User:Hoary/Archive05

Thanks again :) Wyss 03:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Working on a translation of the Eng article into Italian. [1]

Hope you don't mind. --151.96.0.8 16:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

If it.wikipedia doesn't already have an article much like it, the article here is certainly worth a translation. Since you asked me about this article, I'll point out that about 0.0001% of the credit for the article might go to me: you really don't have to get anybody's OK, but if you'd like to do so anyway then Giano (whom you've already asked) is number one by a long margin, and then come several other people, and way, way, way behind them come I. -- Hoary 06:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey Hoary, thanks for all the kind words and help :) Wyss 16:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Hoary,

Just like to ask you for a bit of help, cos I don't know how to deal with this. I thought I'd like to have a third opinon on this matter. Oh, and please leave your comments on my talkpage instead, because I didn't inform Encephalon about asking you yet.

And there's this wider issue about the problem here : Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#A_suggestion_to_start_clearing_.22claims_permission.22

Thanks in advance! :)

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 13:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I've set the ball rolling for a WP:RFC survey to start, discussion is on the GRFA talk page. Please comment. Borisblue 04:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm a bit lost, as I don't understand what the "dispute" is, or why there's a need for a survey. Aside from that, I rather lost interest in that page when one of its major contributors seemed to want it to be overtly descriptive and covertly prescriptive. But the best of luck with it. -- Hoary 05:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I am sure that sooner or later some wacky vandal will show up and I'll get my chance to practice. Thanks for the offer, though, and your congratulations. Frankly, I think it's a little silly that I wound up beating you to it. Jkelly 18:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Glad I'm not the only one keeping an eye out on this article now. =) —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 08:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I've had my eye on it ever since I noticed (via NewPages) an article on some other woman who'd allegedly had sex with a minor. As I have the (minority?) views that --

• there should be a presumption of innocence until there's proof of guilt
• mere allegations are not encyclopedic
• the actual crime (if proven) of having sex with a minor, however reprehensible, doesn't make a person noteworthy
• noteworthiness is a requirement for the encyclopedic

-- I nominated that article for VfD (as it was still called), and was delighted to see an end to it. At that time, some "keep" voter said "What about Debra Lafave?" or similar (the first time I'd ever heard of her), so I took a look. There seemed slightly more substance to that article and I just couldn't be bothered to take it to VfD in the face of the number of people who seemed (to my mind, rather inexplicably) interested in it. So I didn't take it to VfD. I was waiting either for the charges to be dropped or for her to be found innocent. Neither has happened, and I suppose the tabloid-minded will insist that a lip-smackingly detailed account is encyclopedic. So now I intermittently watch the page with a certain morbid fascination: "the boy's 15 year old cousin was allegedly driving Lafave's vehicle near Ocala, Florida, while they had intercourse in the back seat" -- this would-be rival of Britannica must tell us who was allegedly driving whose vehicle near which Floridan place (incidentally, a hotlink tells us that this so-called city has a population of 46 thou) when they were (allegedly) porking on the back seat. Wikipedia? More like WikiTriviaPursuit! -- Hoary 09:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Sadly this one was featured heavily in the national news in the US, so I suspect there'd be a lot more resistance to delete it. Another similar article is Mary Kay Letourneau, and she was also featured heavily in the news (as was her eventual marriage to the boy/man she was convicted of raping). I don't know if major national news coverage makes it notable enough for Wikipedia or not, but if you want to AfD it and see what happens, I might vote. All I do know is, the weirdos insisting their Yahoo! group be included in the external links are driving me batty.. =) —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 09:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not surprised it was featured on national "news" infotainment in the US. After all, corporate media have to get the electorate's minds off such issues as the export of jobs, the ballooning deficit, gerrymandering, denials of habeas corpus, the invasion of non-belligerent nations and "collateral damage" therein, the melting of the ice-caps (etc etc). And hey, every fictional asteroid in the Star Wars "universe" seems to merit its own article in this cruftopedia, so why not every alleged kiddy-porker? Hoary 09:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Or every episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Ideally the Debra Lafave and Mary Kay Letourneau articles (and any like them) would get more minor mentions in a child rape or statutory rape article as well-publicized examples. I mean, if you think about it, even with national news coverage, the most notable thing about these people is that they were accused of raping a child. Anything beyond that is really just unnecessary. Oh well.. —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 10:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

On a side note, I'm done with this article. After edit-warring with me from his IP address, it seems he signed up for an account and edit-warred with me again. As I'd rather not get blocked for WP:3RR (which I've already violated in spades, sigh), hopefully you can take care of it. :P It's too bad there's no AfD for content. —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 14:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just now got back to my computer. I've deleted the link again, and explained why on the talk page. -- Hoary 04:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I finally gave up and filed a WP:3RR complaint against him. I may end up being blocked too, but meh, it's better than this edit war back-and-forth. Anyways, thanks again. =) —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 10:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Santa has come early for you [2]. What a nice surprise! Giano | talk 11:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I hope my changes are OK. Let me know what you think. ... added at 18:11, 7 December 2005 by Tc61380

