User:Hoary/Archive13

Please do not edit this page

Paul Mowatt - Photographer

Paul Mowatt regularly shows and sells his work through our gallery (Connor contemporary) here in DC, and I was somewhat upset by comments made (which I think stemmed from you, but apologies if this is not the case) recently claiming that he was not "noteworthy" His work has also been published here in the Washington post, and was used in the "century of the designer" exhibition at the Smithsonian institute. (that's how we found him)

From mt last email from him I know that he is currently showing at the "blue flag" gallery in London. And has photograped a series of landscapes of Surrey for the "Petersham collection" in the UK which will be on show at the South bank centre next Spring. (we will be hoping to repeat a percentage of the works here to show for the end of 2008)

He had to give up his Website showcasing his work and his bio due to the interest and intrusion into his family life and his obvious family connections, hence, as little about him as possible is available online for the simple reason that he maintains his privacy and protects his Children.

Many thanks

Caroline

I did not claim that he wasn't noteworthy; I pointed out that the article did not explain how he was noteworthy. My relevant edits are these:

Request for information
pProposal for deletion, in the lack of any assertion of notability
Reversion of readdition of this proposal (its removal had been entirely legitimate)

I stand by all of those edits. The article still says nothing that suggests that PM is noteworthy. Further, a quick (and perhaps overly hasty) look in Google didn't bring up anything that changed my mind. Before receiving this message from you I had therefore planned to propose the article's deletion via "AfD".

Look, the article says little more than that he married, had kids, and takes photos. This could describe my dad and very likely one of your parents too. There's a difference in that it's asserted (without presentation of any evidence) that he shoots fashion, but hundreds of people do that. PM may be a hugely better and more significant photographer than my dad or (sorry) either of your parents, and a notable photographer of fashion to boot. If so, fine: Let's read about it.

If there's no substantive change to the article, I still intend to propose its deletion. However, I shan't rush to do so, in the hope that you will use the time to add verifiable assertions.

You say above that His work has also been published here in the Washington post, and was used in the "century of the designer" exhibition at the Smithsonian institute. Unlike the talk of plans for the future, this talk of what has actually happened is starting to sound interesting. You're very welcome to add this information to the article, citing publicly available sources. -- Hoary 05:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hoary,

I think that it may me that you could check out Jackie Wald at Camera Press, as they are the company that represent his work worldwide, (their office based in London), I don't think you can view the site without passwords, but it may just give you an indication as to whether he is "noteworthy" or not, as you can imagine, you only get into Camera press if you are any good ! and he has been with them for 15 years, most of his portrait work ends up with them ... I don't know, it's tricky, as he recently shut down his website due to a spate of rather personal attacks on him, his work and his Family, something that is currently being investigated by the relevant authorities. He has very little on websites, and most of his work thesedays is either portrait work or "art" pics usually found hanging in galleries, so I think it only fair to say that his fashion work is less and less by his own choice, and therefore harder to find on the web.

I was with him in London the other night, and told him of the changes being made on this Wikipedia, his main concern was not so much about whether or not he is "credible" or "noteworthy" as a photographer, he was more concerned about comments made about his Family life and the effect it has on his Children, and that any comments made are factual and not deliberately "gossipy" or untrue. He is fiercely protective of his children, and as you can imagine they have to put up with a lot of stick about who their Grandmother is, who and how and why they are related to the Queen etc ...... You see, he and his ex wife Marina have brought up their two Children to be as "normal" as possible, without the glare of the media, but unfortunately they both find this impossible due to regular media attention, and now that their Daughter has reached 16 the focus shifts to her and so Ma and Pa are even more protective......

I and my colleagues may be slightly biased as we know him and his ex wife, and I also represent him to clients back in the States, and I therefore can fully appreciate your cynicism, but I do follow what you are saying, and believe in this instance that he deserves no more or no less than he has already had listed on Wikipedia, he himself would not want to be seen up there listed as a photographer with some of his heroes, he wouldn't think he was worthy ! ... but he will, as someone pointed out, always be known, thanks to his contribution for shaking up the stuffy old Royal Family and turning them on their heads ! !

