User:Hoary/Archive07

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please don't edit this page.

Contents

[edit] Good service indeed

Thanks. Jkelly 16:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to leave a note at User talk:NicholasTurnbull. Jkelly 16:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hidesawa Sudo Proposed Deletion

Hi Hoary,

An editor has proposed deleting of the article Hidesawa Sudo, to which you contributed. You might wish to support or protest the nomination for deletion.

Fg2 00:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. As I understand it, it's a "prod" that I can either ignore (fail to oppose) or oppose: active support isn't necessary. I don't disagree with it so don't intend to do anything, though if nobody else objects I may be the person who deletes the article five days from now.
Actually I was thinking of prodding both this and (the very different) Martin Ryter myself. -- Hoary 01:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: List of photographers

Re your message: Not a problem. It took me awhile to figure out what that editor was up to as I thought he was just a new editor who didn't know how to start a new article. Then he uploaded a sample of his work... uh, yeah...

I don't know a whole lot about photography or photographers (unlike you), so I'm not sure if I would be of much help in adopting one of the photographers. -- Gogo Dodo

Re your message: Yeah, RC patrolling can get rather frustrating and disappointing, but then I just turn off the computer and walk away for awhile. However, sometimes it can get hilarious watching the efforts that some people will go through to try to vandalize.
Thank you for the token. I'll have browse around for a good book. =) -- Gogo Dodo 04:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Agnes" versus "AGNES"

AGNES was supposed to be all caps in some articles so it should have been AGNES I do know this much about the gallery They were particular about it .... written at 03:33, 9 October 2006 by Artintegrated

Meanwhile, I know for a fact that Sanyo is particular about the FULL CAPS of "SANYO". Wikipedia rightly ignores such vanity; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). -- Hoary 03:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something you might be interested in

Since you requested deletion for the One Peice attacks, I thought you could help out here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dragon Ball special abilities. Hydromasta231 04:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better understanding WP:NPOV and WP:V

There is a general misunderstanding of late as to the true intent of WP:NPOV and WP:V. To state a "fact" (or, if you prefer, a "generally held belief") which is supported by virtually all sources and contradicted by few if any, it is not appropriate to slap a "[citation needed]" tag on, just for one's jollies. "Abraham Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents." One DOES NOT have to provide a source for such a statement!!! There is where y'all are a little unclear about the rules here. To even attempt to name "one source" for the above comment about Lincoln is ridiculous. If, instead, you know of a source that contradicts it, it is your onus to find one. Perhaps you also disagree that Lincoln was the 16th president. If you think he was the 15th or 17th, go prove it. Slapping [citation needed] here and there might be enjoyable to you, but that is not the appropriate response to accepted fact. This clarification is intended not towards any one editor in particularly, but clearly it has become a trend, and a very immature one. Best, LorenzoPerosi1898 00:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder. Which edit(s) of mine triggered it? Yours jollily, Hoary 03:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfB With A Smile :)

       

[edit] Stylin'

I'm one of those who feel that commas are usually over-used, though I also believe their use is often a matter of personal style (as well as UK vs. US standards, with Canada typically caught between the two). When I submitted Felice Beato as a FAC the old guy was subjected to massive comma additions, many of which seemed to me to be superfluous or even damaging to the article. But then I also have self doubts - maybe I'm missing something (besides commas)? Rossier was just given the comma treatment by an editor and so I thought I'd pass the changes by you for your erudite comment. Of course, it's a pretty trivial matter, and yet: At the age of 16, he became a teacher at a school in a neighbouring village but, by 1855, he had made a career change--for in that year, he was issued... (from the paragraph beginning "Until very recently..." in the Identity and origins section) is the sort of punctuation that raises hairs on the back of my neck. Any thoughts on this minor matter? Pinkville 02:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this kind of thing is irritating. We can accept that different people have different tastes in comma use. Some (non-)uses are plain wrong; very many are a just matter of individual taste; and some are somewhere in between, whereby we could say that this or that (non-)use is strange but permissible. Even granted that nobody "owns" an article on WP, it seems odd that a late arrival to an article that's already polished would adjust the already-acceptable orthography of article so that it exactly fits his or her own taste rather than the exemplary but different taste of the editor who has most recently made substantial changes. Moreover, the oddity (or potential for disagreement) of doing so is I think what underlies the general ban on changing standardized "American" spellings to "British" ones and vice versa. ¶ I looked at the version before the most recent changes and that after it and I preferred the former. I then tried to forget about the former as I redid certain aspects of the latest version the article "my way"; something I normally wouldn't do but did here as (i) I think "my way" is probably no worse (or better) than others' ways and (ii) I thought I'd been given a quasi-invitation by the creator of the article. You are very, very welcome to undo any or all of my little changes. -- Hoary 03:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You read my mind! And all your changes are improvements. I'm suddenly perplexed by Yoshio Kesai, though. My sources all use Japanese name order, so I'm wondering how I got "Yoshio Kesai"? Ididn't notice the anomaly till now... Pinkville 13:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] another dubious entry