Well, you've fiddled with the part about jumping around, but said that supporting anecdotes are to be found at www.tjc.org/stories. I can't see anything there about jumping around without hitting the ceiling -- which is something that I have just succeeding in doing in my office (ceiling height circa 3 metres) without any obvious help from Jesus (or Muhammad, the Buddha, Shiva, etc.). Aside from their irrelevance to jumping around without hitting the ceiling, these anecdotes come with absolutely no independent supporting evidence whatever and strike me as totally worthless. Hoary 04:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I wrote a reply to you on the talk page, sorry if I misled you into thinking there would be supporting anecdotes about the jumping. I admit it can be dubious, so if you'd like I'd love to discuss any ideas with you more, my email is tc61380@hotmail.com... added at 01:08, 9 December 2005 by Tc61380

Oi! we've been honoured in France have a lok at my user page, but better still they've found a better image fr the Gangi palaze ballroom than the one we have it's here [3] how can we go about stealing it for our page - do you know? Giano | talk 14:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Stealing? Heh, finders keepers. Just use Image:Palazzo Gangi.jpg, it's on Commons. :-) (I can't find where in the article it's wanted.) --Bishonen | talk 13:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• email Giano | talk 12:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

For the revert and the copyedit. Much appreciated. Guettarda 14:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year. Guettarda 05:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, "Happy Holidays" and all... I notice that it is January. Jkelly 02:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You might be wondering why I even write this comment. Anyway, I just noticed that you are the 8th user after I registered. Many people decide not to stay, but you did. Glad to find someone who registered around the same time. Cheers. -- WB 10:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I am? Well well. The list of members in order of joining is one of the many arcana of WP that I haven't yet encountered. Yes, I'm still around, but busy-ness has meant a drastically reduced level of activity for a period of three months or so (not yet ended). I'll be back. In the meantime, thank you for, and all the best with, your own good work. -- Hoary 03:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey Hoary, I'm back (sigh). I had a hissy and now I'm over it, mostly. Wyss 15:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion and have replied to it on the article's discussion page. However, I think your assessment that "Here is evidence that Winfrey is a unscrupulous, manic, and grotesque seeker after publicity" is probably not shared by most Americans, whether they are Winfrey fans or not. They may have criticisms of her, but I don't think unscrupulous or manic would ever be one of them. Most of the criticism centers around how she has used her Book Group and how she has or has not related to the vast extremes of the African American community. But, for the most part, she remains, for someone so much in the spotlight, one of the most immune to criticism of anybody in America. Still, the Legends Weekend itself is not an event worthy of article separate of Oprah Winfrey or of the individuals in attendance. Crunch 03:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually I can understand your dismay/disdain based just on this article, but I did happen to see a little bit of footage about the event on TV here and it was actually quite impressive to see the gathering of essentially every notable living African American woman from politician to musician to actress to academic, gathered in one place without PR flacks or handlers. Very unfrortunately, whoever wrote the article here focused on the partly aspect, rather than on the fact that it was a rather extraordinary gathering of women, all of whom had attained great success, and many of whom started from very humble backgrounds and overcame very serious obstacles, both culturally and personally. I didn't even remember anything about diamonds or pearls, but it was notable for no other reason than to remark about how far the state of race/gender relations has come in American society. Your view may, and apparently does, vary. Crunch 05:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Haven't seen your name about recently - are you OK? Giano | talk 22:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• That's good idea to prune the watch list,I think I'll do that too. I turn on for a quick look and and then spend an hour on something of little interest. My problem is I always have to have the last word! - and that can take some time here. Was the travel magazine text really based on Sic Bar? or have I read you wrong? Regards Giano | talk 08:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your recent rv of the Sollog page. I did provide an explanation of why I had to delete that section, but you must have missed it. It can be found at the discussion page. Arnold1 00:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, but it wasn't convincing. -- Hoary 05:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in convincing you or anyone else, only in telling the truth. If only you and I shared the same interests. Arnold1 06:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I probably had to use more elbow grease than I'm imagined, but my increasing interest into Japanese culture just got to me, you could say. Phil-hong 09:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Hoary, the correct and academic name for our language in English is Persian. Farsi is the arabized form of the word. The latter is officially banned by Academy of Persian language. There are also lots of politics here! Please help Iranians in preserving their culture. Thanks in advance. Take care --Mitso Bel14:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Hoary, I provided several sources at the Talk page of the article. Would you please let me know if they are satisfactory or not ? Then I will find more and better sources. Please let me know if the last version of the article (edited by me) is neutral or not. Thank you very much. --Mitso Bel17:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hoary, I hear what you are saying , but as I have a long list of articles that I am working on and researching I do not spend too much of my time arguing with people who delete information which is sourced , or who have not taken the time to even read the book of the page they are editing. All the info I added is sourced and can be found in the reference if they would bother to read them . --CltFn 02:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Hoary and CltFn, I have read the book a few times and now that I am talking to you I have the book on my desk. I read all those sources that CltFn is talking about. I also listened to the video completely. I do not believe that in my country women have freedom or fundamentalists did not invade the universities at the beginning of the revolution. But I do believe that Nafisi is exaggerating and sometimes lying. I do believe that Nafisi cares more about selling her book and taking revenge than about reality. I just want the article to be neutral and not just Nafisi's POV or US neo-cons' POV. Take care. --Mitso Bel12:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I have several alternative phrases at my disposal, all reminiscent of bodily functions of varying pleasurable degrees. I would stay well clear of that dispute if I were you! Have fun Giano | talk 12:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware that the policy is to have minimal dab pages, although sometimes I think it is applied too rigidly. I think an exception can be made here, because most people will be looking for Marcus Garvey, or the words "Marcus Garvey" and it will help them to find it quicker or associate it more quickly with the correct "Black Star". I'm not sure if you know about the topic, but "Marcus Garvey" and "Black Star Line" are practically inseparable and nearly always mentioned together. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Hoary, would you please take a look at this article ? There is only one paragraph in the article that CltFn and I seems to have different views on it. As CltFn only reverts edits without any discussion what so ever, I would like to invite you to come and judge the situation. Please take a look at this article. Thanks in advance. --Mitso Bel11:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Stumbled across the debacle that is Reading Lolita in Tehran. I fixed grammar and style stuff, removed faulty references, asked for sources, etc. (I also left a rant on the talk page). It still needs a lot of work (there's potential, though), especially in terms of what the book is actually about. Anyway, you may wish to take a look at my edits. I'm leaving this messgae on your talk page because it seems quite clear you're the only one involved with that who has a clear idea on how to write articles properly. Thanks, Yossarian   14:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