Back to the photography, he would like to point out that whilst he has had various "one man shows" and contributed to numerous "multi" shows, he has not yet had his "own" book published. Editorially he has contributed to many magazines, and is really known for his Black+White pics of celebrities ......

So Hoary, apart from posting you some shots of his work ( the permissable ones ) and you checking out Camera Press, or even emailing them or Richard Kay of the Daily Mail ( a notable Daily national newspaper in England ! ) I can say no more ! ....... Though the one comment you made to a user "Gino" (i think) was that you said that you would "rather know Mr Mowatts photography rather than his connection to the family" is probably one Paul and certainly I would agree with !!!

Best Regards

Caroline

PS : I was trying to edit out some of Mowatt's work which has just started appearing on Wikipedia, unfortunately there is a serious copyright issue with these shots, as there is a dispute with Mowatt and the client (Aertex) over the usage, Mowatt owns copyright and client uses without permission etc ...... But everytime I edit it out for him somebody puts it back ... can you please advise me on that one ? ..... seems strange that as his profile is being discussed for deletion someone is posting segments of his work !

Posted by User:Blowtorch77 in this edit

You raise various questions and it's going to take me some time to deal with them. But the allegation of copyright violation -- I think; it's a little unclear -- needs fast attention. Please see "Copyright problems", which tells you what to do. -- Hoary 02:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If there's independent verification of these one-man shows, you're welcome to have the article mention them. The verification doesn't have to be on the web; it can instead be in printed sources. And although magazine publication of individual photographs doesn't normally merit a mention, a substantial article about Mowatt or series of his works might. Thus for example the (rather scrappy) article here on Tadahiko Hayashi mentions magazine publication.

I'm afraid that I know rather little about the royal family and nothing about Mowatt's effect on it. If there's independent verification for something, it could go in his article. But if I were in his shoes and wanted my kids to grow up out of the sight of the Sun, Mirror, News of the Screws, etc., I'd try to avoid whetting the celeb appetite of the redtop-buying British population and to that end minimize the royalty angle. -- Hoary 09:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul Mowatt

I re-proded his article at the time because I didn't know you were allowed to remove them; I thought neither could be removed until an admin looked them over: it does show in Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace warnings for removing both Proposed deletion and speedy delete, so I was just following what I felt was procedure. HalfShadow 16:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No no, I was just explaining why I did what I did; I was unaware prods could be removed and reverted, since I thought removing it wasn't allowed. I spend most of my time here patrolling. I'm not involved in this beyond that. HalfShadow 03:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

geraldckane: feedback request

Please see the following page in relation to our discussion regarding my survey. user:geraldckane/feedbackrequest I'd appreciate your feedback before I continue my work. --geraldckane 16:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied via email. -- Hoary 05:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy keep?

Yeah, that's unusual. I have some OTRS-admin stuff to do today, so I'll take a look at that ticket as well when I get a chance. Jkelly 16:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Lists of works

As I know you are interested in lists of works, I was wondering if you would comment on List of works by Joseph Priestley at its featured list candidacy. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 18:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It's very good, but yes, I think it could be better. I'll get back to you on this, I hope within a day or two. I'll probably comment in the FLC page or the list's own talk page. -- Hoary 05:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem :)

It was my pleasure ^Ariel♥Gold 11:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Very quick question...

I read somewhere that admins can delete profiles (or block completely... can't remember which) of inappropriate user names? I was just wondering, since I saw you either block or deny an unblock to User talk:Chinese people are arseholes.. those in my school, that is, would it be appropriate to block indefinitely (if he hasn't already been) this user for having an inappropriate username? Apologies if this situation has been dealt with accordingly and/or I am out of place in saying so. All the best. Scarian ^Talk 11:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that it's possible to block a blatantly offensive username. But this particular teen doesn't need the attention. He's yet another sockpuppet of some troll, and he's been banned for being a troll, and he's had his attention-seeking appeal against this dismissed. I'm sure he enjoys any attention he gets, so PDFTT. Anyway, he'll be back within a couple of days with another silly username. -- Hoary 13:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you Hoary for your comments and notes on the Kevin Ayers entry. They were extremely useful and I have hopefully corrected them all. I think the update should have been done offline and reviewed carefully before uploading but full praise to your eagle eyes. I must say with all the edits and purges you suggested it reads way better. Reminds of my favorite English teacher who was a stickler for correct grammar. How I thank him now. Anyway, thanks again for your vigilance and taking the trouble to go through it. ... added at 01:29, 1 August 2007 by Yahoogiddix

Thank you for the thank-you.

