User talk:Hoary/Archive30

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Indrani (photographer) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• <ref>"http://www.npg.si.edu/exhibit/dance/pop-ups/beyonce.html Dancing the dream: Beyoncé born 1981]", Smithsonian Institution.</ref> Exhibitions devoted to Klinko and Indrani include the 2009

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ponte City Apartments may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Tower blocks and tomes dominate the Rencontres d'Arles]", ''[[The Guardian]]'', 11 July 2011]</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I watched the Indrani and Klinko interview from Indrani's External Links, having never witnessed them before. It was full of the hot air pumped in to inflate it that we've seen pumped into her article: "I see myself as the James Bond of fashion photography". You said this was endemic of the fashion industry. I thought I'd see if that has polluted Wikipedia more widely, and have been going through Category:Fashion_photographers, deflating them where appropriate. -Lopifalko (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hoary,

First of all, thank you very much for spending your time editing the GLOBIS University page. I assume it must have taken a lot of effort to do so, and I really appreciate it. I will help you find necessary citations, and I'll be working with an Australian friend to make the article more neutral and fact-based. I have a few questions for you, if you could so kindly help me. 1) A lot of our references come from Japanese articles, since GLOBIS does not have many English articles and even if it did have articles, they're usually sponsored advertorials. Since the majority of the readers of the Wikipedia page can not read Japanese, what would be the best way to provide evidence for certain statements? Should we just keep Japanese references?

2) Regarding our name, GLOBIS University. Our official name is "GLOBIS" not "Globis", and this official name is used in our publications, financial statements, marketing communication. I'm well-aware that the use of capitals in corporate or school names, is usually reserved for names based on acronyms. (eg., INSEAD = Institut Européen d'Administration des Affaires; CEIBS = China Europe International Business School; IBM = International Business Machines) In GLOBIS' case however, the name is based on a portmanteau of 'Global' and 'Business', it is not an acronym.

It seems companies like ITO EN (ref.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ito_En) seem to be using capitals as well despite not being an acronym. Their Wikipedia page however seems quite inconsistent. Could you kindly shed light on capitalization rules in Wikipedia articles? Thanks! ..... added at 06:25, 10 January 2014‎ by Stichero

Thank you for asking; I've responded on your talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hoary!

I apologize if this has an obvious answer; I did some Googling before I came over here but I didn't find anything useful. Is there a way I could send you a private message through the site? You have been nothing but helpful, objective and rational and you seem trustworthy.

Thanks!--MaynardMuffin (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, in one or two places on this page you should find the link "Email this user". I'll read any mail that reaches me, but I may not reply to it. -- Hoary (talk) 07:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much, I just sent you an email! --MaynardMuffin (talk) 03:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations on getting rid of the ubiquitous and usually redundant "located" in "located in". I thought I was the only editor who bothered about that. -- Alarics (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ah, thank you! Well then, I think I'll do one more city before going to bed. (Watch my list of contributions.) ¶ Funny business, isn't it? I suspect that the more nervous Wikipedia editor has some memory of reading in some asinine guide to "style" that BE plus preposition phrase is indecorous or even wrong. There are a squillion "located"s located within WP, it seems. ¶ See also this discussion. -- Hoary (talk) 11:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Gina Gerson requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. – S. Rich (talk) 06:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think it's a fine point, technically. I don't think "significance" is clearly asserted. Deb (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

You (you being Hoary) added the original redirect from Gina Gerson to Gina Gershon, which has now returned. Unfortunately, having redirected, it says "Not to be confused with Gina Gerson", which lands the puzzled onlooker back at the same page. I'll remove the link, but I wonder: even if we agree the Russian starlet is not deserving of a WP entry, since we now know that at least one person uses the Gerson moniker, should it say something about "common misspelling" and not to be confused with at least one other person using the Gerson name? What do you think? Imaginatorium (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ah. Thank you, I suppose, for the nudge. A few days ago I was getting tired of Gers(h)on but then thought I could forget her. Seems I can't. I think the Gershon article is OK the way it is, but see your point about the wording of the hatnote. Currently, nothing intended for Gershon links to Gerson. Googling "gina gerson" hollywood -gershon brings (A) only the occasional typo for Gershon but (B) a lot about Gerson. (I infer from (B) a certain notability for Gerson, but I'll let others suggest her wikiresuscitation.) There's no hatnote that comes preloaded with a string about spelling; I could easily make my own hatnote, but this would be likely to bring questions. ("It's a 'common misspelling', you say? Really? A reliable source for that assertion, please.") The hell with it -- I'll delete the redirect, and people will just have to remember that Gershon has an "h" in her name. -- Hoary (talk) 12:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your work on "Notable people" at Azamgarh. There were 33 names when I started, which is now down to 10. Some editors seem to add names to these lists almost at random - I remember finding one writer listed in four or five places, but could only find a reason for including him in one of them. I think one of the common problems is that, like Azamgarh, many Indian place names are used for a Municipality, a Division and a District, and we have articles on all three - but readers/editors don't distinguish between them.
Thanks again (No template, as requested, because I'm not up to coding my own) - Arjayay (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for thanking me; actually I'd been about to thank you, for doing what you've mentioned doing. ¶ The history of that article will show that I've been sporadically trimming it for a long time. It's the one token local India article to which I pay attention. (I now no longer remember why I arrived at the article in the first place.) I'm considerably limited by not only the normal constraints (lack of time, energy, intelligence, etc) but also by a near-total ignorance of Indian matters and a total lack of any relevant language other than English. I like to think that I'm aware of and admit to my own ignorance. ¶ (You'll see an example here, where I admit that I've no idea what "Municipality" means in an Indian context. I'm reminded of the Japanese shi suffix, solemnly englished by both officialdom and Wikipedia as "city" but having a very different meaning. Of course even "native English uses of these words are strange: thanks to the last US presidential election but one, an amused world learned that Wasilla, Alaska [population circa 8000] was a "city".) ¶ I must say, this article and those related to it seem magnets for spam and boosterism. I suspect that a lot of the red links added to the list of notable people are added by nephews, grandchildren, etc of the names added; I suspect that a number of the blue links for actual worthies are added more or less deservedly by people in or from Azamgarh in an attempt to add stardust to their municipality/division/district. ¶ Anyway, I decided that every person listed should have a sourced connection to the "municipality" or "town", and of course for each person the first place I looked was his -- always his, never her -- own article. Almost none of these gave any evidence for the place of birth or any other connection with the town. Some articles were largely unsourced; some depended on print sources (nothing inherently wrong with that, but I couldn't check them); others obviously depended on junk sources. India-related articles seem to call for an influx of hundreds of disinterested editors who already understand the principles underlying WP:V and the rest. (All I can do is dream.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for voting positive to keep my article about Henrik Purienne. You seem to be experienced in the field of the arts and photography? I´ve written another one about the other editor of Mirage Magazine, Frank Rocholl, that has a large background in typography and editorial design. I´ve added a publications listing and a few links that verifies the guys expertise. Hopefully it proofs his relevance besides Mirage Magazine. These titles are all standard literature for graphic designers, especially the Los Logos Series. Would be a great help if you have any suggestions to prevent deletion of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverhaze01 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well, the article has a long way to go. Example:

Rocholl started his career as a designer in the early 1990s, when he established the design agency Landscape in Düsseldorf. At this time he was in charge of product launches for Philip Morris International. From 1996 to 1997 he worked as a creative director for the design agency Meiré und Meiré, in charge of implementing the corporate design of the Smart Car. In 1998 Rocholl established his own agency, Rocholl Projects, receiving commissions from Audi, Toyota, Epson and the German Lufthansa.