You can probably add Brent Murray to your growing collection of dubious entries/possible AfDs on the List of photographers... Pinkville 22:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Shall do. Erm, hang on a sec -- could it be your turn to start the "proceedings", perhaps? -- Hoary 23:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Watchoo talkin' about, Willis? Oh yeah, probably. :~) Pinkville 01:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Rudolph

I believe that, Christianity, section was deleted because it was loaded with weasel words. Also, according to the new policy for biographies poorly sourced or highly controversial topics should be removed. If you look into the article's talk page, you'll notice this issue has remained unsolved for a while now. Fighting for Justice 05:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Puffery

Puffapedia? It can certainly seem like it at times; in fact, I think I went toward "Keep" on Brent Murray mostly because, after spending too much time on, for example, the various outcroppings of Linza-iana, he at least actually had proof, once the vanicruft was stripped away, of being associated with a major outlet. I should have considered the context more carefully, and familiarized myself with the photographers category (which does appear to be heavy on autohagiography and "legends"). Robertissimo 06:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Puffery 2.0

Thanks for the praise. I actually stumbled onto Avila by accident while familiarizing myself with photographers' articles in light of Brent Murray's AfD, ditto Sabal, and thought it odd, given his claimed status, that I'd never heard of him (big fan of Hollywood portraits). The category in general does seem to be heavy on autobiographical cruft, and "legendary" is rapidly gaining the status of "interestingly" on my list of annoyances. I wonder if there is somewhere out there an evocative Avila study of a certain legendarily handsome seigneurial olive magnate? Robertissimo 05:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion?

Have fun deleting productive material? I was making a point, or was it too hard to comprehend? Crud3w4re 08:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This deletion? It was a mere rant (with lots of exclamation points, three mentions that you were laughing out loud, and even "I am not just here to rant"); and it about the subject, not the article. Don't bother to reply. -- Hoary 08:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I did add productive material that I thought was POV, but it was after you deleted my original statement. And how wasn't it productive? I was pointing out that the article needed its own section for those that oppose AA and its racist philosophy. Crud3w4re 08:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

Hi, you recently blocked an AOL IP - probably not a brilliant idea. Just to let you know.

--ReviewDude 15:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please let them run riot throughout the encyclopedia, threatening to kill more people as they were... much smarter!!! Glen 15:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Which AOL IP? I've blocked two or just this evening (my time) and have no qualms about either. For both, I only blocked non-signed-in use and the creation of new accounts. Any existing user is free to use either IP. -- Hoary 15:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The link is given. And to Glen, I'm talking about blocking a whole IP being a bad idea, as many new users on that particular one may feel they are being adversely affected... --ReviewDude 18:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, right, that one. Well, this is AOL. From my observation many AOL users flit among many IP numbers, and some stay with just one for a long period. If that IP number is one of those that AOL users flit among, then the block was pointless but on the other hand an unrelated, innocent AOL user who happened first to try with that IP number would be able to edit a few seconds later from a different IP number. If on the other hand this is the new, more or less fixed IP number of some sociopath or drunk, then my block spared WP from his edits for 24 hours (was it?). -- Hoary 23:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] lol...

"tired and emotional"'s right! Good grief what a comment to make! :) Glen 15:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, I see there's even an article on it. I even met George Brown once (just for a few seconds, while he signed a book). -- Hoary 15:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of LOL, I actually did, and nearly upset a drink on my laptop. That Thackeray joke killed (and there's a phrase not often used, I wager)... Robertissimo 15:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: "the it" (passim)

Sorry for that. I did not write the semi automated peer review javascript and can't (as far as I know) edit it, but AndyZ is back from a Wikibreak and I will pass along your message to him (as he did write it). Thanks and take care, Ruhrfisch 18:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. I guess I shouldn't advise others to use "a thorough copyediting" if I can't even do that myself ;). AZ t 21:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not sure that you care but...

You were referenced [here] with regard to the proposed Presley arbitration. I believe you are the admin he is refering too though perhaps I am mistaken. Lochdale 21:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I can think of few things less enticing than an RfA over this business. I don't know if I'll say anything. Meanwhile, a tip: run any proposed comments through a spelling checker before posting it! -- Hoary 01:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for intervening with regard to that vandal. --Nlu (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks.

deeceevoice

[edit] Mr. Crud3w4re, esq.

Hiya, Thanks for the helpful clarification on my talk page. I have my suspicions that Crud3w4re is a new incarnation of the various JJsockpuppets. Then again, maybe he's merely another scattershot ultra-right shit-flinger. Either way, he wants attention... unfortunately. Pinkville 11:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

How can I be polite about this? Wrong. This is my only wiki account, anyone ever teach you that defamation is naughty? :) Crud3w4re 07:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Whiffle

I know that trying to reason with him seems futile, but I had to give it a shot. He's been spreading his banter around a page I'm currently mediating (Yoshiaki Omura) and, while he is rather frustrating to deal with, he seems to be quite intelligent and insightful when he wants to be. So I had to at least try, in the hopes that he would respond to reason. Thanks for your concern, though, and your comments. Input is always appreciated :) Peace - Che Nuevara 01:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

He certainly has a literate (when not merely whimsical) prose style, but I think he has devoted much too large a percentage of his intelligence to milking a situation of his own making for all that it's worth. He announces that he's leaving, presumably to produce a reaction (he could instead have just left). Then he gets his reaction. Then he complains about the reaction he's got as someone who's left -- though of course his very complaint proves that he hasn't left. Et cetera. As for the complaint that the way users treat each other here has no parallel in the "real world", there is of course some truth to this, so what else is new? Meanwhile, his complaints here about an imagined insult to his intelligence or whatever are plain silly, and your reactions to them exemplary. He has already wasted far too much of your time and attention; ignore him. -- Hoary 04:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it has progressed beyond the point of reasoning. But thank you -- I take your compliment to heart.
Happy wiki'ing - Che 05:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Thank you for drawing my attention to my error. I have no idea yet how that happened. I have just included the AFD as an a involved in a request for mediation on another MFD because the instructions said to put the template at the top of all articles involved and I feel this could be considered to been to an extent. --Zeraeph 11:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Zeraeph, I completely concur in the necessity of including the AFD because, for one, it helps demonstrate the PRIOR exchanges between you and Psychonaut, demonstrating how you conducted yourself with decorum. Secondly, it helps demonstrate how you and I related, as well as how I typically conduct myself and express myself. As we stand accused of being, our deepest characters and intentions having been vilified, the vital role of the AFD absolutely MUST be included. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 21:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who'd like to continue this conversation should do so elsewhere. Thanks. -- Hoary 03:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where to discuss at Wiki?

Hoary, I agree with you that "talking somewhere else" about Dr Donna Hobgood's ideas is best.. But where to do that? I would have normally have invited everyone to the NPA talk page. Or even to the AfD talk page. But neither one of them will be around very long at all. One will be deleted and the other will be archived. I am emailing Donna what I've posted this evening, but do you have any idea of how a discussion like this could be hosted somewhere? Could someone's talk pages be used? a sub-talk page? Thanks in advance if you have ideas. Thanks, too, just for listening, if if nothing sounds feasible. --A green Kiwi in learning mode

Simply and perhaps a bit brutally: Nowhere on Wikipedia. This isn't the site to argue the pros and cons of NPA, just as it isn't the site to argue the pros and cons of the tabula rasa model, Freudian theory, or sociobiology. Argue the pros and cons of having an article about it, yes; and (if the result is "keep") argue the pros and cons of approaches to writing it up. But look, it's like something as different as (say) cameras: if you want to discuss WP articles on cameras, WP is the place; if you want to discuss cameras themselves, then you instead do so at for example Photo.net. -- Hoary 13:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pierre Rossier

Âllo P., I've just rewritten the intro (aka lead) to this article with a view to future Main Page considerations. Is it acceptable, is it better or worse, do you think? You can easily compare it and the previous versions at this rendezvous point. Thanks for your input. Pinkville 22:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userpage

I just removed an edit to your Userpage that you might want to review. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 09:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  • FYI - I reported it at AN/I. I don't know if it will help, but threats piss me off, even the uninspired and mediocre threats of a third rate troll. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 09:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert, Doc, but this particular troll is an odd one: he can spell correctly. But I'd never heard of him; perhaps he mistook me for somebody else. Or again, perhaps I'd heard of him but had forgotten him: I have brief encounters with so many trolls that I mix them up. -- Hoary 10:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC) handling of

LOL, this one's already been indefblocked. Damn I love our admins :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 10:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

-- and it seems I had good reason never to have heard of him, what with his limited edit history. With his unusual (among trolls) ability to spell, perhaps he'll spend his time elsewhere. But I doubt it. -- Hoary 10:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crud3w4re