My thanks to both of you for your own efforts and your invitations. I'll look at the article in a day or so. In the meantime, I'm connected to the net by modem, and therefore slowly (which here doesn't matter) and expensively (which does). You'll see me around when I'm again plugged into the (free of charge) LAN. -- Hoary 00:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks again for your comments. I've responsed here. Also, did you know there was a Swatch Irony watch called "Hoary"? Aluminum case with pale (frosty) blue dial. Just a little trivia for you. Pinkville 17:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Have a glom at Sunset Blvd. (1950 film). I responded further on my talk page :) Wyss 22:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.

It's good, but if somebody wants to be picky, it's not that good. Take the "Background" section, for example. It consists of two paragraphs; the second ends with a quote from Wilder and a footnote pointing to a book about the film. It's odd that the footnote is written in the format of a bibliography entry, but this is merely an oddness of "style" so let's let it pass. Any univ teacher would tell the student to provide a page number: that's a more important problem. More important still: just how much of the paragraph comes from somewhere in that book? If there were footnotes to the preceding sentences, we could easily infer that this note was only for the quotation; but as it is, we can't. (I guess that a lot came from it as the article's paragraphs average one, concluding footnote.) And worse, there's no mention of where any of the content of the first paragraph was found or can be verified.

NB I'm not challenging the content, which seems plausible (or anyway seems to accord with my hazy understanding, which of course could be all wrong). Neither do I say the article isn't much better than average or doesn't deserve to be featured. Merely, that it's still problematic. Hmm. -- Hoary 05:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sadly I don't seem to have much time to do very much on Wikipedia theses days for any serious work. I have two near finished articles in sandboxes which I should finish before I look at anything else. I've a rudimentary knowledge of Enzo Sellerio, and a book of his at home, but that seems a very long away away at the moment. I'll take a look when I'm there at Easter (remind me if I forget!). The Palazzo is Palazzo Pitti which turned up on the main page recently. I think (hope) the congratulations is for having a page with no "inline cites". I've nothing against them personally. and for the newly created pages they are quite helpful unless of course they have to follow each verb - which seems to be what some people want. So, I'm having a one man crusade against being instructed how to write and reference a page and save all the old FAs from demotion or being fiddled with by people who know nothing about the subject. Giano | talk 08:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