Why should the reader believe any of this? Disinterested sources, please. (And of course Rocholl himself is not a disinterested source.)

When you do cite a source, it looks ropey. Example:

Rocholl has received a number of awards for his work. His essays and interviews have appeared in more than 30 international publication media.

This is sourced to "Selected articles". Which article among them? An article by whom? Published where?

We click on the link, rocholl.cc/rocholl/frontend/media/essays_english.pdf. This seems to be a collection of tearsheets. Some are identifiable, some aren't. Are you expecting the reader to go through them, identify the medium for each, jot it down, and tot all of these up for a result that's higher than 30? If so, no. Instead you need to cite a reliable source that states that there've been over 30 international publication media.

Lots of work for you to do then. Get stuck in! -- Hoary (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the input. I´ve changed the uncited paragraphs and kicked the advertising tonality out. Now its more facts based. Better like this? -- Silverhaze01 (talk •

In order for it to scrape through AfD, making it "more facts based" might work. But it might not. If you want to increase the chances that the article will survive AfD, back up every assertion within it to a reliable source. I note that the paragraph:

Rocholl started his career as a designer in the early 1990s, when he established the design agency Landscape in Düsseldorf. At this time he was in charge of product launches for Philip Morris International. From 1996 to 1997 he worked as a creative director for the design agency Meiré und Meiré, in charge of implementing the corporate design of the Smart Car. In 1998 Rocholl established his own agency, Rocholl Projects, receiving commissions from Audi, Toyota, Epson and the German Lufthansa.

still doesn't have a named source. A list at the end of six "Sources", collectively used somehow or other, isn't going to hack it (even if these are good sources, and I haven't looked). Additionally, what's this "Bibliography"? Has Rocholl contributed? If so, how? (See this for inspiration.) Is his work discussed? If so, cite the discussion where helpful. Or is he merely mentioned? If so, skip. -- Hoary (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the Steele-Perkins link as a sample for proper referencing. Hopefully my update makes things more transparent. -- Silverhaze01 (talk •

Hi. Would you care to comment at this post? It is about the infobox for an album article and its "cover" and "released" field. Dan56 (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, but I have no idea. I have no experience of writing about albums (other perhaps than tinkering with the odd sentence here or there), no experience with the relevant areas of MoS, and (though this probably doesn't matter, and indeed might conceivably be a plus) Bo Hansson is a new name to me. -- Hoary (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

i don't know if u have the time or inclination, but there's Template:Did you know nominations/Kanako Momota which could do with an experienced editor's help. regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 00:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've just gone through the article. But unfortunately I know nothing about this subject area, and have no experience of "DYK". -- Hoary (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your help. Unfortunately it's a crufty topic, and has a very crufty editor involved... -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Funny, I must have had my second (very restrained) go at the article while you wrote what's immediately above. ¶ My problem with the Japanese song-and-dance industry is that what little I see/hear of it strikes me as asinine. If it were only for nine-year-olds, OK; but adults consume it too. ¶ It wasn't always so in Japan: The Peanuts, for example, did song-and-dance, and though some of what they did sounds awful and though in their other songs retro quaintness may just be kitsch with a "retro" patina, most of it's somehow enjoyable. By contrast, what I've heard of today's popsters just sounds like muzak for supermarket shopping. -- Hoary (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Yea, I don't know about the music, but just by scratching a little of the surface, it's clear for example that the whole AKB48 phenomenon is pure marketing to exploit the teenage consumer. Strange thing, like you said, is that the entire society seems to fall for it – all the manufactured babes, "teams", leaders, their "general elections", "graduation" and other assorted crap. They lap it up as if they really have a say and that the Japanese pop industry has suddenly become more democratic and meritocratic than Japan's corrupt governance system. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I have come in possession of a Japanese source that can be used in expanding the article a little bit. I've added some stuff I understood, but I'm sure there's more there that can be used. If you are willing to help a little bit, I can email it to you. (But keep in mind that it is not in text format.) Will you help? --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm really not the person to ask, as my background knowledge is near zero, my comprehension of Japanese is not so good, and my comprehension of pop-culture-magazine Japanese is worse. I was about to suggest asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan, but I see that you've already done so. Good, and I hope that you're successful. One tip: keep in mind that it is not in text format might sound somewhat scary -- people might think it's in Ichitaro or PostScript or TeX format. I'll wildly guess that instead it's just a scan in PDF or JPEG format; if so, it might be better to say so. -- Hoary (talk) 09:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

What is often not appreciated is that we benefit more from a lay view rather than a so-called expert view. That's one reason why I called on you. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 23:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've just now had a third bash at it. -- Hoary (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to request you assistance again for the article, whose DYK nomination has just topped 100kB to become the Longest Ever DYK Nomination Discussion. I don't imagine you'd be interested in ploughing through all that dross making up the nom. But to summarise, one stumbling block for this article is the concerns an editor has raised about the quality of some sources, all of which are in Japanese, and how they have been rendered in the article. It would be an immense help if you could go through it by verifying the status of the cited sources (reliable not blog etc) and that there is no misrepresentation or copying (or close paraphrasing) of them. If you don't feel you can do it, I'll go back to WP:JTNB. Thanks in advance and regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Forget it. It seems like the others don't care to hold on to this one any more. Thanks anyway. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 06:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Look at the log page for Lyndsey Turner not Lyndsey Turner (director) LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Aha! I see now. ¶ A year ago I'd have thought of that without needing a polite prod from you. Maybe I've been away from WP:AfD for too long. Well, today I returned. -- Hoary (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

An article about some teenager was apparently deleted. Now an editor appears to be making an effort to smear the kid. Don't know if he is notable or not, but what was added was not written well enough to tie him into the article, just looked like a smear.

Are you willing to deal withthis? Thanks --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC))Reply

I'm willing to consider dealing with it.

I don't see any sign of a deleted article.

To me, the sentences you've deleted say more about Texan paranoia than about anything else. Possibly they additionally smear the kid. If they do, then it's imaginable that the editor had such an intention. But in editing Wikipedia, we start by "assuming good faith".

The claim comes with a superficially impressive pile of sources. I clicked on this one, not least because of the strange term "Katy man". It turns out to be about "the arrest of 19-year-old Patrick Joseph Hudson"; it doesn't mention the name used in the WP article. -- Hoary (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Lol.I assumed good faith on the sources. I don't see a deleted article, either, just a comment about one. I don't know anything about the topic, but the material was added without tying it into the article on terrorist threat and with LOL linked in the edit summary, and turns out all those sources don't even mention him? There did not appear to be any attempt to add information relevant to the article, the LOL, j/k ing in edit summary. I don't care. --(AfadsBad (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC))Reply

No, I said that I looked at one of the sources and that this doesn't mention him. The explanation for this -- or even for a lack of mention of him in any of those sources, if indeed none mention him -- is pretty clear from the history of the article and has nothing to do with the editor with whom you are now squabbling.