I'm not at all sure that I did a good job there. I mean, I'm certain that the great majority of my little comments were justified; but even if they were, posting them wasn't necessarily the best thing to do. The page seemed to have been radically augmented by a fan of Ayers, with rather flowery language and and with increasing emphasis toward an album that hasn't yet been released. Perhaps I should have said this on the article's talk page. If I'd been in a sour mood, I might have added that it looked like a puff for the new album.

I haven't heard anything by the man since one or other (maybe even both) of Diamond Jack and That's what you get (both titles and both cover designs are familiar). It (they) struck me as no more interesting than the stuff then being played on AM radio. I think I flogged it (them) to a used record store at the earliest opportunity and quickly took whatever little money I was offered. Yes, Ayers can be pretty bad. At its best, though, his stuff is wonderful. He deserves a good article. But if he gets something that looks like advertising, somebody will (rightly) delete it, and then he'll have no article at all.

The article is better now (or the last time I looked at it). But it still has major problems. For example, you can't say that somebody ran off with somebody else's wife unless this has been reported by a reputable news source (and preferably more than one): it's potentially libelous. And if there are sources, you have to specify them, very clearly. (The best way is to use <ref>references</ref>.) -- Hoary 15:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

WDM's RfA

Your comments were dead-on. Well done. deeceevoice 08:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes? I thought they were poorly organized. Still, they probably managed to say what needed to be said.

I'm glad that's over. -- Hoary 14:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow it's serious

....ly ridiculous. And our earlier exchange was oversighted--you know what I'm talking about. This is a pretty good laugh, frankly. KP Botany 21:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it sounds terribly hush-hush and exciting, doesn't it? Have you seen the latest addition to the man's temporarily and courteously kept article? It points out that his kids are [wait for it] in line for the throne. Gripping stuff. (I can't remember their actual names, which I instead think of as Ethel Shroake.) -- Hoary 23:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

See, I told you they were almost gods. Next time we debate the obscurist of obscures, I suggest you just bow down to me, since recognizing gods when one sees them is the first step to the throne. KP Botany 03:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Yo' Majesty. When I first encountered you I unforgivably failed to grasp that "KP" stood for King Prince: a thousand regrets. Where are you in the line? (I'm somewhere down the corridor, in this pose and in a state of some desperation.) -- Hoary 07:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

In a more prestigious and less familiar lineage to many Westerners, I am 7,687,321st in line, right after my son, who is 7,687,320th in line. Yes, your pose is appropriate for blue bloods. KP Botany 16:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a terribly long time to wait. I do hope that there are some portaloos placed close to the line. Course, a a precisely aimed comet might reduce the number in front of you -- but remember, Cities fall. Oceans rise. Cockroaches survive. Hoary 04:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I realize a mere commoner confined to those aquamarine plasticas would not know this, but we have trailers with luxurious accomodations for us folk's line.[1] KP Botany 04:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The Scientific Superstar

It was one of those tough calls we admins sometimes have to make. :-) Pascal.Tesson 04:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

CBOTB FAC

This one was quite a team effort. I thank you for your help. You may want to post this on your user page:

This user helped promote Chicago Board of Trade Building to featured article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, thank you very much. I'm not sure I helped. I did try to help, but then I got sidetracked into some discussion of feet that probably irritated those people whom it didn't simply bore. But at least I refrained from changing the article itself too much. Yup, I think I made some slight improvements, though in the time others spent sleepily skimreading my comments they could have done a better job of rewriting themselves, most likely.

That's all by the way, really. Congratulations on the promotion to FA!