...just that I guess NekoDaemon usually dumps a header for the day on that per-day page. I went to the March 20 subpage and put the header on and everything is right as rain. *wonders what happened to NekoDaemon* --Syrthiss 13:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Jkelly 00:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I picked diffs that I had a vague memory of (you may recall I was involved in the User:Winnermario/User:DrippingInk mess that only later became widely-known as the User:Hollow Wilerding mess). For what it is worth, I think that you handled the events around the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pop music issues stuff very well. In any case, I don't want to give users that may not know your editing the impression that you were overly entangled in the Winnermario thing. I'll let you "speak for yourself" in the answers to the questions. Jkelly 02:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, fingers crossed and best of luck. You're a solid contributor with a long history here; you should do just fine. Jkelly 05:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I have moved my "bizarre" comment to Wyss' talk page. Perhaps you're unaware that Wyss herself has already admitted (after having been forced to following one of her many bans) to having a sockpuppet called "The Witch" (it's amply documented on her User page's history), and time will show she has manifold other accounts she has been using. Hope this clarifies things for you. 207.200.116.5 16:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added a question to your RfA questions and if you have time I would appreciate you answering it. Thanks. JoshuaZ 04:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Done! -- Hoary 08:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hoary, this is wonderful. I hope to see you as an admin- one which the communtiy can rely on!(Pity I wasn't the nominator...)Cheers! Your Wiki-student remembers his first Afd...his vanity article...--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. -- Hoary 09:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I am confused now. The anon we have there now seems to be claiming that it did not make the Joshuaz impostor, and it has these screen shots which clearly have someone called "JoshuaZ" with a link to my wikipedia user page. Now this is ridiculous on the face of it, given that I only use that name on Wikipedia and use my full name almost everywhere else. The screen shots also show someone with a vocab and lack of restraint that I think everyone on Wikipedia knows I simply don't use even under largescale provocation. Obviously the anon is unwilling or unable to listen to what I have to say about the matter, could you maybe try to talk to it and figure out what is going on? (If I can make a guess I'd think that User:Benapgar who is indefinitely banned partially as a result of my actions is trying to stir up trouble. I can't think of anything else that would make sense). Thanks. JoshuaZ 01:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting question, but it seems utterly irrelevant to what should be done about the article on this vaguely-interesting-sounding (if perhaps entirely fictional) movie. So I'm sure it would be a lot better if you didn't pursue it on that AfD page. As for pursuing it anywhere else, I can't promise any assistance any time soon because for the next 24 hours or so I'll only be connected via modem: wasting time looking at websites is bad enough, wasting time and money is too much! -- Hoary 03:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've already moved it over to the user's talk page per your last comment. I'll try to deal with this myself. I'm highly confused (although at least one admin I've talked to seems to think its just an angry person with photoshop). JoshuaZ

I can't quote a reference, but most biographies start by giving the name in bold, then immediately give the birth (and death if appropriate) date. I forgot, in this case, to delete the second occurrence of the birthdate - sorry. Done now. - Runcorn 06:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Zoe is neutral on your RfA because you didn't sign your acceptance, just put "I accept". JoshuaZ 02:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Since I most earnestly answered questions addressed to me as "Dear candidate" (and did so without pointing out that I wasn't a candidate), I thought it was pretty obvious that I'd accepted the nomination. Still, I've gone back and hit the twiddle key a few times. -- Hoary 05:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The categories you're creating aren't categories. Gazpacho 09:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! Consensus having been reached, it is my pleasure to inform you that you are now an administrator on the English Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review the Administrators' reading list and the Administrators' how-to guide before using any of your shiny new buttons. :-) If you need assistance or advice, please feel free to request help from other administrators at the Administrator's Noticeboard and Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents, or to leave a talk page message for me or any other admin. Again, congratulations! Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 08:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I never. -- Hoary 08:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hoary! Hoaary! Hooary! Hooray! It's fantastic, Hoary! You have been opped! Congratulations!--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)Contributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Crumbs, now I have to behave like a respectable citizen or something. . . . Hoary 09:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Congraulations on your new and shiny mop and bucket! Now that's something really long overdue... ;) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 12:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, congrats. Um, what's with the robot message? Proto||type 12:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Cause I is a robot, just following the rules. Uh-oh, don't say you don't like it! -- Hoary 12:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful adminship! All the best with the mop and bucket. --Terence Ong 14:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Best wish for your adminship.--Jusjih 14:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Congrats! You deserve this and good luck for the future! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It was good to see the level of support you got. Congratulations. Jkelly 15:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Congrats from me too!! Mushroom (Talk) 16:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for your message. I won't say congratulations because I see nothing congratulatory about being given a mop and bucket. I have never had the slightest aptitude for housework or desire to create unemployment by doing it myself. I rarely vote on RFA, and even more rarely vote to promote yet another admin - but if that's how you want to pass your time - who am I to pass judgement. I'm sure you will be of more use than the majority of the others. There are far too many of you all already, so do please be of some use. Don't become another one running about being frightfully important like a demented head prefect in a minor public school. I'm sure you won't forget the encyclopedia needs writing, which is why you had the almost unique accolade of my vote. Giano | talk 17:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Congrats from me too. Have fun with your new superpowers, and feel free to drop me a note if you need help anytime. Grutness...wha? 02:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Loved your Thank you note. Congrats to you. --Mmounties (Talk)   13:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Oi, you people! Would you mind not leaving footprints? My thanks to one and all. There are far too many of you all already — no, not of you party guests; my learned friend Giano is instead referring to us mop-wielders. I just checked: seven hundred or so active at last count, and that last count was some time ago. So you all know that if ever you need any help from an admin, you're going to find hundreds (or more likely by that time thousands) who are more knowledgable, energetic, generous, prettier, etc. than I am. So even if you don't know which one to ask, you do know which one not to ask, right? Hoary 15:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, and good luck! Jayjg ^(talk) 20:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Congrats. Sorry I missed the party. Guettarda 20:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hoary, would you mind trying to untangle the "Wikipedia:Japan-related topics notice board/ToDo" mess? I accidentally moved the wrong page, and now things are a tad mixed up due to my non-admin attempts to cleanit up. Thanks! --日本穣 Nihonjoe 18:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Somebody else beat me to it. (Feeling the tiniest twinges of conscience, I carried out another, unrelated and simple, page move in its place.) -- Hoary 03:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I was pleasantly surprised at the quick response and resolution. Thanks for responding to my request, though. (^_^) --日本穣 Nihonjoe 08:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
    • どういたしまして。ホーリー 09:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks, dude! Vizjim 12:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there some particular reason why you apparently changed your mind about the Sollog article? If I understand correctly base on your history of edits there and on the talk page, you used to keep reinserting information when people tried to remove quotes (because of WP:V or other reasons), but now you seem to be in favor of completely removing the article (right?)?