As for not caring, you cared enough to make accusations about that other editor. That's an extraordinarily swift loss of interest. -- Hoary (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

A use from IP 195.132.58.181 (Ile de France, where the subject of the article lives) just reverted all my work on the Rachel Marsden page. All of it. No citations, nothing, just reverted it all. Will you come look? CammieD (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

That's because you have set up a Single Purpose Account contrary to Wikipedia Community Rules, targeting this subject and only this subject aggressively over the past week. You have targeted the subject of the article under more than one account and IP. You have further posted what you claim to be the subject's private personal addresses. Both a Sockpuppet investigation and SPA investigation have been reported, citing your name. Further, a complaint has been filed to Wikipedia head office naming an identity believed to be yours. That is why your edits have been reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newfsecuritygirl (talk • contribs) 01:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have never edited this person's wikipedia page before here nor have I ever posted about them in any other forum. However, a little Google time and your name came up as . . a sock account. A known sock account. Will provide detail in claim. Hoary, feel free to email me CammieD (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the invitation to email you, but I shan't be emailing either of you, and shan't reply to any email that I might receive. If either of you would just like to argue with the other, you're free do so on either or both of your own user talk pages (although I recommend that you don't). If on the other hand you'd like to do so in order to persuade others (e.g. me), Talk:Rachel Marsden is on my watchlist and that's the appropriate place for it. Arguments there should of course be polite, reasoned, and based on reliable sources. Anyway, no more discussion here about this article (let alone its subject). -- Hoary (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rachel_Marsden#Message_from_the_article_subject_.28Rachel_Marsden.29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.132.58.181 (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for the diligent work and careful assessment on Rachel Marsden. That's a helluva landmine. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, O alarmingly named Pen! With this pair of edits, I'm done thereabouts for now. -- Hoary (talk) 06:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

PS Three editors (so far) are involved here and I cannot see how (i) simple words can mean more or less the same to all three of them and (ii) all three can be sane. I'm willing to entertain the notion that just one of the three is insane and that this one person is me. Anyway, I don't see how a rational discussion is possible. Thank you again, Doom, but I think it's time to take the article off my watchlist. -- Hoary (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hoary! Have a gander at this page: Mini Constitution of Ukraine. Look OKish, not terribly notable, but try to follow any of the citations, and they are almost all dead in some way or other. This one: http://www.golos.com.ua/Article.aspx?id=229406 does appear to be a page in Ukrainian about the subject, and it might well be a real newspaper. But the bottom line is the whole page looks rather like advertising. Should I: add templates demanding real references? (How do I find the right template?!) Propose deletion? (How again?) Or just leave it. There is worse... Imaginatorium (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Umm . . . how about first asking at WikiProject Ukraine and seeing if anyone's inspired to defend its significance, or, better, to demonstrate its significance? If nobody is, then one can think again. -- Hoary (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've been working on an awards page for Jackie Chan based on Arnold Schwarzenegger's separate awards page. It's not finished, but the bulk of it is on my sandbox page. If you have a moment, could you look at it and let me know if the tables look okay? I am adding citations, a few quotes and looking for a picture, but the tables are complete. I hope to submit it as a new page to help clean up the Jackie Chan bio page. Any feedback would be great CammieD (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Here? Looks good, even though (as you concede) still undersourced. However, I've only looked at it very quickly. I have to attend to other (WP-unrelated) business, but I'll look at it more closely and get back to you within 24 hours. -- Hoary (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

No rush - I'm slowly filling in the citations as I can find them. It's slow going and I know you have a lot of other stuff to pay attention to. Will flag you when I think it is closer to done CammieD (talk) 04:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've just made two changes. First, I've made two identical references into one. (Easier to show you by example than to look for the instructions and point you towards them.) Secondly, I've commented out the categories. WP frowns on adding to article categories anything that isn't (yet) an article. When this is turned into an article (or, in the jargon, "moved into mainspace/article-space"), simply remove the "<!--" and "-->", and this will, um, de-commentify them.

Except that the result will be redlinked to the nonexistent category for Jackie Chan (unless you've already created this category). Another thing that WP frowns on is links to categories that, no matter how valuable they'd be, don't exist. Make the category (if it's warranted); then link to it.

The way to create the category is in accordance with similar categories that already exist. Make as if to edit Category:Bruce Lee, copy its content; paste it into Category:Jackie Chan; change "Lee" to "Chan" and "Bruce" to "Jackie"; change "Category:Wikipedia categories named after American people" to "Category:Wikipedia categories named after Hong Kong people" -- oh no, wait: the latter doesn't exist (under any name) and should perhaps be instead "Category:Wikipedia categories named after people from Hong Kong"; so you see how creating categories tends to involve some creation of yet more categories. Anyway, plan this before embarking on it; and if you're not pretty certain that you're doing the right thing, forget it, as misbegotten categories can't be renamed and instead must be deleted.

It really needs a lot more sourcing before release. Lucky that you say you enjoy this activity!

Ideally Nominated (with Choi Jun Young, Wang Zhong Yan, Heeseon Kim) (as an example) should instead be Nominated (with Choi Jun Young, Wang Zhong Yan, Heeseon Kim), or anyway for whichever of these people are bluelinked -- ah, none of them is. Oh dear.

Otherwise, good! -- Hoary (talk) 07:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hoary. I haven't been a regular here for ages... but I saw this in my local rag today, and thought of you. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 15:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Education/Education-news/As-its-revealed-Cambridge-has-among-lowest-proportion-of-residents-without-qualifications-in-country-meet-Dr-Ashoka-Jahnavi-Prasad-Jr-the-man-with-19-degrees-and-PhDs-20140317064512.htm

How very extraordinary! Could this remarkable person be somehow related to the one whose name has been heard in the most eminent circles in Canada (see p.13 of this, also reproduced here) and Australia (here on ABC) as well as Britain (here in the BMJ)?

A careful reading of the relevant part ("Ashoka Jahnavi-Prasad") of this prompts a simple answer: yes.

Time to take up one of the invitations here, perhaps?

Anyway, do please stick around a bit, because I have a hunch that we'll soon see curiously familiar-looking SPAs making claims for this person, now that his eminence and intellect have been recognized by a Cambridge publication. -- Hoary (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tomas van Houtryve may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• photographer. In 2003 he quit working for [[Associated Press]] and concentrated on the Maoist rebel]]lion in Nepal. The photos of the Maoists brought him a world recognition and Visa pour l'Image-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hiroshi Hamaya may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *''Hamaya Hiroshi-shū'' ({{nihongo2|濱谷浩集}}). Chikuma Foto Gyararī ({{Nihongo2|筑摩フォト・ギャラリー}}. Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō, 1971.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

It's great to see the fruits of your sleuthing, adding in so many details to the Martin Parr books, filling in the blanks, and adding descriptions that help people understand what the books are about. I think that one of your edits changed the fact that 'columns-list|2|' in the Monographs section now causes just a '2' to display rather than the list of books. I have tried to find why it is doing this but can't see any odd characters in the body text. I've temporarily removed the 2 columns, can you see what's wrong please? - Lopifalko (talk)

Diagnosed (thank you for mentioning "odd characters" and thus stimulating a synapse or two), fixed, and mentioned. -- Hoary (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks but virtually all of it is merely digging around within Worldcat: what are intended as mere five-minute breaks (though they tend to stretch) from the WP-unrelated work I'm supposed to be doing.

