User talk:Honbicot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Robert Redford

Is Mr. Redford not famous? I would think that he is. Are you going to remove famous from every actor article? There are 69,000 articles on Wikipedia with the words "famous" and "actor". There are at least 181 articles or categories with the word "famous" in the title of the article.

  • List of famous women in history
  • List of famous Montrealers
  • List of famous automobiles
  • List of famous ezhavas
  • List of famous experiments
  • List of famous glaswegians
  • List of famous concerts
  • List of famous prostitutes
  • List of famous trinities
  • List of famous families
  • List of famous sites
  • List of famous hills
  • List of famous psychopaths
  • List of famous diamonds
  • List of famous slaves
  • List of famous discoveries
  • List of famous stutterers
  • List of famous dogs
  • List of famous streets
  • List of famous Louisvillians
  • List of famous ships
  • List of famous puppets

etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.,etc., etc., etc.,etc., etc., etc.,

How about this one: "Bob Saget, actor, famous for his role on Full House"? So Bob Saget is famous, but Robert Redford is NOT? Or Victor Rasuk? Or Tom Baker? Or Les Nuits? Or Kevin Sorbo? John Gomery, Huntley Gordon, Jon Heder, Julius Gray, Neil Hamilton, Peter Raven..........and on and on?

Come ON! He is one of the most famous people in Hollywood for the past thirty-years.

FAMOUS: a : widely known b : honored for achievement 1
REDFORD: a : widely known b : honored for achievement
1 Source Merriam-Webster

If Redford is NOT famous, good luck with your project of removing all 69,000 instances of the word from Wikipedia.

WikiDon 15:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course he is famous, but it is redundant to say so. Calling someone famous is a mere puff. Fame should either be self-evident or should be demonstrated by the facts stated in the article. Virtually all of the other uses of the word should go too. This is an encyclopedia not a fanzine so it is regrettable that much of it is sloppily written. Honbicot 15:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Well some people in here called famous, I have never heard of. And they are in U.S. where I am. I would expect that there are famous people in India and China, and even Mexico that I haven't heard of, but not the U.S.
That brings up another good point. What if you are a child in India or China, or even Mexico. And you see your first Redford film and come to Wikipedia to learn more about him. Now, he is NOT famous to you (the child), or the people you know. So how do you tell him/her that he is famous to many in the world? You could have an article about some guy named Jon Heder, and that child is going to automaticly think that Jon Heder IS famous. But, I wouldn’t call him famous at all. But you want to tell the child that Robert Redford, or Paul Newman, or Lauren Bacall, are famous.

The point of this encyclopedia to EDUCATE those who don’t know. I there are many in the world who don’t know.

What about this: "he is one of Hollywood's superstars"? is that okay? It's from Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition.

WikiDon

Superstars is worse. The Indian child should be able to work out Redford's fame for himself from the information provided. Wikipedia should stick to the facts. Maybe the people you haven't heard of aren't really famous, but are being boosted by a partial contributor. How would you know? How would you know for Redford except by assessing the facts given? Honbicot 16:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia should stick to the facts. This FACT is, that Reford IS famous, and IS a superstar. And most of these other yo-yo's are NOT. That is FACT. WikiDon
I am not attacking Robert Redford nor I am not disputing his fame. Honbicot 16:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

You said: Wikipedia should stick to the facts.

  • Is it or is it not a fact that Redord is famous?
  • Is it or is it not a fact that Redord is a superstar?

If it IS; then those items can be IN the article, if they are facts and we stick to them. WikiDon

You just don't seem to get my point, so I think further debate will be a waste of time for both of us. Arguing with a fan must be one of the most futile things one could do on Wikipedia. I just made a quick improvement to an article I chanced across, and do not wish to spend the rest of the day on the matter. Honbicot 16:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images