What do you think about using dead webpages owned by unknown sources that served as nothing more than a copy of a Usenet feed as a reference source for an encyclopedia article? Talkpsychology.org and scienceone.org both are examples of this kind of ridiculous unverifiable reference from a non-reputable, non-reliable source. Do you know why these things were ever allowed to begin with? Vivaldi 06:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

(1) What do you think about using dead webpages owned by unknown sources that served as nothing more than a copy of a Usenet feed as a reference source for an encyclopedia article? In principle, terrible. As evidence that such and such was said on Usenet, tolerable. But there's virtually nothing about "Sollog" that's much better: he's beneath the attention of the mainstream press, etc. (2) My changes of mind? First, I was under the impression that significance was a criterion for getting an article in WP, and that "Sollog" was insignificant. I was later persuaded that significance wasn't a criterion, and that anyway even if it were a criterion then "Sollog" would earn his article from all those Google hits, etc. A number of users and IPs -- with a remarkable similarity of idiolect (much SHOUTING, etc.) -- then plastered the article with more or less hagiographic stuff about himself/"Sollog". Granted that the article was going to stay, a balance seemed necessary. Its quite possible that his/their tiresomeness in pursuit of their goals led me to have a distorted sense of what "balance" would be. Anyway, I put some work into keeping the article in shape. My mind is changing again, now that I see signs of support for my original idea that "Sollog" doesn't deserve any article at all. You may wish to reply to this (I mean, there), even if it's only to say that I have completely misunderstood you. -- Hoary 08:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I've been promoted. pschemp | talk 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Oi, what's that you're calling me? Well done; now I can pass you my mop and bucket and retire gracefully we can all happily work together on this. -- Hoary 06:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sigh... how I wish I could be an admin like Peter Evans...-- 陈鼎翔 ^说!贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Old, cynical, grey, and [Oh, my stomach is rumbling!] going home early without doing any mop-pushing whatever? -- 白髪 10:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me be your number 41! (At least for the unarchived posts). I made some changes to this article. Hope they're to your liking. Toodles. Pinkville 02:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Wossat -- the 41st person to vandalize my talk page? Yes, I noticed the changes, and I'm certain that all but one are for the better. That one, I wonder about. I tend to think that "Roman" means "coming from Rome"; where neither Rome nor its civilization is relevant, "roman letters" looks better to me than does "Roman letters". Also, that early title looks less a r/Romanized Japanese-language title than a (decoratively) English title, and a link to a long discussion on ヘボン式, etc etc is I think a bit wild-goosy. But I defer to your good judgment (euphemistic for: I'm too lazy to think about it further).