The fix (thanks to Edokter) is to convert any instance of "=" within the list to "{{=}}".

A number of the books (and booklets, and mere pamphlets, and postcard collections) clearly aren't monographs as I vaguely understand this impressive-sounding (but perhaps not so meaningful) term. There'll have to be rearranging. But then I suspect that the categories will lead to separations that will either confuse or require laborious linking (e.g. "For the set of postcards that shares this title see [link]"). I also rather wonder about such material as "Parr/Nazraeli Edition of Ten". I have one of the ten myself, but it's not with me right now. When I next see it I'll try to find out from it just what Parr's contribution to it was.

(I'm pretty sure that Nazraeli guesses that the labeling will add to the books' appeal to potential buyers; and such branding is itself potentially encyclopedic. ["In the 21st century, photobook publishers became aware of potential buyers' befuddlement in the face of increasing numbers of photobooks of increasingly elliptical content, and employed the approval of such eminences as Badger and Parr as a marketing element."] But at this point this is mere "original research" and thus unusable.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes I saw the edits coming in for "=" and "{{=}}".

I've not been much aware of the Parr/Nazraeli Edition of Ten. I guess you're right about the Parr name rubbing off on them, but having a brief look at the topic now, they do appear to be photographers he has been championing anyway. I'm finding from my research here that nepotism is endemic in the arts. I believe that as editors we have to feel for the line between capitalistic nepotism and that which is acceptable and expected as people bring attention to their friends - look at the in-bed-edness of The Guardian and the artists it covers, for example.

But I digress, maybe they're not worth including if he happens to have only written the introduction. -Lopifalko (talk)

Do you have an opinion on what we standardise on naming photographers' books sections? I prefer that we separate sections of books of photographs from other books so that it helps people understand that side of their work. I don't like Bibliography; I was impressed when I recently found the word Monographs but perhaps you're correct it is meaningless; I like Photobooks as it is less pretentious and ties into the WP article on photobooks.- Lopifalko (talk)

I don't normally use the word "monograph" myself, but I'd thought that it meant a book -- in the context of photography, a photobook -- that set out to do or show something in particular. Parr is a complicated case, but if we look at Mary Ellen Mark then Ward 81, Falkland Road, Steetwise, Indian Circus and others would be among her monographs but Mary Ellen Mark: 25 Years and The Photo Essay wouldn't be -- or so I'd have thought. For what the OED is worth here, it gives one totally irrelevant meaning plus (A) a detailed written study of a single specialized topic (distinguished from general studies in which the topic is dealt with as part of a wider subject) and (B) Any non-serial publication; a work in one volume or in a small number of volumes. Meaning (A) would rule out, say, the 1980s exhibition catalogues (as I imagine them from my knowledge of other catalogues of the same period; very different from the catalogues of today); it would rule out much else, too. Meaning (B) would of course subsume such things as "Parr/Badger" (viewed not in separate volumes but as a three-volume set) and various novelty items, ahem, bibliographic exotica. Even if you and I agreed on what we meant by "monograph", others would be fully within their rights (backed up by this or that within the OED) to disagree. So I suggest doing away with it as a classification.

What's the best thing to take its place? I don't yet have a clear idea. In other articles, I generally just divide between "books by" [ignoring introductions and similar by others] and "books with contributions by"; but these are about people who publish less prolifically.* I'd agree that this isn't best for Parr.

(*And no I am not going to list the books by Araki. There are already at least two sizable books devoted to his books.)

I thought I'd make sporadic improvements to the lists more or less as they are, hoping that during the process a better system would occur to one of us (or of course to somebody else).

I'm looking at Peter Mitchell's Strangely Familiar. It has a short and interesting memoir/preface (titled "Peter Mitchell") by Parr. The colophon refers to this as a (capitalized) "Introduction". Michell's acknowledgements (titled "Praise") appear in the back:

Many friends and colleagues have got me through the years and like Martin Parr, provided a sense of encouragement and continuity via the alchemy of photography and myriads of other things. Chris Pichler and his Nazraeli Press are publishing this book and I am deeply pleased to be working with Chris and Martin. Exciting it is!

And then a long list of people, and a shorter list of organizations, who've helped. That's all I know. It's not obvious to me that we should be listing this book or that we shouldn't be. For now, let's continue to list it and its six predecessors. -- Hoary (talk) 10:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to bother you again, Hoary -- on the page above you may see that an IP has repeatedly added unsupported (and highly implausible) claims of someone called Neil Novilla (etc) to be a writer of this Japanese manga. Of course there is no mention in the ja:wp article, nor any trace in Japanese of this claim. I removed them all; he puts them back. OK, what should I do now? I see a number of other dubious/vandalistic contributions in the IP history... Imaginatorium (talk) 07:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I reverted the latest set of edits, put the article on my watchlist, and left the IP a message. -- Hoary (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ken Grant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Everton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paul Reas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tommy Harris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I would like to get the COI tag removed from John Paul Morrison article - how do I go about doing this? I have made some changes, and removed stuff that seemed to bother AfadsBad - I also asked him/her what I should do, but no answer yet! Help would be appreciated. Jpaulm (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've repled here. -- Hoary (talk) 06:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oskar Barnack Award, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vietnam veterans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prix Pictet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boris Mikhailov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hoary,

Thanks for your comments on the TJC Afd2 page.

The non-trivial statement that is currently one of the largest Christian groups in China and Taiwan is not to say that TJC is currently the largest chinese Christian group in China but rather it is "one of the largest". In Taiwan it is the currently the third largest (after the Presbyteran Church and the Little Flock).

The fact that the TJC was one of the largest independent Chinese Christian groups Pre-1949 is verifiable (see these books). In fact, by 1949 out of a total of 500,000 baptized Chinese Protestant Christians, approximately 120,000 were TJC members (ie. 24%). Today there are estimated to be at least 3 million TJC members ([1]) in China. This would comprise around one-tenth of the total Chinese protestant Christian of between 30-40 million.