The thumb preference thing is a new feature of wiki that came out in the last update. Your 99% figure is drawn from which orafice exactly?? Please take a moment to familiarise yourself with the preferences/files section options. Mrsteviec 14:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Please do not make vulgar attacks. Wikipedia has half a million registered users and 12.8 million unique monthly visitors in the U.S. alone. The fact that it is a new feature is another reason to use it as it will be little known even to registered users. One should not have to "familiarise yourself with the preferences/files section options" to have a good reader experience and I am quite certain that most readers won't even if you think they should. You have not addressed my other points. I hope I will never come across you again if this is typical of the way you conduct yourself. Honbicot 14:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
So you are saying that this newly added feature should never be used? Mrsteviec 14:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Well it does seem to be woefully misguided. It is likely that the large majority of visitors will always be unregistered, and as the number of features increases, even registered users will use a smaller and smaller proportion of them, as happens with most technologies, eg mobile phones and PCs. Honbicot 14:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps this is something you should take up with the developers, not with me? Mrsteviec 14:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
But unless people like you wipe out other people's careful work in sizing photos it is irrelevant. You are the problem, not the developers. I don't want all pictures the same size. Few books or websites have all their pictures the same size, and there are good reasons for that. Honbicot 14:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
So you are personally going to send directives to each editor that uses this feature? I think you need to think about what you are likely to achieve by that. Perhaps you should investigate why this feature was added before you go on the rampage after those of us that use it? Mrsteviec 15:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I would say that you are the one on the rampage, deleting good work and damaging articles with little thought for the majority of users. I will naturally do what I can to improve the quality of the presentation of images on wikipedia. You are yet to mention any good aspects of this "feature", but rather are simply abusing me. The default size is not even in accordance with the recommendations on appropriate typical image size. There has always been a default size for thumbs. If users now have the option to change it, that is something the individual can use to resize those images that have not been individually sized. It is not a reason to impose your preference on all the millions of unregistered users - which indeed contradicts the assumption that different people will have different preferences Honbicot 15:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Taken from http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_User%27s_Guide:_Setting_preferences#Files :

the default thumbnail width can be set in the preferences; this can be overridden by an image width specified in the image tag; the latter is typically not advisable, in order to respect the users' preferences.

Mrsteviec 15:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

A sorry example of the self-absorption of the clique of insiders, who forget that they are a miniscule minority of readers, and no more important than other readers. However, due to said self-absorption, it is probably pointless to try to overturn it. Thankfully, the great majority of pictures have been sized by people who do think about the majority of readers. Honbicot 15:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Irish British category vote requested

Hi you voted to delete this originally, I have now received support for the renaming of this category to Category:Britons of Irish descent I would appreciate your reconsidering your vote Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_21#Category:Irish_British_people_to_Category:Irish-British_people_Category:Britons_of_Irish_descent. Thanks Arniep 23:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Camden

It *does* actually have more open space than any other *Inner London* borough, in terms of ratio of open space to built--up areas. I also have a feeling that it has more open space *in absolute terms* than any other *Inner London* borough, but this I will check. Having said that, I do not have a big problem with your correction. Tarquin Binary 02:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Much of that open space is in Hampstead, which is not inner at all. The boroughs are not natural districts, and I don't think much is gained by making this comparison. The distinction between inner and outer boroughs is an accident of history. If London had been expanded in say 1840 and 1920 instead of the 1880s and the 1960s the boundary would be in a different place. The Heath is beyond the inhabited parts of the borough and the part of Regent's Park which is in it is also on the edge. The populated parts of Camden are often not very green at all. Honbicot 02:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Buckingham Palace

Congatulations on your great new additions to Buckingham Palace. I wish you had been around when we were struggling to have it made a featured article. If you feel like it, I've always though the conclusion ends a little abruptly, several people have at various times deleted various endings I've written......If you feel like having a go, it can only get better. Giano | talk 09:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wealthy fictional characters

Hi I would be really grateful if you could reconsider your vote on this. I didn't place a good reasoning for deletion with the original nomination so I will try and put a better argument. Firstly, how do we define wealth? As one voter pointed out, in poor communities a shop owner is considered wealthy. Secondly, in many works of fiction people start off poor and become rich or vice versa so will they have to be in a poor category too? And lastly, this category could get ridiculously large to include all characters in all books, films and T.V. programmes ever made. I would be grateful if you could vote or comment at: Categories_for_deletion#Category:Wealthy_fictional_characters. Thanks Arniep 13:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adding edit descriptions

Hey, Thanks for fixing the category on Glacier Bay, Alaska as you have been doing for so many bays. Just a small request for the future, please add edit tags so people know what you're up to...Thanks! Jarfingle 23:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Home and Away

Hi, you have voted in the afd for various Home&Away character articles. I have had a go at combining all the articles in a single article (which I admit still needs a lot of work). You can find it at Current Home and Away characters. I suggest we keep this article are either delete or re-direct the others. What do you think? Thanks, Evil Eye 13:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chatsworth House and RoW

