US input, but wasn't she primarily a European creation?

Hoary 06:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sorry

hi, i just want to let you know that i am sorry for the edits i have made to the "spilsby" town page on wikipedia. i kept putting the link to that cycles shop on there, then when i checked back a few days later etc it had vanished. i only kept putting it back on because i thought i must have entered it wrongly. i did'nt know that there were messages for me about it, i have only just clicked on this 'discussions page' and did not know you could talk to other users.

from now on all of my edits will be for the greater good, i have turned over a new leaf, and don't want to upset anyone. i have added a picture i took of the bus stop being built in the town, and a few other links (non-commercial) about the town etc.

i am not up on all this technical stuff, and did'nt mean to make you mad.

many thanks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:C.thompson

[edit] Rowsham house

Hi Hoary,

I checked Rousham House for the first time in ages today (it was one of the things lost from my watch list when I became a "II") just look what the [mage police have done [1] to all your beautiful photographs - perhaps thay had not just the right tag (I was pretty new then too) but I'm sure I would have put a decent explantion on them I always did - Shit! and double shit! Giano 12:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The photos were, and are, crap. They were taken during my brief flirtation (?) with a nasty digital camera. Some day I'll have to go back with a real camera. (Remember: "It's not the photographer; it's the camera.") But I haven't been within 500km of Britain for about three years and don't have any plan to do so this year either, so I suppose I'll have to recycle the digital stuff there. One of these weeks! -- Hoary 14:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help Resolving a conflict

I have read the pages about this on wikipedia and I have came to you because you seem to be a person who knows how wikipedia is supposed to work and are most likely 100% neutral on this matter. I am involved in a rather intense edit war with two other editors of the article Miriam Rivera. In the last days the user User:Jokestress has quite reasonably asked for the article to be backed up with more reliable sources. Well I found them and that seems to have placated her. She has acted in 100% reasonable way in all of this. The problem arises in that she has asked in the spirt of resolving the conflict we were having other people who are not 100% neutral it seems to comment on the matter. These being the user User:Longhair and the userUser:Alison in particular who have not bothered to justify anything that they have done. Longhiar being an admin seems to feel no need to discuss anything and I feel is abusing her powers. Is there anything you can do? --Hfarmer 03:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your polite request and expression of trust in my fairness. But I don't know if I'd be fair: I'm neutral in that I'd never heard of the name Miriam Rivera and that when I read about her I was still certain I'd never heard of her. I don't have any preconceptions about her, but I'm afraid I do have preconceptions about a couple of the news sources listed now: that the British tabloids the Sun and the Daily Express don't count as reliable sources for anything. A quick look through the talk page suggests some poor behavior, which I could always complain about; this might even have a salutary effect. -- Hoary 14:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese names

"Surely a couple of baseball players needn't be an impediment to putting thousands of Japanese names in the right order, as opposed to what westerners who know little about Japan fondly presume is the right order. " - Hoary, tell that to the Japanese government: - http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/index-e.html = Shinzo Abe! Also, remember this is an Anglophone wiki, so we only care about people who speak English. WhisperToMe 04:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

See, Hoary, the Japanese are in on this too. The GN-FN for Japanese people is not restricted to us Westerners. In Latin script and in the English language, several Japanese people and organizations use GNFN, especially if they are interacting with a lot of Westerners. Japan is a westernized country, and this is apparent in the naming order in English issue. WhisperToMe 04:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

1. tell that to the Japanese government: I have no interest in attempting to tell anything to the people who constitute the Japanese government.

2. Also, remember this is an Anglophone wiki, so we only care about people who speak English. Actually only those who read English. I care about delivering to these people information that is correct, not mangled to conform to their prejudices, the style guides of English-language newspapers, etc.

3. In Latin script and in the English language, several Japanese people and organizations use GNFN, especially if they are interacting with a lot of Westerners. That is indeed true. But several use FNGN.

4. Japan is a westernized country, and this is apparent in the naming order in English issue. Japan is certainly a westernized country in some ways. I haven't looked into this, but suspect that the odd willingness of many (but not all) Japanese people to reverse their names for foreign consumption is not so much a matter of westernization as a hold-over of the the Meiji-period desire to ape the west in matters of form -- which you'll also see in the invention of a royal family, in the "traditional" Japanese wedding ceremony, etc. -- Hoary 04:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is it an issue if the names are "mangled" if the Japanese clearly embrace "Western order in English?" I can find more examples for you. Read Mainichi Shimbun's English language edition: http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/ . Read Sanrio Japan's history: http://www.sanrio.co.jp/english/about_s/history.html . Look at Kodanclub (Kodansha) descriptions of manga series here: http://www.kodanclub.com/cgi-local/comic.cgi?id=009-00025-01-005 - "Western order in English" is clearly commonplace in Japan, so the Western order usage for modern figures cannot be considered to be mangled. Also, this http://www.kodanclub.com/cgi-local/comic.cgi?id=004-00110-01-001 illustrates the concept that FNGN is to be used for the Japanese language while GNFN is used for the English language.

"Japanese people to reverse their names for foreign consumption is not so much a matter of westernization as a hold-over of the the Meiji-period desire to ape the west in matters of form" - I understand that Japanese culture differs greatly from American culture in many ways, but Japan clearly has permanently incorporated many aspects of Western culture that has not occurred as much in Korea and China. McDonalds is among the most popular fast food restaurant chains in Japan, for instance. The Japanese have incorporated many words and phrases from English and other Western languages, while often changing the meanings. Japan is now part of the G8 along with Russia, the US, Canada, and several European countries. I.E., Japan is now often seen as culturally with the West.

WhisperToMe 05:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As a note: Most Japanese publications that DO use FNGN in English tend to be about traditional Japanese activities, i.e. Go or Waka. Therefore the authors may have a more "traditional" mindset. WhisperToMe 05:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Since this is all about an argument at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles), I don't see any particular reason to pursue it here as well. -- Hoary 07:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)