The reason why the TJC US-based website states an 'official' membership of 1.5 million [2] is due to the fact that the TJC in China today is not under a single unified leadership structure (similar to that of the Northern Baptists and Southern Baptists). The 'Northern TJC' has around 70,000 adherents and is under the leadership of the Wei Family, the 'Southern TJC' has 1.5 million adherents. There is also a TJC third group located in the interior western Chinese provinces with membership of between 1 million to 1.5 million under a different leadership. In total these three groups add up to approx. 3 million and all use the name chinese name for True Jesus Church ([3]). --Jose77 (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your good work--I know I left it without doing all the necessary improvements. DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your kind words, but your instincts may well have been right. I'm not sure that the article should exist. Next to nothing about Wei is both notable and sourced; rather, what notability he has derives from his position as head of a company. Yet the company itself has never had an article. -- Hoary (talk) 07:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

PS This edit pushes me in the direction of nominating the sorry thing for deletion. -- Hoary (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

This looks exciting: Wikipedia:BNA. -Lopifalko (talk)

It does indeed. Thank you for the tip. I'm sure I would find it useful in some way. I'm also sure that I just wouldn't have time to make much use of it. (After all, I virtually never use "Lexis Nexus" or whatever it's called, even though I have free access to that. Ditto for some Japanese-language databases.) If a couple of hundred accounts were on offer, I'd apply for one; as it is, I'm sure that others are more deserving of an account than I am. -- Hoary (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

It was only for newspaper articles up to the 1950s anyway. -Lopifalko (talk)

Oh well. ¶ On Brits in colour, have you seen Bob Mazzer's photos? (There's also a video at theguardian.com.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi- I wanted to volunteer to recreate the Jubilee USA page. I can provide plenty of impartial material. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia. Jubilee USA is definitely a legitimate organization that has been all over the news this week (NPR, WashPost, etc) so they should have a page that's up. I appreciate your help. Thanks, AndyAndrewHanauer (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello and thank you for asking. The name "Jubilee USA" was unfamiliar to me, but on examination I rediscovered AfD/Jubilee USA Network and my participation there.

I suggest that you:

1. Create the article in a subpage in your own "user space", for example at User:AndrewHanauer/Jubilee USA. If you simply click on that red link and write something there, you'll thereby create the article.
2. Work on the article so that it meets Wikipedia's requirements for neutrality, reliable sourcing, etc. (But either don't add categories, or comment out the categories. And if you don't know what "categories" are, then don't worry about them.) It doesn't have to be polished/wonderful (although this would of course be appreciated); it just has to be decent.
3. Leave a message at User talk:Ymblanter saying that you've created an article and want it moved to Jubilee USA Network or wherever (because it was Ymblanter who closed the "AfD" process as "delete").
4. If there's no response in a week or so, then leave a message here (User talk:Hoary), saying the same thing.
5. If there's no response in a week or so, my dream of having a summer vacation may have come true; so leave a message at User talk:DGG, saying the same thing (because it was DGG who asked for deletion).

-- Hoary (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! AndrewHanauer (talk) 03:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

PS I don't know why I put my name ahead of DGG's. You should ask him rather than me. If there's no response from either Ymblanter or DGG (which is most unlikely), then ask me. -- Hoary (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again! I did as you suggested and sent it to DGG. YMblanter has an away message (until July 11 or so, I think). Thanks again for all your help! AndrewHanauer (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Mmm-hmm. To show the references, add

to what's now the foot of what you have created. Good luck! -- Hoary (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, DGG hasn't replied, but is replying to other messages. What can I do? Thanks AndrewHanauer (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please be patient for a week or so. DGG is probably thinking about it. He's a busy man. -- Hoary (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

didn't get a chance last night. Hoary gives good advice. Try to avoid using praise, or advocacy for their causes, and focus on what they do that is substantial, using sources from 3rd parties.. Another alternative is to write it as a section of the page for the international organization. Then the problem is only making sure it's not promotional. You'll still need third party sources, only not as many. And, AndrewHay (talk · contribs), though it doesn't normally take me a week, it generally takes me a day or two--I like to first re-read everything and then think about it before I answer, if its anything substantial. DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks so much, sorry to pester. I don't think what I wrote praises or advocates for them, simply states what they do. But I can certainly find praise for them from 3rd party sources. I think they should probably have their own page as the gloabal movement is independently operated in each country. I'll wait to hear back from you about what i wrote. AndrewHanauer (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi- Just checking back in. I'll check in on DGG's talk page too. Thanks! AndrewHanauer (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Here's how your proto-article now starts:

Jubilee USA Network is the American branch of the global Jubilee movement that was founded in the late 1990's to advocate for debt relief for developing countries.

My own first reaction is: "Uh-huh, so this is the American branch of the, uh, what?" You say "global Jubilee movement" (with only the "J" capitalized), so I look not for Global Jubilee Movement (which anyway is redlinked) but instead for Jubilee. The latter is merely a disambiguation page, but none of its options seems relevant.

It is of course possible that what started as the American branch of a movement with global aspirations quickly outstripped/eclipsed the latter. But anyway your protoarticle now looks rather odd. I suggest that you work on it for a few more days. If DGG still doesn't comment, I'll give him a nudge myself. -- Hoary (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I can't speak to why there isn't a wiki page for the global movement, but I know there are Jubilee's in about 50 countries (including UK, Australia, and various European, African versions, etc.) I'll work on it and then let you know. Thanks! AndrewHanauer (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

The global movement is listed under "Jubilee 2000." Here's what i have now, just posted it on DGG's page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AndrewHanauer/Jubilee_USA AndrewHanauer (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've tinkered with your draft and also politely (I hope) prodded DGG. I imagine that you'll hear from him soon. -- Hoary (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Really appreciate it! AndrewHanauer (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

My own view is similar to Hoary's. The problem is distinguishing the information on the US group from the overall organization; normally there would be relatively little fundamental to say, just organizational details, and we customarily do not make such articles. It seems however quite possible that essentially the international group has devolved into a collection of national groups, each of which is distinct enough.--but it might not ne helpful to have articles on all 50 of them. It would help to have very clear referencing on this part, with a good short sourced quotation from among the references.. At present the connect with the biblical Jubilee Year is clearer in the US article than on Jubilee 2000, but this may be due just to lack of clarity in the main article. I don't think that I or any one of us should be the one to judge, and one logical thing to do at this point is to move the article to mainspace. It has a decent chance of passing afd, which is the key criterion for doing this. What will happen there is impossible to accurately predict.

But my earlier recommendation still holds: the safest course is to add this as a section to the article on Jubilee 2000, and make a redirect. ( My guess is that this might well be the outcome of an afd, in any case ). DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I'd second this: Unless you have a good reason to do otherwise, add your draft as a section to the article on Jubilee 2000. As for the "make a redirect" part of DGG's advice, the nitty gritty is that you make an entry for "Jubilee USA" that is to Jubilee 2000 pretty much what Leica European Publishers Award for Photography is to European Publishers Award for Photography. Here is how to do this. (If you have any trouble following the recipe, let me know and I'll make the redirect for you.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks both of you for everything. I do have to disagree...the US organization is 100% its own org. Jubilee 2000 was a movement that spawned organizations all over the world. Some are more active than others. Not every one is called "Jubilee ETC." And it seems to me that each one should have its own page on the merits of its actions. Given the media coverage Jubilee USA gets, it seems it should have its own page. But also I realize I wrote a very short piece just to get the ball rolling. I could expand it more if that would help get it up as its own page. But in the meantime, I'll add it as you suggested and look into the mainspace aspect. Thanks! AndrewHanauer (talk) 04:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I want to re-emphasize that this is not a branch of a global movement. My first sentence was worded badly in that way and I'm rewording it. There's a global network but each section is independent. There's no reason this org shouldn't have its own page: here are 4 organizations that have their own page that are in similar situations: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace_USA

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Conference_of_Catholic_Bishops

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_the_Earth_(US)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActionAid_Australia