Odd thing yesterday: I simultaneously (i) got hold of the excellent SFMoMA production on Tōmatsu, Skin of the Nation, and (ii) got involved in yet another discussion with photographically educated Americans about Japanese photography, in which I again noted that anything that I said about anyone who isn't Araki or Moriyama is immediately turned into a discussion about Araki, Moriyama, or both. Now, I've nothing against those two, but it seems the Yale UP publications (Skin, the redbound monster by Tucker et al., perhaps others) haven't done a thing to change, uh, American consciousness. I suppose I should be grateful I'm not subjected to gushing praise for the more recent (and to my mind utterly uninteresting) winners of the Kimura Award. 白髪 03:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

At long last, I've responded. Your criticism of the Roman issues are absolutley right, so I've made appropriate changes. I may have been drinking... (On the other hand, I like the occasional wild-goosy link). Considering how little people outside of Japan know about Japan, even the recurring motif of Araki/Moriyama is somewhat welcome. Let's hope knowledge keeps getting expanded and exchanged! (My next general project is to add to African subjects, but yikes! so few decent references). Pinkville 23:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh but Pinkville, Japan is well known outside Japan. Just consider the contributions made by en-Wikipedia: there are manga, and anime, and owarai, and the roads, and the railway stations, and more manga, and games, and more anime, and aidoru heartthrobs, etc etc. (Perhaps I'm unusual in finding anime really, really boring. I recently got a great "Thunderbean" DVD of Popeye: now that is entirely different!) But yes, there is some stuff outside "popular culture" (tousle-haired moppets with giant eyes) that makes it to en-WP; it's a smallish percentage, but it's still a significant quantity, and it makes Japan look if anything rather overrepresented in comparison with much of the world (i.e. the non-anglophone world). I really should add one or two east European photographers. Unfortunately two days ago I not only had to use 'Doze, I had to download and run a 'Doze-only program, and perhaps just by coincidence the 'Doze computer immediately started to throw out messages (in Japanese, even) about so-called viruses while simultaneously bombarding me with ads, some of which suggested that I might help myself with "WinFixer" (fat chance!). Clearing up this stinking pile of digital ordure took quite some time, and finally 30USD. (Moral of the story: if you must use a M$ OS, don't connect the computer to the net.) Thus no time to write new articles; I've merely been defending one or two existing articles from idiocy. -- Hoary 08:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, life as an administrator... smells like... gummy anime characters... Pinkville 17:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Anime got me thinking about Jizō, so for the heck of it I looked up the article and found this excellent direct translation of a name:

Ksitigarbha has a twin known as Ākāśagarbha (虛空藏 ;Ch. Xūkōngzàng, Jap. Kokuzo), the "Void Store".

Must be off to chant a mantra to the Void Store... Pinkville 17:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't chant a mantra to it, Pink. Instead, buy the tie-in products. That's what anime is all about, plus you can call yourself an "anime hipster" or similar. (My own most recent subscription to late capitalist society: a gloriously anime-irrelevant pearl.) -- Hoary 04:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, I'd like a strand of those... User:anime hipster14:06, 18 May 2006

But rain every day has meant it has been securely closed: I don't want its (brand new!) "snake guts" to get mildewy. Two more days of rain, I'm told: and then a few days after that the "rainy" (drizzly) season will be on us for a month. Zzz. -- Hoary 23:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Eeew. Sounds like you're enjoying the same weather as we are in Mtl. Pinkville 23:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Peter.You're multilingual? Or do you use a translator? :)-- 陈鼎翔 ^说!贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 03:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm just your typical monoglot anglophone idiot. -- Hoary 04:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I tried to remove the playboy source from the Memphis Mafia article but user:Onefortyone put it straight back, and an edit war is something i don't want to get into. If he's breached his probation i hope something is done about it.--Count Chocula 01:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for fixing up that paragraph in the Memphis Mafia article. Unfortunately there is also an edit in Elvis Presley that really needs some attention [4], I'm not sure how to go about it myself without being accused by Onefortyone of removing information I don't like.--Count Chocula 06:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. Elvis Presley has some good bits but is an awful mess, and 141 could reasonably complain if harsher standards were applied to the barrel-scrapings that he or she insists on reinserting than to material of more than tabloid interest. So as you've probably noticed I've started at the top and I'm working my way down. I haven't yet arrived at the National Enquirer fodder and I'm rather hoping that somebody will simply delete it before I get there. Anyway, I'm pausing for now because I'm tired (and busy with other, WP-unrelated matters). -- Hoary 07:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice work making the 'Controversy' section look at least half-respectable. I've been trying to find some reliable sources for those (and other) uncited statements, but so far not much luck. Just wondering, how long should 'cite tagged' statements stay in the article?--Count Chocula 08:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd leave them a longish time. (A full month?) During that time, readers shouldn't take them seriously (because of the citation flags). Pulling them earlier rather than later would allow editors to make complaints running all the way from being given insufficient time to do the needed research to "political correctness" (groan). My guess is that citations will eventually be provided, and the claims "verified", via "research" performed via Google or similar: all this will mean is that yes, somebody else is making the same allegations somewhere. Books would be better, but it's obvious that some of the books on Presley are sorry specimens indeed. I neither possess nor want to read most of them; I have other interests. -- Hoary 08:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Hoary,

Thanks again for noting that the Adams web site links had lengthy descriptions and thank you for your reply. Now we understand where you're coming from regarding "Page Six". Us New Yorkers assume everyone knows that "Page Six" is the most read column in the New York Post. Here is a link to the New York Post for further clarification: http://www.nypost.com/gossip/gossip.htm

And here is another link to show some of the publications that wrote about Adams: http://www.StephanieAdams.com/InTheNews.htm

We hope this information is helpful.