Howdy (living up to my western - Alberta - upbringing)! I think you've dealt with this user before, and you may have seen an earlier message of mine in reference to Crud3w4re. S/He has been blanking their own talk page thereby removing various warnings, etc., and providing Allowed to blank outdated news as an edit summary. I don't recall anyone being allowed to blank warnings from their talk page, especially warnings that date back just over a month. I received this message and follow-up on my own talk page when I reverted one of these blanking incidents. Any comments would be welcome. Pinkville 21:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. Right now I'm connected via modem (remember them?); I'll look and perhaps act a few hours from now. -- Hoary 23:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no rush. It's like a slow suppuration. But I'm a little perturbed by the admin's response.... Also, I have a suspicion that Crud3w4re may be a sockpuppet of Jerry Jones, et al. I do remember modems, they look like Maxwell Smart's shoe. Pinkville 23:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Net access is now faster (and cheaper), but deadlines of the "real world" loom. I've posted this question; you may wish to keep an eye out for any answer(s). Incidentally, the person who I think you mean by "the admin" doesn't seem to be one (though I didn't bother to look him up in the Observer's Book of Admins) -- not that this should matter anyway, though I'll concede that on average (and with considerable standard deviation) admins have a better grasp of da rules than do non-admins. Meanwhile, I don't think I know of "Jerry Jones" and I have a strong hunch that I've been lucky not to know. -- Hoary 03:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the question, etc. I see now - or don't see - the name of "the admin" - though I've certainly communicated with and seen the name often enough... You are indeed fortunate to have missed out on the JJStroker/JerryJones/Woofie fiasco... but then, you've had the King to deal with! Thanks again. Pinkville 04:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a new policy that allows users to delete theur talk pages after a month. Crud3w4re 07:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That blog post

Yeah.. that was actually mine. :)

I realised that I'd got parts of it wrong a little while ago, so I've rewritten it to relate it more accurately (as far as I can tell). It would certainly be helpful if I could view the history for both articles, though. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 09:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

And yes, I realise it wasn't actually the hoax that I announced it to be, but rather an obscure, non-notable theory (important difference, yes) - but I can't change the content of the slashdot post, once submitted. Damnit. :( Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 10:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, not to worry. If your first description got it a bit wrong, the description has later been corrected. I've been most amused by the suggestion of one writer that Project Gutenberg is reliable. I suppose that some of the etexts are, but what's in a library is better -- if you have access to a good library, and I suspect that most /. writers do, if they can summon the energy to move away from their computer keyboards. -- Hoary 11:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, your original point stands: this hardly /.'s finest article, and my finest post. I apologised to Mr Benis, too.
Looking at the post now, do you think there are any major problems that remain? I've tried to keep it reasonably NPOV, but if you catch anything that needs changing, tell me about it. The post is receiving over 1,000 hits per hour, so mistakes need to be fixed immediately. :) Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 11:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

In your message to Benis, you write "That posting has not received"; do you mean "not" or "now"?

I find your blog entry rather bizarre and, at this point, gratuitously offensive. Its URL (which you can't change easily), its title (in the HTML sense) and its header (both of which you can change easily) all talk of "vandalism". The text points to the WP page on vandalism, which tells me: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Benis and others arguably made a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia. I'm not sure that they did, but I'm certainly not sure that they didn't. I think what he/they did was mistaken and that's why I voted to delete the articles and don't regret my vote. You write "it’s comforting to think that this particular piece of egregious vandalism is now gone" (my emphasis), but Benis and his supporters did little or nothing (I can't be be bothered to check) in articles outside these two to boost the importance of NPA or Benis, and it's not even clear that anyone wrote any untruth about NPA, let alone any of its alternatives. If you call this egregious vandalism, perhaps you haven't seen the way other editors change names and figures in a mendacious but superficially plausible way (or at a much more puerile level add "Suck my dick" etc.). Think a bit less of what you're going to write on this man's talk page, a bit more about your own page that you say is getting 1000 hits per hour.

When you're through with that, consider this. I haven't started to investigate it, and shan't have time to do so soon, but I think you'll agree that there's a powerful reek of self-promotion. (You might also consider the edit history in view of the last part of the article.) If this article is as awful as I suspect (and one reason why I can't investigate is that the site requires some plug-in that I refuse to download and run), then I'd rush to vote for its deletion -- but I still wouldn't call it vandalism, let alone egregious deletion. -- Hoary 11:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed response -- while I know you dislike my blog post (man, I'm so sensitive), I'm grateful that you provided an outside opinion for consideration. I don't want to commit libel, or anything. Some notes:
  • The title at that blog post can be changed, and I've done so to be (arguably) more accurate, and more along these lines.
  • "Not" should certainly have been "now", and has been corrected.
  • I've left the claim of promoting the article, per the AfD: "Benis himself heavily promotes the NPA Wikipedia article on his websites", and I'm not sure what to call this, though, since it appears to be a violation of the GNU FDL (as I understand it). Between him and D-Katana, there appears to be definite promotion here. Of course, without the history, this is now considerably harder to investigate, although Google's cache does confirm that he used Wikipedia as a means of supporting his theory.
  • "Egregious vandalism", and other mentions of such behaviour in the post has been corrected to refer to specific, demonstrable allegations such as the above.
Needless to say, I did all of the above before I posted about it here. I'll take a look at your article above tomorrow, shall I? Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 12:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
In the interests of accuracy, would you be able to identify the user that made the comments you quote here? It's natural to assume it was Benis, but I'd rather check than assume they were his words. I certainly understand if you can't remember the name of the user a week later, but it'd be helpful. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 13:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I have an exam in fourteen hours, so I'm going to bed. Thanks again for taking the time to reasonably explain your position on the post, and I hope you're at least vaguely satisfied with the changes I've made. As far as I can tell the filename itself cannot be changed to remove the reference to vandalism without breaking the link (at least, not from within the WordPress interface, and I don't have FTP access to the server it's hosted on -- if you can help with this, I'd be very grateful), but the rest of the alterations should have changed the overall message somewhat. I'm hoping this has all produced a more reasonable post. Cheers, Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 13:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Good luck with the exam. I'm in a similar "real-world" position to you, so I'll be terse. No, that extraordinary puff wasn't posted by Benis's acknowledged UID; it was instead "signed" "Donna K. Hobgood, M.D. {{Unsigned|Donnamd@pol.net}}" (see this). -- Hoary 14:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC) ...... PS I've sent you email. 15:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. :) Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 21:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review of Minamata disease

Hoary, thanks very much for your comments in the peer review of Minamata disease. I really appreciate you reading through the whole article and making so many little changes, and spotting the small mistakes which I missed. I've made most of the changes and included the information you requested. I'm going to be working on the article more over the next few weeks to improve the sections from 1973 onwards, and also the Democratization section. I didn't write that myself, so I intend to thouroughly re-work it.

Could I ask you to comment on the wastewater pipe photograph of Smith's that I would like to use. Do you think I can use it as fair-use?

Once I've got the article in a bit of a better state, would it be ok to ask you to look at it again?

Again, many thanks. Bobo12345 12:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, hello: I was going to write to thank you, but unfortunately the "real world" has been making demands on me that I can neither ignore or postpone.
I'm glad you say the democratization section wasn't yours, as you're working very hard on this article and I don't like having to say to its writer that this section is horrible. There may well be something to what the author (of the book) says, but it doesn't come across. One will have to read the book.
On the question about the image: IANaL, let alone an American one (or indeed an American). But let's suppose for a moment that using it would be fair. I'd say don't use it. That's because it doesn't really show us anything. Sure, stuff is coming out of a pipe, and a pipe that we're assured was in or near Minamata. Well, (i) we can assume that the gunk came out of a pipe; (ii) miso shiru looks disgusting to the unitiated (e.g. my late mother) yet is healthy, methylated spirits look OK but zap your brain, so all in all the appearance of what comes out of the pipe doesn't mean much. Here and elsewhere, I think you're over-illustrating the article. Illustrate where it really counts, and leave the rest.
I've more to say, but sorry I'm sleepy and have a long day tomorrow, so that's about it for now. But yes, I'll happily look through the article later. -- Hoary 15:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration - Presley

Just in case you are interested, this matter has gone to [arbitration]. Lochdale 06:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh gawd. You say He has created a culture of fear and hostility (that I detail below)around this article. For me, he has created a culture of intense tedium. Anything Presley-related I now only approach with a total lack of enthusiasm, yawning. (Really, I only glanced at the Presley article a couple of weeks ago for an AfD, and that aside have neither glanced at it nor wanted to do so for months.) Well, I suppose you can call that a kind of fear. More importantly, I'll be very busy for the next couple of weeks. So I'd like to be able to promise to make a contribution, but I'm afraid that at this point I can't make such a promise. -- Hoary 11:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Heh, no worries. Losing interest myself but will finish what I started. Cheers. Lochdale 23:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at the dreaded Presley article's discussion page yesterday, thought "Ugh!" and quickly left. Same old same old. Just one note about your declaration that Presley's life was well documented so it doesn't make sense to delve into secondary sources: either we completely disagree on the meaning of "secondary sources" or we just disagree. To me, Guralnick's two-volume biography (of which I've only read the first volume) is a "secondary source" (because Guralnick wasn't there at the time and instead is using and distilling primary sources) and it makes good sense to use secondary sources such as this because the primary sources are so very numerous, often appear in obscure newsapers that may or may not have been microfilmed, and are so partial. The question is instead of which secondary sources (perhaps supplemented by the odd primary source) you should use, and how you should use them. Do you for example elevate to 5% of the article some incident to which Guralnick devotes 0.005% of his bio? (There may be a legitimate reason for doing this, but without explanation it's very suspect.) -- Hoary 03:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right regarding the secondary sources. I edited my evidence section on the arbitration page. I've read both of Guralnik's books and they are exhaustively researched. Unsuprisingly, the books do not support onefortyone's version of events. Your comment above would be perfect evidence at the arbitration. That said, arguing with this guy is like trying to disprove (or is it prove?) a negative. I think the only reason I keep going is because I genuinely believe he has hijacked the process. Lochdale 23:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Anything I write can and will be used against me, or you, or the creation of a decent article, so I don't intend to write anything in a rush. That means I can't write anything till Tuesday at the very earliest. -- Hoary 23:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

One slight correction, when I said I edited my contribution to the arbitration section what I meant to say is that I basically took your comment on disproportionate weight and ran with it! So cheers for the suggestion. It really is extraordinary how one person can pollute the pond so to speak.! Lochdale 01:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if you are going to bother contributing to the [evidence] page but I thought I would mention. Same old stuff but at least there is a possiblilty of redress. Lochdale 22:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Done (in two places). Though as you'll see, I take a bleak view of celeb articles on WP. People seem to love tittle-tattle (take a look at what's on the magazine racks of your neighboring stores), your nemesis feeds them tittle-tattle, ergo he's doing what they like. -- Hoary 15:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the comments. That said, if they banned Onefortyone I wouldn't be too upset if they banned me as well. I'm a minor contributor who just wants to see a decent product. Lochdale 17:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you thank you thank you

Thank you! Let me help! What else needs to be done? Any tips for future attempts? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

On the first, don't mention it. On the second, sorry but I'm too sleepy to think! -- Hoary 15:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
No problem. You've been quite helpful. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

If nobody has yet done so (I didn't read carefully), somebody is bound to perpetrate the ultimate annoyance: claim that there should be no redlinks. I think that zapping redlinks with "substubs" is worse than useless: if you don't want to write a stub (or better) for a particular redlink, you might consider de-linking it. -- Hoary 03:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

That's one thing I'll be fighting on. Many of them are articles I will be working on, but they're all existing for good reason. They'll all eventually exist. I'll have some other commentary later once I'm a little more awake. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] P:PHOTO

Thanks for the encouraging comment! Regards, Gphototalk 14:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rolf Aamot Wikipedia page - there was no reason for you to erase - please explain yourself

Horay, Please explain why you have erased the Wikipedia page on Rolf Aamot. There was no reason for this as far as I could see. When I went in to the page yesterday the only thing I did was to try to make some of the links work under Category at the end of the page. This Wikipedia page has exsisted for a few months and have not had any comments such as yours before. It must have been a lot of work for the person that started the page and now it is all destroyed... Please explain in detail what the problem was - there was no warning before you removed the page and therefore no time to fix any minucular "error". I think a lot of pepole likely will disagree with your actions. I will try to help fix this. Maurizio P

Briefly, I have no complaint about anything that you did and would be happy if you created a new article on Aamot. I've already tried to explain what the problem was, on your talk page; I wonder if you read this. Do read it again; if anything is still unclear, don't hesitate to ask. -- Hoary 05:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hoary, I do think the Wikipedia page came first. I will investigate further. As it says on that page - contributors retain copyright over their submissions, so the copyright is with Rolf Aamot and not with Luminous Lint in regards to the submitted material. All materials and text submitted to and posted on Luminous Lindt has been provided by Rolf Aamot. Why would there be a problem? Please explain. Thank you. When this is all figured out I will make a new page. It would be easy to make it just as it was, but I just want to make sure there will not be a problem again first. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maurizio P (talk • contribs) .

Answered on your talk page. (Let's stick to one talk page; it's easier.) -- Hoary 23:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hoary, just wanted to let you know that a new page is made. I would appreciate if you let me know it is ok. Thank you!

[edit] Universal-ish

Have you seen this list? Amongst other exclusions and hierarchical peculiarities, it failed to list "photography" until I added it a moment ago. This exemplifies why I (for the most part) aim to merely add content rather than deal with meta-issues. It's far too depressing. Pinkville 01:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I plugged your embryonic but dormant project into the power socket [pardon the mixed metaphors] only reluctantly; I did so because I feared that if I didn't do so the photography that's worth looking at risked being quasi-institutionalized hereabouts as a minor offshoot of the photography that exemplifies this or that feature of this or that gizmo. I was particularly reluctant because this is a hellish time at work for me; I wish it had been two months earlier or later. -- Hoary 01:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand your reservations and agree with your reasoning in plugging in to the power socket (notice that regional differences in voltage don't matter!). It's just as well to have some sort of official badge to legitimate the modest efforts undertaken so far on photography/photographer articles. Pinkville 16:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The real fun comes when we consider the sixteen "film directors and screenwriters": Bergman, Capra, Coppola, Disney, Eisenstein, Fellini, Ford, Hitchcock, Kubrick, Kurosawa, Lang, Lucas, Marion, Riefenstahl, Scorsese, Spielberg. So much for Godard, Hawks, Ozu, Sturges, Tarkovsky, Truffaut, Welles, etc.: aside from the token egghead (Swede), Russkie, Italian, Jap, (non-Nazi) German, (non-Nazi) woman, and Nazi woman, it's pretty much middle America. No mystery about Lucas or Spielberg (lots of special effects and money), but Kubrick and Scorsese are a bit of a mystery to me: I think they're the token director celebs, famous for being famous. Both did make good movies (The Killing, Mean Streets), but the average is ho-hum. More of a mystery, in terms of WP demographics: where are the directors of Blade Runner and Titanic? Did you see that Every Encyclopedia Must Have an article on "heavy metal music"? -- Hoary 06:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, heavy metal music leaped out at me, as well. It's funny, but in spite of having managed a "melodic hard rock" band* at one point in the (happily) receding past, I remain unconvinced of heavy metal's special worthiness over other genres... This Must Haves project is merely another enterprise to regurgitate conventional wisdom once passed through the fancruft and WP filtres. Pinkville 16:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC) *And yes, there's more than one story there.

Oh, and thanks for adding photojournalism to the project page... I keep forgetting whether I'm on the "project" or "talk" page! Pinkville 16:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the work on HCB. I can't blame you for the project/talk confusion, what with the way I restlessly move stuff from the one to the other; but my idea is to make the project page short, informative and of immediate interest, and to relegate anything discursive or longer-term to the talk page. Feel very free to do more shunting around. -- Hoary 23:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your policy. Too many project pages are too strewn with links, comments, and other seemingly random debris to be anything but confusing. But the HOP page is already nice and streamlined. It's my own internal compass that's out of whack. Pinkville 23:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It's short, but it still strikes me as an unappealing mess. It needs reordering at the very least. I'm willing to have a bash at doing that, but it's not something I can even start today. -- Hoary 01:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hampton Wick website

Sorry if I appear to be spamming, are there rules as to number or content of links? Am trying to provide up to date info to supplement Wikipedia. user Kelvin Adams ..... added (under a different title) at 16:00, 17 November 2006 by 212.85.7.14 (talk, contributions)

Further to previous:-

a) My link to Hampton Wick Artists was removed from the Hampton Wick page. I removed my Old Hampton Wick link and replaced the Artists link because the Yahoo reference to Wikipedia's Hampton Wick page includes a reference to my Artists page. I appreciate that if I have too many links, I can be accused of spamming.

b) I have restored my Thames Path link, now pointing to a revised single page. I spent three days researching the path by train and bicycle and had one bike stolen. I took many photos and made notes about the condition of the track. I believe my page adds to the sketchy information available and was written in response to questions asked of me by members of the public, who intended to travel the path. I link to other sites.

c) Wikipedia has enabled more people to access our information than would be possible via the search engines. At the same time, Wikipedia is enhanced by our provision of photos and recent information. Conversely, we can lose our search engine listings in favour of Wikipedia. I note that many links are from commercial organisations - I try to avoid commercial links. I look forward to continuing to contribute what I believe to be original information to Wikipedia.

P.S. Sorry, I have lost sight of your reply. Did you say that I was contributing under another name? I don't do that, nor have any association with Google.

P.P.S. I just spotted several links in your list which were not mine - nothing in my links about schools or films - my stuff is new information about S.W. London. .... added between 10:33 and 10:46, 18 November 2006 by Kelvin Adams

I haven't questioned the work you've put into your web pages. But pages are not linked to from Wikipedia articles because of the amount of work that went into them. These pages of yours do indeed look informative and helpful for readers of the pages to which you've linked them, which is why I haven't deleted those newest links. ¶ My reply is on your talk page. It presents in abridged form the guidelines for external links. Please follow these guidelines. ¶ Whether you realize it or not, you do have an association with Google. I quote this web page of yours:

<script>
var userurl=location.href;
document.write("\<script type=\"text/javascript\" src=\"http://www.freewebservices.net/banner.js.php?user="+userurl+"\"\>\</script\>");
</script>
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
_uacct = "UA-268699-2";
urchinTracker();
</script>

I can't be bothered to go through the Javascript jiggery-pokery, but it's presumably as a result of it that your web page comes with a payload of three or more other html files, notable among which is ads.html, which is what puts Google ads on your page. Either directly or indirectly, the more hits you get on your page the more money you will get. For all I know the money is a tiny sum and I don't suppose it starts to compensate you for the work you've put into the pages. However, you have an association with Google, and a financial one to boot. -- Hoary 11:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Jacob Riis

Would you mind looking at Jacob Riis for me again? I can't figure out why the image of Bandit's Roost isn't showing properly and I'm wondering if one of the stupid edits by the anons resulting in some sort of damage. This is being vandalized quite a bit it seems...any remedy you can think of? Thanks so much! Cheers! Chuchunezumi 17:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Shall do, but it will have to wait a few (<24) hours. -- Hoary 22:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't make any changes, but noted that the photo (like the page as a whole) is displayed well in both Konqueror and Firefox, the only CSS-capable browsers I have installed on this machine. I notice that you have recently made a number of edits; perhaps one of these is to revert some goofy formatting change.
The page history of Jacob Riis is a glaring example of the amount of stupidity and waste within WP: I took a diff between an edit of yours in August and your very latest edit, and they differ in fewer than twenty bytes (I didn't count) and the single word "again". Between the two: perhaps fifty edits (again I didn't count), most, it seems, puerile edits by retards or exhibitionists, and reversions of these. Thank you for your remarkable patience with this. -- Hoary 04:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ralph Eugene Meatyard

Weird, I could have sworn there was an article on Meatyard. Was it deleted? I see this list of pages linking to the nonexistent article... Pinkville 12:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup, deleted as an insufficiently explained copyvio. The text was from a particular book and the original uploader claimed to be the author of that book. But after fifty or more edits, his/her (I forget) claims to be recycling the material legitimately and under GFDL were still unconvincing. So somebody (not me) zapped it. -- Hoary 13:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, all is now clear. I'm probably not senile, then. Pinkville 13:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link rot on FED (camera) and elsewhere

Hello! I noticed that you commented out the dead link on FED (camera). That is a wise edit when compared to the option of removing. Please consider, however, what may potentially be an even better option: resurrecting it! (per se) I happened across the page when I was doing maintenance work through Wikipedia:Dead external links. You may notice that the link at FED (camera) is now restored; I first checked on the Internet Archive (http://web.archive.org/) to make sure it had an archived copy, then when I realized it did, I happily replaced the dead link with the template {{Dlw}}. It works very well now! If you don't mind doing maintenance once in a while, you might consider wiki'ing on over to Wikipedia:Dead external links and start fixing some of that stinkin' link rot! Cheers, Iamunknown 08:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: I just noticed that you started this article. I think it is very interesting, and I enjoy the Geocities link. It has so much information! I'm glad its archived. What I find fascinating is that these cameras are the precursors to our modern-day digital cameras. I never even thought about camera technology in this way. Thanks for the cool info! --Iamunknown 08:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, the FEDs are the ancestors of my modern-day analogue camera (Bessa R3a). True, they're also the ancestors of the Epson RD1(s) and Leica M8, but even the former is rather beyond my budget.

web.archive.org: yes, I know of it and yes I could have found the link and added it, but I was felled by an acute spasm of laziness. Sorry!

Jim Blazik's site was wonderful. Four years or so ago I was a lot more interested in old Soviet photographic hardware than I am now, but back then he and Alfred Klomp together accounted for about 80% of the interesting material about it. AK subsequently lost interest but at least mothballed his site for the continuing edification of all. (See it here.) JB's site deserves to live on other than merely via web.archive.org.

If you're interested in an old FED or Zorki, buy one. This is one of the few (usually) reliable deals on Fleabay. It's cheap and you'll help make somebody in the former Soviet Union happy. I bought a Blik rangefinder from somebody in Uzbekistan who was thereby making his first ever sale; he was obviously thrilled. (And it's a good rangefinder, at a good price.) You'll also need a light meter; those are cheap too. -- Hoary 13:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your correction

Thanks for correcting the typo on my 1a page; further feedback, either micro-edits or overall comments, is welcome. Tony 04:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

My overall comment is that it's excellent, and a salutary reminder that there's a big difference between (a) writing that is very good in comparison with the dismal WP average and (b) writing that really is very good. I may disagree with you in a few minor places, but even for those where I'm fairly sure of myself I shan't soon have the time to argue. I'm unlikely to think of new ideas any time soon. But time permitting, I do I intend to go through what you've written, in search of any lingering, ah, vaguess or similar. ¶ For me, this is all prompted by Kroger Babb. I'd never heard of him or encountered the article on him till a couple of weeks back. When I did encounter it I was delighted by the degree of library research that seemed to have gone into it, and by its unrelatedness to the usual dreary WP obsessions (science fiction, anime, etc). So I viewed it through rather rosy lenses, and viewed your comments as something akin to a hostile attack, which of course they weren't. Another editor has very recently joined you in laying into the standard of its prose; time permitting (yes, it's a mantra), I'll print it out a second time and go through it with ink of a very lurid color. I'm not the best editor but I like to think I am (or can be) good enough to find and remove any stylistic hurdle to FA-ness. -- Hoary 05:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks on the Philip Jones Griffiths article

Thanks for your help with getting the stub started. I'll look for books that I can use to flesh it out. And thanks also for diercting me to the Beato article - a good model of what an article can look like. My interest in PJG dates from meeting him a few months ago. He told some amusing stories, including one about a dinner party with Lucien Freud at which Freud got drunk and poured champagne over someone's head, saying, "Champaigne for my sham friend; for my real friends, real pain!" PiCo 06:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's a pleasure to help start an article on somebody who deserves an article as much as PJG. There's plenty more stuff to do at the "History of photography" project, if you're interested. -- Hoary 12:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)