Here's my slightly modified draft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AndrewHanauer/Jubilee_USA Since you all authorized this to be deleted, I feel you should be able to put it back up. Thanks for all your help, AndrewHanauer (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AndrewHanauer/Jubilee_USAReply

Done! (If hamfistedly. I really shouldn't attempt page moves before 09:00.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

THANK YOU! I'll make sure this article grows too, and continues to be objective. I can't thank you and DGG enough for your help. AndrewHanauer (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad to have helped, and only sorry that this business dragged on for almost one month. All the best editing this and other articles. -- Hoary (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks again for all your help! The page is being nominated for deletion again, and I'm wondering if you have any advice? I am overhauling it and adding a lot more info. I was always planning on doing that, but didn't know I'd need to do it so fast!! AndrewHanauer (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Homer Sykes may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "<>"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• de la Photographie Robert Doisneau]", Actuphoto, 11 April 2014. {{Fr icon}} Accessed 9 July 2014. (''La réunion de plusieurs personnages dans un même cadre caractérise la plupart des photographies d'
• uns avec les autres dans un contexte donné qui définit la scène. Elles ne parlent pas de moi)".''></ref></blockquote>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry that User:Ponyo is not contribute for a while, I actual request for him/her to block multiple IPs. I just found out IP's has new account Special:Contributions/Mr. LuxeTH, started in January, most recent Paramore, was the same edit as Under My Skin and Avril Lavigne album. And also another IP Special:Contributions/95.105.28.11 has only one edit, was similar edit pattern. 183.171.171.136 (talk) 07:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

92.222.153.153 (talk · contribs) and as 62.244.31.16 (talk · contribs) and now as 190.39.66.185 (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly adding personal attacks. currenty here. I wouldn't be surprise by another fast IP change and return if blocked. Would you be willing to impart temporary semi-protection to Talk:Operation Protective Edge? Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 08:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I was going to do this anyway, but thank you for the nudge. -- Hoary (talk) 08:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Now maybe I can get some real work done. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I just saw your comments on my nomination for deleting Mark Erelli. There was no need for your condescending comments. If you feel that an article in the Huffington Post (not a real newspaper) makes someone notable that's your business, try to maintain an adult mature conversation. Your comment that I need to "email someone" to find out if he's notable makes no sense. If someone is notable, I don't think you need to go around asking someone if he is notable. Bansal (talk) 05:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Oh but Bansal, my comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Erelli were mild. How about this recent comment elsewhere? Thank you for your sage advice: I shall try to behave myself. As it happens, I have my own doubts about HuffPo. It sometimes seems to have the vapidity of dailymail.co.uk (if not its xenophobia). However, memories of whether or not one's acquaintances have happened to mention a person aren't adequate. I'd like to think that I'm fairly well informed about photography, but I not infrequently come across somebody who's fairly eminent but whose name is new to me. A recent example: Xavier Miserachs. For all I know, none of my acquaintances have heard of him either -- but he's pretty eminent all the same, and I possess a copy of an exhibition catalogue that will prove it. What's your own area of special interest? -- Hoary (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

This is why Wikipedia is turning into a joke and losing editors. A few hardcore fans can get together and essentially create a fan page for an otherwise unknown musician. You belittle anyone who isn't a frequent editor. So you can sarcastically thank me for my sage advice, but you could have stated your case without the condescension, it may not make you feel as good about yourself, but it is ultimately better for Wikipedia. Bansal (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