Best Regards,

GODDESSY

Thank you for the comment, and I'm glad to read that we see eye to eye. -- Hoary 01:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Just for your information, as you are interested in rewriting the Controversy section of the Elvis Presley article. According to the contemporaneous memo by Egil "Bud" Krogh, deputy counsel to the President, Nixon had a conversation with Elvis about the matter. On page 420 of his book, Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley, Peter Guralnick writes,

The Beatles, Elvis said, as if he were tentatively trying out a new tack, had been a focal point for anti-Americanism. They had come to this country, made their money, then gone back to England where they fomented anti-American feeling. "The President," Krogh's memo continued, "nodded in agreement and expressed some surprise." ... Presley indicated to the President in a very emotional manner that he was "on your side." Presley kept repeating that he wanted to be helpful, that he wanted to restore some respect for the flag, which was being lost.

The singer "also mentioned that he is studying Communist brainwashing..." On page 426, Guralnick adds,

Presley indicated that he is of the opinion that the Beatles laid the groundwork for many of the problems we are having with young people by their filthy unkempt appearances and suggestive music while entertaining in this country during the early and middle 1960's. He advised that the Smothers Brothers, Jane Fonda, and other persons in the entertainment industry of their ilk have a lot to answer for in the hereafter for the way they have poisoned young minds by disparaging the United States in their public statements and unsavory activities. Onefortyone 18:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. Those quotes are indeed very interesting, but I'll have no time to do anything with them for the forseeable future. Another point: without contesting their veracity, what significance do they have? Yes, they might indeed show that EP was right-wing (or potty, or both), but were they known (e.g. by leaks of one kind or another) before they were published? If not, they surely can't have had any impact till they were published; and so although they tell us something about EP, they tell us less about the earlier popular perception of EP. Better to discuss these things on the article's own talk page, though. -- Hoary 03:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

A vandal may strike anytime, Hoary, so I'm just telling you. :D-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, if such a username exists (I can't immediately find any evidence of it) and was either created or inspired by "Willy", then some WP-using twit must be scraping the barrel for nemeses and must have even more time on his hands than I'd imagined. -- Hoary 09:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

68.161.222.151 is GODDESSY's IP, and GODDESSY has been unblocked by Jimbo, so please proceed carefully per this edit summary. NoSeptember ^talk 12:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm proceeding very carefully, but I wonder who, other than Adams herself, would think that any "rebuilding" was necessary. -- Hoary 12:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

True, I have nothing to add to the article. I did revert your edit to user:GODDESSY, no reason she can't have her userpage the way she wants it (within policy). NoSeptember ^talk 13:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems you are good contributor to wikipedia, but I don't how could you defend a sham and propagandist article like True Jesus Church. Have you ever observed me editing any other article? And about your threat of blocking ... I don't think you are so ingnorant not to know how easy it is to create an acount on wikipedia. Also, I don't think you are not aware of dynamic IP addresses. So please keep contributing to wikipedia and don't keep defending any baseless things. Hope you will not delete this comment, because I am not even warning you as you did. --True jesus 02:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I didn't delete this comment but I did move it from its previous position, very close to the top of this page and immediately below Please write any new question at the bottom of the page.

Thank you for praising my work at Wikipedia.

Let's look at the gist of what you write. If you think you think an article is "sham and propagandist", please make this point as coherently as you can, in an appropriate way. Appropriate ways don't include vandalism of the article or plastering false accusations of vandalism on people's user pages. Meanwhile, your removal of warnings from your own talk page will be reverted: if you don't like them, outgrow them.

And yes, I know very well that it's easy to create an account at Wikipedia. -- Hoary 03:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You said "some new arrangement whereby only people with qualifications from recognized medical institutions could edit, but that's not going to happen any time soon." Not very long ago we started http://ganfyd.org and the licence I wrote has exactly that effect. I modelled it on the Creative COmmons licences, although it is not one of them, yet, and it has been refined a little in work. Our audience is different, however I hope to see links from WP medical condition articles to that textbook multiply. Midgley 22:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

An excellent idea! However, I note that Every item of knowledge on this web site is editable as long as you are a qualified doctor registered with the General Medical Council (UK) or the equivalent bodies in Canada, the Republic of Ireland, Australia or New Zealand -- I'm sure a FAQ (or anyway frequently wondered-about question) is of why people qualified elsewhere can't contribute; you may wish to explain there (or, if it's already explained, as it surely must be, to provide a more conspicuous link to the explanation). NB I have not the tiniest qualification or even the illusion of knowledge; you're perfectly safe from the risk of any "help" from me. -- Hoary 01:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably worthwhile. We just started with what we know... there is a forum that includes the antipodeans. Midgley 07:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

All those nations have English as their first or predominant language . . . but I'd thought that there were excellently qualified doctors (as well of course as quacks) in non-anglophone nations. Is it that no non-anglophone nation has an online database to sort the definitely-sheep from the possibly-goats? -- Hoary 10:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok...what was the point of your post? Anything to do with user NawashiTatu? --Shandris 15:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I know you would not understand this but these are different things. redirecting shibari and kinbaku to Japanese Bondage is ludicrous in the Rope world. The article on Japanese Bondage is filled with errors... For example in the first sentence... it states "shibari means bondage"... it does NOT... shibari means "to tie". Kinbaku means bondage... Just thought you'd like to know.. If you are interested in accuracy.... Tatu ...contributed in a series of edits from 05:09 to 05:55, 22 May 2006 by NawashiTatu (contributions)

I can't speak for either the use of Japanese words within subculture English or the user of Japanese within Japanese subcultures, but in general within Japanese shibari (縛り) -- a nominal or verb stem, not a verb in the normal sense -- means "binding"; kinbaku (緊縛) means "tight binding" or (in the SM context) "bondage". The most obvious verb straightforwardly meaning "tie" is musubu (結ぶ), while shibaru does indeed mean tie in the sense of "lash" (something onto something else). I'm not particularly surprised to read that the article on Japanese bondage is full of errors: many articles within WP are full of errors. I can't fix them as I don't know about the subject and don't have the appetite to find out more. You are welcome to do so. -- Hoary 06:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The word shibari is a very and simply means to tie... it did not come into usage as a noun until the 1950's among the Japanese porn industry... shibaru means to weave not to tie. you are wrong. Much of what is being contributed on Wikipedia on these topics was stolen from me.. that is why I am removing all and consulting an attorney. ...contributed in a series of edits on 22 May 2006 by NawashiTatu (contributions)

Well well, this is most extraordinary. Let's consider the 10:29, 13 May 2006 version of "Shibari", for example. Near the end of it, we read (in bold!) "This article authored by Tatu. Placed here by Tatu and used by permission." This version of the article was edited by NawashiTatu, a fact that's obvious from this. But perhaps you're referring to other articles here. If so, then before you contribute too lavishly to the legal profession, you may wish to read and follow the advice given here. -- Hoary 09:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I see you have vandalized my article.. I am removing all my contributions form Wikipedia, Crediting authors and sources is not promoting. This is ludicrous.

Good bye....

Tatu ...contributed in a series of edits from 05:09 to 05:55, 22 May 2006 by NawashiTatu (contributions)

You're referring to ほじょうじゅつ (捕縄術), in Hepburn hojōjutsu or hojō-jutsu. There's an article about it, hojojutsu, started on 10 October 2002. On 15 May 2006, you wrote this as "Hojo-Jutsu". This is, at best, a duplicate article. In the final form before I discovered it, this article was signed (conspicuously) and partly written in the first person. That's not how this encyclopedia is written. When I deleted this article, I should have linked to it from the talk page of hojojutsu. I failed to do that and I've just now remedied the omission.

You're right: crediting authors and sources is not (in itself) promoting.

You have the same right to remove all your contributions from WP as I have. By contributing them, you of course placed them under the GFDL. -- Hoary 07:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No I didn't write these things in May, I wrote them years ago.. Most of what is on that page was stolen from my website.. They even have my website articles in the links below. I will be consulting an attorney...Tatu ...contributed in a series of edits on 22 May 2006 by NawashiTatu (contributions)

This too is extraordinary. Consider the 02:15, 16 May 2006 version of Hojo-Jutsu. It has a number of links to ds-arts.com, which I tentatively infer from this is Tatu's/your site. And who edited this version of "Hojo-Jutsu"? Why, NawashiTatu, as is clear from the page history. I rather get the impression that if there was any theft of material by "Tatu", it was with the full connivance of "NawashiTatu". But as Americans love to say, "I am not a lawyer." -- Hoary 09:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You are referring to the article I wrote Hojo-Jutsu. I was referring to the article other article Hojojutsu... Doesn't matter... I'm done... ...contributed at 12:29, 22 May 2006 by NawashiTatu (contributions)

If you have any copyright claim to what's written in Hojojutsu, then you can certainly act on it: read this. -- Hoary 13:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)