Hoary 10:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnsensu

		WikiProject Japan Barnsensu Award
		I hereby award this Barnsensu to you, Hoary, in recognition of your tireless work in improving Japan-related articles in general. I also want to recognize your work in cleaning up Japan-related articles, including participation in deletion, merge, and other related discussions. Even though we tend to clash, I think you are doing a great job, and I appreciate all the hard work you do. Thanks, and please keep it up. (^_^)

···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we do seem to get in quite a few arguments, you and I. When I'm busily arguing against you, I quite often sense that I may be wrong and you right. But I keep on arguing anyway. And even when I'm sure that I'm right, I'm also sure you're doing a good job. -- Hoary 10:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the main issue I've had in the past is that you tend to beat the proverbial dead horse too much, IMHO. You keep bringing up the same arguments over and over and over, even when they been shown to be invalid (to whatever degree). It's almost like you enjoy it. (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, haven't I heard that before? Though really I can never hope even to start to rival this man with a message. -- Hoary 09:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed. Now at least I know I'm not completely insane. (^_-) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Harry S. Truman

I was wondering if you'd give this a look over prior to a FAC nomination. I spent many days fixing the refs, which were a complete mess. I think what it needs now are: lead reworked, perhaps shorten lead, good copyedit, cut some prose (has 60K prose but over 110K with refs, templates, etc), but I'm having trouble with those parts. Thanks for any help. Rlevse 10:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly very impressive, but yes, it does need more work. It takes quite a bit of time just to read; so I'm reading it now, and attending to very simple matters as they crop up. I'm noticing not-so-simple matters too, and hope to attend to them fairly soon. -- Hoary 15:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Any help is greatly appreciated. I asked because you're better at copyedit than I. Rlevse 15:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I am? I doubt it. Anyway, the enterprise should be more rewarding than protesting the coverage of n.n. underage softcore. -- Hoary 16:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Any more issues we should work before we nom for FAC?Rlevse 02:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Certainly! My experience of FACs tells me that two or more demanding people should go through the article before submitting it to the FAC sandbox, making sure that it is, or seems to be, perfect. This article is very impressive, but it's also flawed in some ways that I for one realize but haven't yet got around to expressing; and also perhaps in other ways that haven't been pointed out yet but that will be pointed out, either gently during pre-FAC or heatedly during FAC. The flaws are fixable and don't damn the article, which deserves to be an FA and assuredly will be an FA, once it's been smoothed. -- Hoary 05:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Then what if I nom it on Sat, 11 Aug. Would that be enough time for you to look it over again? Others are helping too. Many thanks for all your help.Rlevse 09:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If you like, but I think that would be a bad idea. Consider the FAC for "Kroger Babb" and that for "The Turk". Both articles were by the same author (BadlyDrawnJeff). The former was hurried to FAC, the latter was held back for about three weeks. Note the difference in volume of tiresome comments.

Every time I look at the Truman article, I'm impressed by it and I also see stuff in it that's unsatisfactory. And this is just from looking on the screen. I haven't yet printed it out; when I do, I'll probably find more.

During the three weeks before the Turk article went to FAC, BDJ was probably in a near permanent state of irritation. But there was no pressure on him. Contrast that with Babb: he had to respond every time somebody found, or thought he found, anything unsatisfactory -- otherwise more people would jump on the opposing bandwagon.

Before the Truman article is put forward for FAC, people can work on the article. Having made any improvement, the editor will not be under an obligation to go through relevant "oppose" votes, politely pointing out how this or that has changed and inviting a change of opinion. It's a lot less work. -- Hoary 10:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, we'll nom it when you think it's ready. Rlevse 10:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

models

Based on your afd comment on the politician, I prodded [2] checked a few, this one had almost zero career. Let's see.... DGG (talk) 03:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh but this is gripping stuff. Hair colour: Brown Naturally so? Natural bust: Yes Do we have independent verification of such statements by disinterested third parties? (Self-reporting doesn't count, and neither does the tactile or other investigations by anonymous WP editors.) Blood Group: A Your favorite? -- Hoary 03:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk page

I've no doubt it was well intentioned, but please don't remove stuff from my talk page - however inane it might be. Calr 11:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It's your user talk page, and you're its patron, host, and rule-setter, of course; so in principle I'd rush to agree. In practice, however, it makes things awkward. Here was somebody whose edits suggested either extreme tiredness and emotion or extreme immaturity, splattering user talk pages with unsigned, puerile, and barely coherent threats (such as this on yours). It was a lot easier for me to roll back the lot without even glancing at more than two of them, let alone glancing at the stated editorial policy (if any) of each user talk page. The options seem to be (i) to delete the lot, or (ii) to delete none. Would (ii) really be in the interest of en:WP? -- Hoary 13:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hoary, thanks for your comment. I un-blanked User_talk:Tidalenergy's talk page because he is currently embroiled in a rather long series of warnings (including an edit ban) as a result of disruptive editing, including with his other user User talk:210.9.237.1. You will be aware that there has been much discussion over whether the removal of warnings (even on one's own page) constitutes vandalism, e.g. Wikipedia:Removing_warnings. Although this (sadly) has not remained policy, the fact that Tidalenergy was blocked only last week, and is already wanting to remove all "visible" traces of it, struck me as undesirable. I'm not going to labour the point, but I find it regrettable. Fig 11:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Due to Fig bias for Barrages, and my lack of experience in Wiki (as I am new), Fig and co had me blocked. Fig has systematically polluted the Tidal Power page with his bias, wrong and and incorrect information that will take some time to put right. I have been adopted by a couple of Wiki folk so I hope my edits will improve sooner rather then later. Re the blocking, I appealed and had the block removed. Something that no doubt Fig would not be pleased. If Fig had his way he would have me in the stocks still. Fortunately I received the correction and saw the references to blocking on my page as no longer relevent as my appeal was upheld. I removed it --- so what Fig? Is it a new policy to castigate people forever? In future I will stick to the rules as far as I know them. I suggest you Fig man lift your game as well! I also suggest you desist from amligning me where ever you can find a listening ear. I have warned you of this in the past. It seems I need to make the complaint formal. Beware! I will not tolerate your character assisination!Tidalenergy 22:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

About Charles E. Tuttle Company

Hi! I'm not sure if it helps. Their name in Japanese was チャールズ・タトル商会 and if I remember correctly, now タトル商会. They do 版権仲介 too. I do not know what to say it in English. It's something kike this:they bring books/manuscripts in English to Japanese publishing companies like 新潮社, 講談社, 文芸春秋社, 早川書房, etc. and ask them if they want to publish them in Japanese. If they want, they pay the 版権料 through Tuttle to the US publishers and publish the books.--Oda Mari 16:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello there friend, I come in peace. I noticed you've recently had a problem with a vandal named: 71.60.63.183 and whilst this guy is clearly a pleb, I thought I'd show you an article that may help you in the fight against vandalism. Also do you use any anti-vandal tools such as "AVT" or "Twinkle". Ryan4314 15:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So many little points. . . . No, no problem at all. He's a pleb? I rather presumed he was a mere schoolboy. It's a good article. I try not to insult vandals, I don't see myself as being involved in "the fight" against them (I just swat them when I notice them), and no, I don't use any anti-vandal tools and indeed have never heard of "AVT" or "Twinkle". Happy editing! -- Hoary 15:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary

Thanks Hoary, I only just spotted your edit here [3] by chance. why on earth don't these boring bloody people just bugger off and find something useful to do? Giano 21:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Giano, you'll always be a Hero of Labor to me. And of course to ALoan. And you get the free beer. (What are one or two of your favorites? I recently discovered Duvel; splendid stuff.) -- Hoary 22:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Square root of 4

Nope. I thought of merging them. An anon is the one who thought of deleting it. Nice day Brusegadi 07:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed my mind. And tell me that you didn't miss the "rational" joke. DS 23:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Paul Mowatt

That is not up for me to decide; I did the closure on behalf of an OTRS agent. MessedRocker (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I love Wikipedia.... one minute, I'm part of a cabal, the next, I'm a vandal. FWIW, User:DAJF got hit with the same warning, so, I am not too offended. Neier 02:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the good laugh!

Our beating a dead horse department pipes up to point out that any poll would also be biased toward the readership of japantoday.com, a site whose "picture of the day" is captioned Actress Yukie Nakama, 27, holds a new "Nano care" hair dryer by National at a press conference on Tuesday. Along with the hair dryer, National will market an ion face steamer and dryer starting in September. (Stirring stuff!)

lol. You made my day with that quote, Hoary. :-) It was both funny and spot-on. I'd give you a barnstar, but I don't have time today to make one. Best, J Readings 11:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Aw, not even an itsy-bitsy teenie-weenie barnmeteorite? -- Hoary 12:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

And here we have an extremely well-deserved barncomet: ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 12:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Great Humour
		For being so amazingly funny and radiant, helping lightening the mood whenever there's a discussion. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 12:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, crumbs, thank you.

But I fear that my feeble attempts at levity are doomed to be crushed by the collective wisdom of the Wikipedia majority. -- Hoary 13:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

On Susumu Kono, have you tried a citation index search? Or eliciting the help of the "let's keep the academic BIO" crowd? A list of citations in reputable academic sources indicates notability, and therefore you can justify keeping the article. I was on the other end of an AfD once; those tactics managed to save the article.J Readings 19:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Looks like they already did add it to the list of academic articles for deletion. Hmmm. I'd be curious to run a citation check, though. J Readings 19:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Translation, and issues

Thanks for doing the translation to a "cliffs notes" version on the Tokyo page. I've actually got some issues with User:Sasanoha's actions as well, but all my attempts to get the person to discuss them have completely been ignored. This seems to be the standard, looking over the talk page. Your notice to the user on their talk page was ignored as well. As you may have more background into this user than I do, I'd like to ask you to look into a few things. (Sorry this ended up being long)

First, I noticed while updating the STS-118 page during the mission, that Sasanoha removed an image without any explanation whatsoever. The image was valid and helpful, so I reverted the removal in good faith, and asked the user to provide an explanation for the removal. Additionally, the user removed a valid period at the end of a sentence, and added an image of the STS-118 launch to the 2007 page, so I reviewed the article, and noticed that the image was an extremely low-quality screen capture, so I replaced it with a high quality image from Commons, and also noticed the poor quality image of STS-117 launch, so I replaced that with a higher quality one as well. The user then reverted my changes, replacing both images with extremely low-quality screen-capture images, and then removing one of the images completely. I again requested a reason, as again the edit summary had no information regarding the reason for such changes (it should be noted that I did provide a "size" parameter, so the size should not have been of any issue, as it was directed by Wikipedia). Wikipedia should use higher quality images, and I'm not even sure if a user's screen capture from an online video can pass the copyright test (it very well may, I just don't know).

It is obvious the user does know English, as evident in this edit summary, where this user reverted a change after specifically being requested to discuss their changes, and even called you a vandal here after you (validly) reverted their edits. My concerns are many more, including the edit warring going on with this user, and with the fact that the user simply seems to not care what anyone else may think, and feels they can ignore anyone's objections. I really think this needs to be looked into, but as I'm not familiar with the history of this Tokyo image issue, so I can't say for sure what the Tokyo issue is. What I surmise is that this user, for some reason, objects to any high quality images because they are too "big" or perhaps because they are on a poor internet connection, thus making load times high. So the user goes and replaces them with other, sometimes poor quality images. However, over the past two weeks, this user has disrupted Wikipedia in a variety of ways, refused to discuss their actions on their talk pages, despite multiple requests to do so, and only seems to be going in circles on the Tokyo talk page. I'd really like to know what should be suggested, and you seem to be very knowledgeable about the Tokyo article, as well as being able to understand the user's comments, so perhaps you could review it? Again, my most sincere apologies for the length, I hope you'll forgive it. ^Ariel♥Gold 10:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns. Yes, Sasanoha is resizing thumbnails elsewhere too. This editor seems to have distinct ideas of the way en:WP should be (ideas that aren't obviously bad, but that are flawed or that counter [possibly flawed] guidelines), but little appetite for arguing for these ideas or arguing against objections to them. Unfortunately the timing was off: it's the end of a tiring day. I'll try to start to look at this tomorrow (my time), but I can't promise to do so. Could you possibly crosspost the above to one or two of the other people in that thread? -- Hoary 10:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh no worries at all! I didn't mean immediately, or even today or tomorrow, but just at some point, I think things should be looked into. I'm not completely sure why someone who doesn't wish to communicate in English is editing the English Wikipedia, or why they'd be so adamant that everything is wrong (or indeed, what their complaints are), but I just thought if this was not something you were already aware of, I'd bring it to your attention. I'm not a dramatist, so I don't really think it needs to be copied to others, if this becomes an issue that many others are bothered by, I'm more than sure it will get discussed somewhere. But at least you have much of the background facts here for your reference, should you need them. And I do appreciate you taking the time to reply before you drop off to dream land! Sweet Dreams, Hoary!

^Ariel♥Gold 11:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. But now, insomnia.

On another user talk page, our messages have just crossed.

He's just won himself a little vacation from en:WP; I hope he uses it well. -- Hoary 14:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Bleh, I had hoped it would not come to that. I left an additional request on the page, carefully wording it so it explained the current reasons (right or wrong, they're how it is done currently) and requesting the user to engage in discussion again, but ugh. I feel bad. Don't get me wrong, you did the right thing, no question it was disruptive, I just wonder if the user has such a limited English knowledge that discussions aren't helpful, and yet even trying Japanese did not seem to work, so I dunno... ~*Sigh*~ ^Ariel♥Gold 14:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

People have "AGF" and have gone out of their way to invite him to explain what he's doing, but he hasn't bothered. He's wasted people's time, notably your time. Let's cut our losses. -- Hoary 06:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Meh

That RfA is in the past, I don't expect to complete another one. Any animosity about that is gone, though I am still prone to throw out an occasional "jerks at RfA" comment here and there, which I am sure has helped win me friends and influence people. ;) I think a short break with more limited in scope activity will help me refocus, and maybe I can sort out this whole Black Hawk War thing. Thanks for your kind words, and I no worries about the last RfA, I don't even remember but a few specifics anyway, and none from you at all. IvoShandor 09:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Luckily, for now, I have a nice quiet article to work on. I need to step back from the Black Hawk War for the time being, the stuff I enjoy has become too important, I need a chill session. IvoShandor 14:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate impact

But, if, while your ship is going down, you hold your breath, until you turn blue you might supercede yourself.... KP Botany 01:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate Impact: is that the one where Bruce Willis lives hard and saves us from an asteroid? Or am I thinking of Igneous Attraction?

Aren't AfDs a hoot? "NN and unlikely to improve. Barring a miracle, of course." "There may only be a couple of sources but they are reliable sources. Here's more reliable sources.[4][5] [6] (Yes, I know I'm calling The Sun a reliable source." -- Hoary 02:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate Impact? I'm pretty sure it's the one where everyone but Sigourney Weaver hurls. One of my favorite justifications for pure crap on Wikipedia was, "How dare you say I'm not a reliable source, I've lived next door to him for years." This was on a BLP. KP Botany 06:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah...

Yeah... I know. Yesterday I really did think that I got through to him, using just hand-written notes. Sad it turned out this way, but he had that coming, for sure. I didn't want to just report him yesterday when I could have, and he seemed open to dialog, so I chose that route instead of reporting. But, ah well, my faith in mankind is again shattered. Such is life. Thanks again as always, for being there. ^Ariel♥Gold 13:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Please nominate this single purpose account set of ads created for spamming Wikipedia for deletion

I can't follow the instructions for an AfD--you know us blue bloods and that interbreeding! User:Theresa knott feels there is no evidence these are ads in spite of the fact that they were all created by single purpose accounts, contain almost identical text, were created by accounts that edited solely these articles over a period of two days, and have done nothing else on Wikipedia. So, let's discuss the crap, but I would appreciate if you would do the nomination, because I'm personally sick of wasting my time to have somebody who can't be bothered to even look at something dismiss what I've bothered to do.

Current Opinion

KP Botany 00:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, skip it, I'd just rather waste my time monitoring shit then editing anyhow. I'm putting them up. KP Botany 00:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

But unfortunately you've barked up the wrong tree. The tree you want is this one.

I must say, I have mixed feelings. I understand and share all your objections to these articles; yet I think that, unlike tons of unrelated ephemera that get the most reverent treatment hereabouts, peer-reviewed academic journals do actually deserve informative articles at WP (though of course these "articles" should not be recycled adverts). -- Hoary 00:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

These are adverts. If someone wants to write an article about the company they should. KP Botany 01:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

They are indeed adverts. But at least they're adverts for actual products of some significance. Compare this or anything here. -- Hoary 01:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, not the only tree. There's this one too.

The subjects may merit [real] articles. These "articles" don't merit inclusion. It's "articles for deletion", not "subjects for deletion"; deletion of articles doesn't imply that very different articles on the same subjects can't be made later. So these should probably all be deleted, yes. -- Hoary 01:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I don't care. I hate editing Wikipedia. All the benefit and all the good faith goes 100% to pure shit editors and spammers. I spend hours finding sources for botanical articles, and Elsevier creates dozens of spam articles and they're the heroes. What a waste of my time. KP Botany 01:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Nah, you love it (sometimes).

The articles weren't rescued from speedy oblivion because they deserved to stay but because they don't qualify for speedying. They could have been "prodded", a process that's a good deal less tedious than AfD, but their being turned into redirects needed no formality or delay and was probably even better.

That could easily be dismissed as mere legalism. But the fact is that if anyone deletes anything without a generally accepted reason, it will be revived, so the whole deletion will have been a waste of time.

One result of this is of course rampant inclusionism: crap articles, crap features of articles (infoboxes, flags and the rest). Much of this isn't advertising; it's the uncritical regurgitation of buzz about non-phenomena. Just try to derive unintended amusement from it, and make notes for your project Devil's Dictionary Revisited.

Yes, the cookie-cutter "articles" were essentially self-promotion. But that's a concept that's pretty meaningless in WP, where almost any contributor can be almost anyone. The question is, rather, of whether it's promotional. Whether or not it's promotional, the fact that it was added by/for Elsevier is by the way.

A year or two back my learned friend Giano suggested to me that a good way to stay sane was to stay away from deletions and the junk near the bottom of the pile and instead to concentrate on the peaks: featured-article candidates and the like. These days, the FAC process seems even less sane. The best thing may be to concentrate on stuff that doesn't interest anybody else. -- Hoary 06:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

lol I just have to ask...

Granted, I've met my share of truck drivers, but if the "f word" isn't "profanity", then I think maybe I didn't meet enough truck drivers? What words are out there that I'm clueless on that would be profanity? . ^Ariel♥Gold 14:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

ArielG, you think you're clueless? If you're clueless, what does that make these little people? I don't know, whenever I hear "profanity" I think of "sacred and profane love" and such phrases. Maybe our new friend has had the misfortune to acquire English as a second language via the most braindead (direct to video) of Hollywood fare (certainly the comment I deleted could hardly have been written by any speaker of English as a first language). -- Hoary 14:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

PS He's too tired and emotional and has therefore won himself a little rest. -- Hoary 14:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL oh my! All this time I've been using the word "profanity" as Profanity, like, a bad thing, not sacred love! Oh boy,

. And thanks for removing that silliness, I responded, but I've got the idea he wouldn't have paid much attention, lol. So thank you again, m'dear!

(And little breaks are good for everyone, now and then.)

^Ariel♥Gold 15:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That article's too long, and I don't like the finger. May I recommend "expletive"? It's more concise, though it is sadly anglophonocentric. -- Hoary 15:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL The "finger"? Ack, that's not my finger! Expletive is a good word, and anglophonocentricism doesn't bother me. (I don't think...hrmm) (p.s. have I mentioned lately how you make me laugh? lol) ^Ariel♥Gold 15:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I wasn't comparing words but instead articles on words. ¶ Often I make me laugh. (Uh-oh, that statement was unprincipled.) Laugh bitterly, I might add. -- Hoary 15:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)