A few hardcore fans can get together and essentially create a fan page for an otherwise unknown musician. If you're talking about Mark Erelli, then its history suggests that the article you nominated for deletion was essentially created by one ID, Kmzundel. I don't know (or much care) whether or not Kmzundel is a "hardcore fan"; Kmzundel's user page and contribution history suggest Kmzundel is enthusiastic about folk music by a number of people. Do you have any objection to this? ¶ You belittle anyone who isn't a frequent editor. I do? ¶ This is why Wikipedia is turning into a joke and losing editors. It would be extraordinary if Wikipedia didn't lose editors. It gains some; it loses some. Among the excellent editors I've known who've disappeared (Jkelly, KP Botany, Geogre, ...) I can't think of any who have blamed fan pages created by hardcore fans. (Can you name some worthwhile editors who have left for this reason?) And Wikipedia has been a joke since before your first edit. -- Hoary (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Hoary for understanding that I *am* passionate about folk music and, as a matter of course, am interested in maintaining articles that I have poured my time and energy into. On my user page you may have also noted that I am a librarian, having worked in the profession for 30 years. That said, I think I am qualified to say that I am a expert searcher and that I always try to add reliable sources. My entire raison d'etre is to make any article that I touch better while providing a neutral point of view. It's unfounded and puzzling (there are so many other articles in need of attention) actions like Bansal's that wear me down and cause me - at times - to question why I continue here. But, again, as my user page says, this is one way that I am able to support the music that I love. Kmzundel (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Glad to show appreciation where it's merited, as it is here. And Wikipedia aside, I always appreciate the work of librarians, who I imagine get a lot of back-seat driving by members of the public. (Give me an hour to roam your library, and I'm sure that I could find a book that I could credibly argue should have been given a different and more appropriate Dewey/Bliss/whatever number. But so intercoursing what? Any educated and reasonably intelligent person should be able to classify some books properly; classifying tens of thousands while doing many other chores, responding politely to a bizarre range of questions and requests, keeping the place running, and staving off attempts to cut the budget -- now that requires skill.) I've often seen claims that the slowing down of growth of WP is simply because there's little of significance left over to be added. Even if we limit ourself to recent events and persons in the anglosphere, this strikes me as utterly wrong. WP still has no article on Thurston Hopkins. Etc etc. Happy editing! -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is losing more editors than it is gaining, it is a known problem. In any case you may want to check out Wikipedia:Civility, it seems that you never got around to reading it. Bansal (talk) 03:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Bansal, let's accept that Wikipedia is losing contributors. And since there are many of them, I imagine that there are many reasons, and wouldn't be surprised if among these were a perception that "A few hardcore fans can get together and essentially create a fan page for an otherwise unknown musician." Now, do you have any evidence that this reason is important? And do you have any evidence that the article Mark Erelli, in the state it was in when you took it to AfD, was a fan page created by hardcore fans? -- Hoary (talk) 04:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Oh but Hoary, it's all subjective. I can say Wikipedia should only promote encyclopedic content and not unknown starving artists who need kickstarter campaigns to finance their albums, you can disagree. Obviously I don't know the people who created the page personally, but logic would seem dictate that nobody else would care enough about this guy to donate their time for free to create and maintain a page for someone like Mark Erelli. I can say that more editors with their additional viewpoints is better for Wikipedia, you can state that a few supposedly high quality like minded people would create a superior result. I guess the question is this, does the fact that you don't care if Wikipedia is hemorrhaging editors and keeping junk articles excuse your incivility? Is that the ultimate point you are trying make? Bansal (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Are you saying that Erelli is an unknown starving artist? (He's known. The article has sources, which we can assume have been read by a non-negligible percentage of the sources' readership. The fact that neither you nor I had heard of him is unimportant.) ¶ Are you suggesting that only the insignificant resort to Kickstarter or similar? (Wrongo. As just one example among many, Larry Fink's most recent book, Kindred Spirits, was crowdsourced crowdfunded.) ¶ When you say that Obviously I don't know the people who created the page personally, but logic would seem dictate that nobody else would care enough about this guy to donate their time for free to create and maintain a page for someone like Mark Erelli, please take the trouble to look in the history of the article as it is now, and the lists of contributions of the relevant editors. If you then see good evidence of paid editing or similar, bring up the matter at the Conflict of interest noticeboard; if you don't see this, I suggest that you keep quiet. ¶ I don't need an ultimate point. I'm merely viewing with mild curiosity the remarks of some person who has chosen to write comments on my user talk page about the risk of turning editors away but whose most substantial contribution to Wikipedia in one entire year seems to have been the addition of a single sentence to one article. But I'm most surprised at your inability to take your own excellent advice about acknowledging mistakes. ¶ Your AfD nomination was ill-judged and ill-phrased. Nothing much wrong with that; certainly I've done the same in my time. But once the "keep" comments rolled in, instead of a discreet silence (let alone backtracking, or bringing forth a new argument) you added the bizarre claim "I don't know anyone who has heard of him", apparently in all seriousness. Perhaps you know very few people, perhaps you know a lot and spent a lot of time asking them all about Erelli; more likely it was somewhere between those two extremes (one pitiable, one laughable); most likely it was little more than fiction. Even if true the claim would be insignificant. (I'd wager that I know nobody who has more than the most rudimentary knowledge of the history of Suriname. Even if I were somehow shown to be right, this would be no argument against the encyclopedia-worthiness of Surinamese history.) ¶ Suggestion: stop moaning and instead try adding intelligent, sourced material to an article. -- Hoary (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC) One word corrected 08:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Again it is a matter of opinion, you can cling to the opinion that he is notable, I am unconvinced that a notable artist would need raise $20,000 to produce an album. I will admit I could have done a better job arguing my position. Will you admit your behavior was uncivil and actually make an effort to adhere to Wikipedia:Civility? -Bansal (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Bansal, since you had never heard of Mark Erelli (and therefore wouldn't have done a search for him), I admit to being very curious to know how you happened upon his page. I'm thinking something must have linked to his page....and I am just wondering what that might have been. Thank you for your time and consideration in answering. Kmzundel (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Kmzundel I honestly don't remember, it was most likely a link from another Wikipedia article. In any case I appreciate that you are passionate about his music, and I obviously lost so I'm not going to argue his notability, there is not really any point in doing so any longer. All I want is for the culture of Wikipedia to change, certain editors think they are superior and thus can behave in any way they choose. I hope Hoary can own up to his incivility, and try to behave with civility in the future. Bansal (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I admit my behavior was uncivil and shall actually make an effort to adhere to Wikipedia:Civility. ¶ Bansal, your ideas about crowdfunding, as I infer them, seem outdated. Crowdfunding is widely used by/for people whose work is judged significant. Conspicuous examples include Rob Hornstra (usually with Arnold van Bruggen); the many inconspicuous examples include Bruce Gilden (Kickstarter) and Rory MacLean and Nick Danziger (Unbound). My own examples here are for what are termed "photobooks" (with greatly varying quantities of text); you of course are under no obligation to have any interest in either these or in folk music. But I wonder whether you have an interest in any of the arts (aside from film and TV, in which large corporations are important): my impression is that crowdfunding is becoming conspicuous and even important in most of them. -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Hoary for your admission. I think my mistake was viewing him in the context of a more mainstream musician and not as a musician in the relatively small folk musician niche. Perhaps in that niche he is notable, although his overall footprint is still very small indeed, and as such I still question whether or not he deserves an article. In any case as stated earlier I've lost that argument (and I again admit I did a very poor job of arguing my side, should I ever nominate an article again I will do better), so I guess there is no need to argue that point any further. Bansal (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well, AfDs can have their attractions. Many's the time I've been tempted to nominate dozens of articles, because it's been stunningly obvious to me that their subject matter is nugatory. But I resist the temptation. Sometimes, on later reflection, I still think I was right. (While WP isn't paper, it also isn't toilet paper.) But if groups of people want groups of articles about their fictional "universes", let them. And often I later realize that I simply don't know anywhere near enough about the subject area to be able to judge. For one reason or another, my AfDs are becoming fewer. Sometimes I'm persuasive (example). Sometimes I'm not (example). Sometimes I'm blown over by the strength of the opposition (example). More often than not I still end up sure that I was and am in the right, but the sky doesn't fall. ¶ Meanwhile, how about an article? Just today I discovered "Linguistic development of Genie". It has a lot of oddities with which I could (and some day may) quibble. (Example: "acquisition of basic grammar and syntax"; I'm unacquainted with any conception of grammar or syntax whereby the former doesn't include the latter; should this perhaps be simply "acquisition of basic grammar"?) But when I eyeball it from more than mere millimetres away, it's a stunning piece of work. More so when one realizes that (together with much of its "parent" article) it's all by a single author (The Blade of the Northern Lights). -- Hoary (talk) 08:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

(Your linking to my username lit up my notifications) First of all I'm glad the articles look good to you, although I'm still putting finishing touches on both. If I may, grammar and syntax are related but different concepts. Syntax is how the way in which words are ordered, and how one constructs different types of sentences, such as declarative, interrogative, accusative, etc. Grammar has to do with inflections, tense, gender, the person (1st, 2nd, or 3rd) and other such things. For instance, the grammar of the sentence "I am alone" would be conjugating the verb to the 3rd person, while the syntax is what makes it a declarative sentence. The sentence would be ungrammatical but still declarative if it read "I are alone", and vice versa if it read "Am I alone?". Outside the field of linguistics people use the term grammar to cover syntax, but they're not synonymous. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you; but replied here. -- Hoary (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your contributions to the RfC on Ja:MOS (or whatever it's called). So it seems we have got rid of unnecessary ken names, but not resolved the subject problem, which actually strikes me as a bigger one. How should I (we) go about starting another (oh dear, what a frightening word) discussion on how to disambiguate so-called cities of the form X-ken X-shi? Do you have any feel for how odd/normal the reduplicated form appears to Americans? Imaginatorium (talk) 10:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

"Nara", "Nara, Nara", "Nara (Nara)", "Nara City", "Nara city", "Nara-shi"; versus "Nara", "Nara Prefecture", "Nara prefecture", "Nara-ken"? I think I need more caffeine before starting to think about this.

The Americans . . . they have "New York, New York", but "Kansas City, Kansas". I'd ignore north America and instead look at Japan's neighbours. If I were wider awake, that is.