Hardly fair? Well, the High Court case is well documented - and I have certainly personally (with my sister and fiance) suffered the indignity of being escorted off an fp by a Chatsworth gamekeeper during the period when the paths were under question. I'm afraid something is going to have to go back in, to temper your over-warm alteration. Bob aka Linuxlad 20:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC) Later... Actually, rereading now I've calmed down, you've marmalised it a bit less than I thought (though some of the early paragraph you've added is little to do with RoW, IMHO.)Bob

There is such a thing as property rights, and ramblers have been known to push things too far. I don't think you tried very hard to comply with Wikipedia's neutrality policy and you indicated on your comments on the talk page that you sensed this yourself. Your implication that Chatsworth is notably unfriendly to visitors is a travesty of the truth. I've been removed from the grounds of the Royal Palace in Madrid due to confusion over unclear path markings, but I don't hold it against anyone.
The article could do with a lot more about the history of visiting Chatsworth. Before death duties bit the Devonshires used to let people go round the house for nothing - hardly the policy of the haughty guardians of privacy that you imply they were . 01:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Chatsworth weren't the only estate to fight the definitive pathworks network in the 70s (and yes, that would NOT be surprising anyway) - Gloucestershire were also very late for (I suspect) similar reasons (( I was born in one area (Derby) and moved to the other after college, and was amused by the apparent symmetry). I think my original was reasonably balanced and a useful corrective to panglossian praise of the house of Cavendish - there is no reason to represent them as a wholely-philanthropic institution :-) Bob aka Linuxlad

It wasn't balanced, but so long as you don't try to restore it, it doesn't matter. Honbicot 18:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


Well clearly I beg to differ. I shan't restore wholesale, but I may well try a middle way. I remind you that the essence of WP is compromise. Linuxlad

The essence is neutrality and truth - not meeting any comment half way regardless of its appropriateness, if that is what you imply. Honbicot 02:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] High Court of Justice

The 'high court' is not a solely English name. Please link to [High Court of Justice|High Court] in future. FedLawyer 10:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Buckingham Palace

Could you comment on this please [1]. I know nothing of this subject and it needs to be accurate in the article. Thank you Giano | talk 19:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the message, the number of rooms at BP, I'm pretty sure I got from the BP official guide, which I know I have somewhere, the question being precisely where? I will hunt it out later today, perhpas I've made a typo or even heaven forbid the book is wrong! Giano | talk 09:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
PS: While I am trying to find the book, do you know the precise where abouts of the "Ball Supper Room" someone was moaning it was not on the plan, but it's not marked on any of the plans I have available. I have still the plan on the computer so can probably edit it in, and reload. I did wonder though if perhaps it is on a different floor or even a mezanine which is why it's not on any of the plans I have of the piano nobile? Giano | talk 10:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea I'm afraid. Honbicot 17:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you are right. I have found Campbell's groundfloor plan of 1715 (In a big coffeee table type book, in such a place on the page it won't fit into a scanner without breaking the spine of the book). It looks like (as is know) the main entrance and hall are in the same place, as is the staircase (albeit a different shape) underneath where I immagine the gallery now is, is an enfilade of 4 reception rooms, and a minor staircase hall. So you are right it is the house was two rooms deep. So it doed look as if the suite of rooms centring on the bow room were all extended onto the original.

Yes on the plan the picture gallery does look like a "rat run", that is more my lack of skill with a program designed for designing semi-detatcheds at a larger scale. I'm begimimg to wonder if we should not remove the plan wholesale. It was part of the insistance when the page was up for FA - and someone wouldn't beleive none were available (I'm not bothered about FAs anymore - this being a clasic reason why) on the otherhand it does give a make describing the general layout easier, and give an impression of the place. Is it better than nothing? It is just such a complicated design - and there is nothing accurate to work from. I think I'll put a proviso in the page for the time being - while we think about it. I'll try and find the 1715 plan on a google image search, though it's simple design, it has segmental secondary wings, I'm not very good at drawing segmentals! (see Blenheim Palace) Giano | talk 08:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm eavesdropping. Please don't remove the plan - just mark it as "indicative" or "not to scale" (that usual surveyor's "don't blame me, guv"). -- ALoan (Talk) 17:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopaedia Britannica

I'm an American and have accesss to Britannica online and the print version and my versions use British spelling, too. It's domain is .com, not .co.uk and it spells certain words like meter as metre. Do your versions say "British English" on them?--Primetime 14:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

They wouldn't do that because they don't like to give British people an unnecessary clues that EB is no longer edited in the UK. (Based on people I have asked most Britons think it still is, indeed I did myself until last year.) According to this article from the University of Sussex "Britannica’s publishers do not try to appeal to local sensitivities nor do they change content depending on the country of distribution. However, there are slight variations depending on the country of distribution. For example, the spelling is revised for the British edition that also includes the New Oxford English Dictionary, instead of the Merriam Webster’s Dictionary that appears in the North American product." EB certainly uses British spelling in the UK. If it does in the U.S. too then I'm pretty astonished about that. Don't people complain? Honbicot 16:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
No one complains because most people think it's British here, too. When I started reading Britannica many years ago, I was very eager to see what a British encyclopedia looked like and was fascinated by the spelling and the layout. We tend to like how British English looks and sounds, also. That's one reason why I use the OED, as well. However, when I found out that it was just a Chicago company pretending to be British, I was kind of upset because it makes people angry to see other people lie. Cheers.--Primetime 20:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Chatsworth

Hi, I took these earlier today - Image:Chat Ho..gif and Image:Chatsworth Dining Room.gif - sadly the only half-decent pictures in a whole film, my fault entirely! If you want to add them to the page please do. When I have written a page I know exactly what needs to be in or out, and where it needs to be placed. So I'll leave it to you to decide. Regards.Giano | talk 21:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

They will definitely enhance the article so I will add them. Honbicot 13:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Kurdish inhabited regions

I was wondering if you could explain what you ment by the main Kurdish area --Cat out 20:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cities and towns in Italy

I think I know what happened. When the nominated categories are red links, it means that someone deleted them. My closing remarks indicated that the category under discussion was alreadt deleted. So I considered the decision to have been made by someone else and just did the close. I guess I'll do the cleanup in the next day or so to combine the two into one. Vegaswikian 22:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Water transport

I am interested to know what did you mean by China when creating this category [2]. Thanks. — Instantnood 11:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you want it to mean. I am not involved in the political squabbles that you are well known for being so passionate about. Honbicot 16:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Without knowing what such categories were created for, troubles would probably follow. No everyone may be aware of, that in the real world the word China may mean related but slight different concepts. — Instantnood 16:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freeway/motorway/whatever category

The related Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page.

--SPUI (T - C) 19:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Fictional [fictional/legendary creature]s" categories

Just to let you know I've responded to your query re and at the above. Best wishes, David Kernow 09:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject King George's Fields

I'd love to iunvite you, since you seem interested in open spaced, to participate in Wikipedia:WikiProject King George's Fields, the more so since you had an excellent go at editing quite a complex page on the subject :) Fiddle Faddle 12:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Articles with unsourced statements

I am preparing a new CfD for the category known as "Articles with unsourced statements" (i.e., articles with one or more fact templates). Given the increasing demand for more sourcing, this cat could quite foreseeably ultimately grow to encompass the vast majority of articles on the wiki. In my estimation that's far too broad to be an effective category. But perhaps more importantly, this cat was reinstated virtually unilaterally by an admin after a successful CfD, after which another CfD was short-circuited with a very arbitrary "speedy keep" only two days after it was opened. I probably will file it this week, after I further research the background of the issues that attend to this situation. Some of the attending issues can be found in a recent exchange at Category Talk:Articles with unsourced statements#This_category_should_not_even_be_here.2C_AFAICS.

Among the various issues involved are: 1) overly inclusive categories; 2) categories that constantly change in response to minor issues in individual articles (such as when fact templates are added and removed throughout the wiki); 3) the impossiblility of ever clearing such a massive list as new fact templates are placed and removed throughout the wiki; 4) the arbitrary nature of citation-needed templates throughout the wiki--there are many facts in need of citing, and such a category only accounts for those that have been actually noted as a template; 5) administrative truncating or short-circuiting of community process as happened with "Category:Articles with unsourced statements", and what properly is the range of admin discretion in closing AfDs, CfDs and DRVs prior to seven days under the "speedy" criteria; 6) how to properly deal with mistaken or abusive admin procedure after the fact when it is later discovered after having gone "under the radar"; 7) the related widespread use of User:SmackBot, which under an initial broad grant to use the bot for "various categories" has now managed to tag fact many tens of thousands of fact templates throughout the wiki as "February 2007", thereby letting us all know nothing more than that the bot was active in February 2007.

Thought you might like to know about it. Thanks, ... Kenosis 00:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This category is now up for deletion review at the following location: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_20 . ... Kenosis 12:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/o/n/User_talk%7EHonbicot_f777.html"