(Just yesterday the geographical component of a conversation about San Diego made no sense to me until I suddenly realized that there must be an additional "Ontario" in California.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I suppose the 도 (道) of South Korea are fairly close to the 県 of Japan. For the former we have "Gyeonggi Province" for example. "Nara Prefecture" seems close -- and it's what we already have. "Osaka" and "Osaka Prefecture" (let's ignore the macron for now) and "Aomori Prefecture" could stay as they are, and "Aomori, Aomori" could either become "Aomori City" (as it's not the "Aomori" one first thinks of) or remain "Aomori, Aomori" because this is what the inscrutable Nuyoricans sorry I mean New Yorkers (but not Kansans) like, plus it amuses me. How am I doing so far? What do you think? -- Hoary (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think you're right on all points and, on reconsideration, have removed the self-published material entirely. I also found some appalling POV statements that had to go. I may start an AfD. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Fine. (Incidentally, an AfD wouldn't have any input from me for the next couple of weeks.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Actually an FT article says that he is prominent in Chinese reverse mergers, so he might squeak through. Also I've confirmed at RS/N that Law360 is a valid source for the sex harassment suit. I will add stuff from that article and from the FT article, and take out any remaining self-pub stuff that is promotional or questionable. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

He has also received coverage in Barron's and The Wall Street Journal. Unquestionably notable. What's striking is how very little from his extensive press coverage is in the article while much marginal and self-published material is in there. Hope you're having a good wiki-holiday! Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the good wishes. Yes, I had a good time. (The only trouble was that it didn't last long enough.) ¶ Wey's notability ... he (or his company, or somebody) certainly puts a lot of effort into publicizing him(self). I don't want to call this immodesty, so let me just say that "THE SAINT OF WALL STREET, JOURNALIST, FINANCIER" (his capitals, my italics) on his blog exemplifies an unusual rhetorical style. -- Hoary (talk) 10:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I see there's been a bit of change to the article since I last looked in. Also another sock has materialized. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I would be interested in your comments on the Debito Arudou talk page regarding what appears to be an indiscriminate list of Arudou's academic publications given prominence in the article. He received his doctorate in International Studies earlier this year. Two editors have made a little fuss over this new credential, by not only mentioning it in the article (which is fine, of course) but also giving it its own section, despite virtually no third-party reliable sources covering his work in this area. How do other BLP's handle the issue of a subject notable for one activity such as activism writing occasional academic publications? Is there an "undue weight" issue? Arudou is not a professor of international studies. He does not teach this subject at any university, as far as I'm aware. In terms of academic citations, both Google Scholar and JSTOR suggest that his work in this area is not recognized very much at all (the occasional citation by one or two authors here and there). Does any of that matter for a list of publications? Just curious. I'm not sure if this also means we're allowed (or supposed to) list every newspaper article he ever wrote, too? I'm genuinely puzzled on what the procedures on Wikipedia are for determining this. 38.126.120.10 (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've commented on the talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 10:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Drik picture library may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• in the early nineties. It also set up Banglarights,<ref group="n">The website of Banglarights is [[http://www.banglarights.net/index.htm here].</ref> the Bangladesh Human Rights Network, and
• </ref> the Bangladesh Human Rights Network, and DrikNews,<ref group="n">The website of DrikNews is [[http://www.driknews.com/ here].</ref> independent news that extensively uses [[citizen journalism]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I hope you didn't take this as intended towards you personally. It was simply a note regarding my own experiences in editing that page for the last several weeks. Best regards, LHM^{ask me a question} 15:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Actually that interpretation hadn't occurred to me, not least because I have no memory of having ever edited Landmark Worldwide. [A few minutes later:] Unusually, my memory turns out not to be at fault here. (The usersearch tool is rather interesting. I was sure that I had edited the article I'm Dysfunctional, You're Dysfunctional, but usersearch tells me that all I've done to it is make a single, trivial edit.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad to hear that. From the conversation there, I was afraid that perhaps my intent had been misunderstood. (I'm going to have to fiddle with that usersearch tool now.) LHM^{ask me a question} 23:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

FYI. Horacio Cambeiro is back and has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horacio Cambeiro (2nd nomination) duffbeerforme (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

You were a discussant at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Cloutier which (somewhat strangely) closed as a delete with 5 delete and 4 keep responses. The article has since been recreated through the WP:AFC process and a speedy deletion was contested. Thus, I call your attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Cloutier (2nd nomination).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hoary! Another request for fatherly advice.

A user apparently in Sri Lanka Shevonsilva is submitting a flood of articles on "units" - one of the more hilarious of which is UK and US counting units. He is not susceptible to reason, reverting PRODs and all that sort of thing. Every article he writes is sourced from the same book by one Cardarelli, which appears to be a junk-level offering from the (European) Springer money mill, costing 153 pounds at amazon.uk. Of course I do not have a "source" showing that this is a junk book, I deduce it from the huge number of errors (Baker's dozen = 23/13 dozen for example), and obviously ridiculous "scientific units" like dash, spoonful, breakfast cupful, botella (Asturian for "bottle"), all of which have precise metric equivalents, but no actual information at all. Is it appropriate to write a critique of this book (without shelling out the ransom, of course) in my user space, and cite this in AfDs and the like? Imaginatorium (talk) 05:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hah! That book sounds very familiar. I believe that I bought a copy over a decade ago (when it didn't cost so much), and immediately noticed errors ... and more errors ... and pretty soon I realized that it was bristling with errors. A Japanese (-language) book of similar size and with similar ambitions made a vivid contrast: wherever I noticed that the books disagreed with each other (which was often) and bothered to pursue the matter, the Japanese book was right and the Springer book wrong. And yes, the book I had (have) was full of bogus precision.

Yes, you can write an essay about the book in your userspace, and cite this. The risk, of course, is that you come off as having some sort of obsession with the book, to the point where readers may wonder if it's you that's unhinged, and may sympathize with the author and/or publisher. So be polite, and work to avoid hints of sarcasm. The tone must be one of regret, even sympathy.

Incidentally, yes, Springer is certainly capable of putting out academic publications that (in view of the constraints that I have just mentioned) I can only call remarkable. May I draw your attention to Advanced in Computer Science and Its Applications (RRP US$469). -- Hoary (talk) 08:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, got it: Cardarelli, Scientific Unit Conversion, Springer, 1996. (My copy was bought from Kinokuniya for ¥5494.) It's a translation into English from a book of unspecified title/language. There's a vast amount of (mis)information in this book, far too much for any one person to master. Springer should have had it checked, though the checking process would have taken a huge amount of time and money. (The other book I have is 小泉袈裟勝 (Koizumi Kesakatsu)、『単位の辞典』 4th ed, 1981, reprinted 1996, ¥2884.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

But the bizarre material on display here seems not to appear in the earlier version (ISBN 3-540-76022-9) of Cardarelli's book. If this has any mention of dozens, scores and so forth, then I can't find it. (The closest thing is a section in the appendix, obsolete now and I suspect even in 1996, on the definitions of "billion", "trillion", "milliard" and so on.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

But (ah, I'm getting the hang of this wikisyntax) why on earth would Springer pay a copyeditor when they can just add some padding and dandify the title a bit. I'm assuming that basically this is all the same book. Would you mind looking up UKline for me? And what of "Old Japanese units"; are the tables copied from Nelson or what? Imaginatorium (talk) 12:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UKline. -- Hoary (talk) 12:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Surprisingly, Koizumi has his own article (or anyway stub). -- Hoary (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Help! I can never find templates, and I don't know quite what to add to Argentine units of measurement. Bits are so confused I really can't see what is meant: this isn't quite 'fact' (citation needed?), "confused". Look at "Road measures" which might be about railways, and the bit at the bottom about post-metrication. I did track down the Argentina project and ask for help... Imaginatorium (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Something here? -- Hoary (talk) 07:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply