User:Hoary/Archive15

Please do not edit this page.

Robert Lawson (architect)

Robert Lawson (architect) has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 09:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Watanabe

On this: nothing points to this redirect, and it goes to a disambiguation page. Ripe for deletion, perhaps? Or for expansion into an article on some fourth Watanabe? -- Hoary (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember why I created it, though I'm sure there was a reason at the time; there must have been some pages that linked to there, but meant to refer to one of the entries in the disambiguation page, or something. It can be deleted now – Gurch 14:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -- and done. Hoary (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Returning to the Suzukis

Not only are there these two cats, but the elder photo-snapper had a son, Suzuki Izaburo, who took over the Yokohama studio when Suzuki I retired in 1892... I have a lot to add to these articles (maybe eventually even starting one for Izaburo), mostly from Bennett, but I accidentally left my notes at work and can't add anything till Monday. Bumhair. One thing, according to Izawa (in an 1896 article that has proved a trustworthy source to Bennett, et al), it was Suzuki II who photographed the Emperor and Empress (and also Crown Prince and Empress Dowager). There are other differences in dates, etc. but nothing too radical... Bennett provides some persuasive justifications for most of his "differences". Well, you'll just have to wait a few days to see how it all turns out! But in the meantime, have a gander at The Far East and J. R. Black... mere fledglings right now, but some day... Pinkville (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work so far (quite aside from the possibility of more to come). I'm jealous: I've been spending time "helping with the English of" somebody's MA thesis. It's an MA thesis on literature, and -- but no, I'd better stop there. (I'll just say that working on WP articles is a lot more enjoyable.) My "helping" will continue for the next few days, whereupon I'll have to attend to other things in a big hurry. Perhaps I'll return to the ghastly list of three hundred substubs some time this month. Hoary (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. Here's some for you (in the form of a smile), found in WP: "Meiji's first children, who die at birth, are born." Pinkville (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your edits

If you have a problem with election-related articles please visit WP:USPE and look at the progress we've made. Please refrain from trying to run away good editors to inferior projects. We take this very seriously especially from an administrator. The article, Straw polls for the Republican Party (United States) presidential nomination, 2008 is a work in progress that will one day be an FL. I am going to use the i-word and call this extremely ignorant.--STX 19:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for honky hand on red; it's been ages since I've received one of those and it has brightened my day. (I'm glad that it's the inverse of this thing.) I have no problem with election-related articles, plural; indeed, I have no personal problem with this particular article. However, since the US presidential election is one of the most avidly followed of spectator sports, it seems peculiar to write up a detailed article concentrating on the outcomes of one of its less obviously important aspects while the top elephants are still trumpeting at each other. You of course are welcome to have a different opinion. Meanwhile, till receipt of your message here, I'd recently had dealings with just one editor of this kind of thing; he or she may be a good editor but I hadn't seen any evidence of this. ¶ There's no need to coyly hint that you might say something ever so shocking before you to call an edit of mine "ignorant"; if you'd wanted to call it "insane", "inane", "moronic", "cretinous", or whatever, you'd have been most welcome to do so and without any shilly-shallying: after all, we are all adults here. ¶ <font color = "blue"><span style="font-family: Rockwell ; font-size: 12pt">TX</span></font> You don't need the silly old font tag; you could make that <span style="font-family: Rockwell; font-size: 12pt; color: #000099; background-color: transparent">TX</span> (adjusting the RGB values to taste). Better still, do away with the CSS nudge to change the point size: this is a no-no usability-wise. (Not that it matters, but I don't recall ever having heard of "Rockwell".) ¶ Happy editing! -- Hoary (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am probably coming off as uncivil but I do not mean to. I probably shouldn't have done the "stop" tag but I just wanted to get your attention. This is what we try to do: During the election or a campaign we get all the information that we need because it is so easy to find as it happens. Then once the election or a campaign is over we submit that article for GA. Tom Tancredo presidential campaign, 2008 was the first candidate who dropped out that actually had a campaign article, its now GA. Chris Dodd dropped out and now his campaign article is a GA nominee. I feel we are significantly helping wikipedia be more encyclopedic with WP:USPE. For the advise about my signature I don't understand what you are saying.--STX 00:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Uncivil" is a hugely overused word hereabouts: I didn't hurl it at you (and hadn't thought of doing so), and you certainly shouldn't worry about such things yourself. Yes, I fully agree with your approach to Tancredo (a name I first came across just this week) and Dodd; all power to you there. Maybe I spoke too soon about the straw poll issue. And let's leave the matter of your signature till another day. -- Hoary (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding.--STX 01:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Where's the mozzarella?

Is something worrying you, and if so, what and why? -- Hoary (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC) ... originally posted to User:Kintetsubuffalo's talk page

What troubles me is that you don't make simple edits without snide remarks. Articles on non-English topics are edited by non-native English speaking editors, and it is ill-mannered for you to talk down to them. They're not vandals and they don't need that. That should be simple enough I'm surprised you question it. Chris (クリス) (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If I were indeed making snide remarks about the efforts of people for whom English is an L2, you would indeed have a point. Alleged snideness aside, this charge surprises me as nothing about the article indicates to me that the text is by an L2 English speaker. (If it were, I'd expect verb morphology errors and the like.) Since you bring up the matter, I've looked for the addition of the (to me) obscure text: it's right here. The edit is by User:Douggers, a new name to me but one whose self-introduction prominently states This user is a native speaker of English. -- Hoary (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wristwatches

I'm also a casual watch enthusiast; worked in a watch store briefly. A watchmaker (that is, a watchmaking company) doesn't necessarily = manufacturer of watch movements. Some companies make their own movements, but this is the exception rather than the rule. Most swiss watch manufacturers get their movements from (e.g.) ETA SA, and modify them as needed. Generally, the high-higher-end mechanical watches such as Vacheron Constantin, Patek Philippe make their own movements for at least some of their watches. Rolex exclusively uses its own movements, I believe. Hope this helps. Ifnkovhg (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. When I wrote earlier, I knew even less than I know now, and I was under the impression that the maker of a movement (ETA or whoever) delivered these movements in a form that resembled what you see when you remove the back from a wristwatch. But I am now under the impression that this is not true, and that instead the movement, as supplied for example by ETA to IWC, is an unassembled set of parts. If it is indeed an unassembled set of parts, then the notion that the buyer (this or that unit of Richemont or whoever) does a significant amount of substitution and refinement becomes a lot more plausible. (Within the IWC talk page there's a very interesting passage about this that purports to be a translation from a 1998 issue of Uhrenjournal.)

It strikes me as an outsider that the whole "high end" wristwatch industry since the 1970s has been rather an absurdity. The primary function of a wristwatch is, it's commonly said, to show the time accurately, reliably and conveniently. Putting aside solar- and movement-powered quartz wristwatches (both fairly new), this function has been very cheaply fulfilled by a single cheapo quartz wristwatch; which, if you're worried that this might be the one day in three (?) years when the battery dies, can be backed up by a second cheapo quartz wristwatch stashed in some niche of your attache case or rucksack or whatever.

This is not to deny the appeal of mechanical wristwatches that preceded or postdated the popularization of cheap quartz alternatives. Different models have different appeals, and if it's silly to pay a premium for a wristwatch that has this or that "complication", "feature" or cosmetic gimmick, then the silliness pales beside that of paying a larger amount for, say, a set of gimmicky wheels for your car.

Likewise, the wristwatch brands are most welcome to impress potential buyers with their illustrious pasts. (Incidentally, there's nothing uniquely Swiss about this. Orient is now pushing its "Royal" line, alluding to its "Royal" watches of forty-plus years ago. But back then "Royal" was just its regular name for watches.) And in a world of celebrity worship, they're welcome to pay athletes, musicians and actors to pose with their watches. But it seems to me (when I'm in one mood) that none of this says anything about the watches. Why should the reader of an encyclopedia article (as opposed to fan magazine) care more that James Bond fictionally wears one wristwatch than that the all-too-real Kenneth Lay (who surely could afford any) actually wore another? (And anyway, what would Lay's choice of wristwatch tell us about it or him?)

When I'm in another mood, it seems to me that celebrity worship, social climbing, excess affluence, conspicuous consumption and general stupidity, combined with the essential obsolescence of the mechanical wristwatch, mean that brand "mystique", cosmetics, etc. are now all that matters. Or less cynically, that informing the wearer of the time is secondary (after all, the beloved cellphone can do this), and that flattering his (yes, usually his) vanity is the main purpose. But even if I'm in this mood, I'm appalled by the eagerness with which wristwatch articles report "sightings" that this or that celeb is shilling for this or that brand. On balance, I'm inclined to remove all of the names. If Rolex buys an entire page of advertising space in the IHT every week (and that's my impression, though I haven't checked systematically), this may be worth noting; what it does within the space (writing blandly about blander arts events and photogenic persons, I think) is something that needs no further unpaid advertising by en:WP, unless the company's advertising is noted somewhere else, e.g. in an academic study of corporate sponsorship or celebrity "endorsement".

What rather repels me are windy allusions to watchmaking tradition, mystique, etc., and starry-eyed reports of celebs, in something that purports to be an encyclopedia article. -- Hoary 04:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of (most?) movements come to watch companies as "ebauches": bare bones, unfinished watch movements which the companies must complete themselves. I more or less agree, Hoary. The appeal of a wristwatch, to me, is twofold: its aesthetic function as jewelry, and the craftsmanship that goes into making mechanical watches. Digital watches are more accurate, sure, but that's almost beside the point.Ifnkovhg (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Jewelry": argh, you're embarrassing me. Or anyway you're making me feel a bit guilty about the fact that I'm now wearing a wristwatch, made somewhere 1958–1964, that I quite unnecessarily bought last week. But then again I did only pay ¥6000 for it (at an auction site other than fleabay). Still, you're probably right: it is costume jewelry I suppose. But I really think that it's sad to be interested in whether this or that celeb is an "ambassador for" or "aficionado of" this or that watch (or more grandly "timepiece").

I'm now fascinated by the notion of the tourbillon. If you're going to have mechanical geewhizzery you might as well go all the way. (Not that I have any plan to buy one myself.) I like the candor of one maker, who comes close to saying that they're pretty silly.

One good thing about some of these Chinese creations: discreet wording on the face. A contrast with "SPORTS", "LIMITED EDITION" and suchlike perpetrated by a lot of expensive brands, which all seem to me as if they're designed for display by teenagers. -- Hoary (talk) 07:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I replied to your Wristwatches (specifically Rolex) edit here. I tried to answer some of your questions, but I'm not sure if I touched on everything. Let me know there. Thanks for posting. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I think that a lot appears for one or other of two reasons. First, it was added properly after having been read somewhere within one or other of the credible sources listed at the foot. But "somewhere" isn't good enough: en:WP now has more exacting standards for sourcing. Secondly, it was uncritically added because it was what Rolex had written and after all a company with Rolex's level of prestige would never say anything that was untrue, now would it? But as I've written, I don't buy an appeal to Rolex's inability to tell an untruth: no, I don't think that Rolex would say something that was untrue, but I do think that it (like any company) would quite happily apply a fair amount of "spin" to the facts. I'm glad to get the impression that you too think that specific calls for specific references should be answered. I hope to return to the article some time later but I'm hampered by limited time and interest and by even more limited knowledge; I hope that clear-headed experts on watch design would join the enterprise, and perhaps also resuscitate the apparently defunct WikiProject Watches. -- Hoary (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"with Rolex's level of prestige would never say anything that was untrue, now would it?" That's almost a conflict of interest, right? Rolex's own marketing materials have a strong motivation to be positive about Rolex's product. But yeah, that is a primary source. This section talks about primary sources and how they shouldn't be used for controversial statements or statements likely to be challenged. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Dodd

Do not add anymore photos to the Chris Dodd campaign article. They have nothing to do with the subject matter and cause excessive cluttering. If you re-add those pictures, it will be considered vandalism. You have been warned. --Datang (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your warning about "vandalism", which I have reformatted. Before you posted this warning, I had already addressed your concerns on the talk page. Please read that. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Straw polls

Hoary:

I posted my concerns to the "Talk:Straw polls for the Republican Party (United States) presidential nomination, 2008" and waited for a response. After about 10 hours, I went back to check on no response, but my post had disappeared. It was as though it had never been there.

Was I supposed to post it somewhere else? I'm trying to get some action since this is so time sensitive (caucuses are ongoing, and will mostly culminate on February 5).

The entire page is so fraught with errors it should be either deleted, or go through major revision, or there should be another six pages created in the same manner, and then let the other candidates each have one to correct as they see fit. As it stands, the page misleads the viewer into thinking that Ron Paul is leading across the country, when that has never been the case.

Example: The latest GOP caucus from New Hampshire was McCain 37%, Romney 31%, Huckabee 11%, Giuliani 9%, and Ron Paul 8%, yet the map is colored for Ron Paul!!! There are many other examples where the map is completely wrong.

Those of us who follow headlines know that NO Republican has a commanding lead. I recall that Giuliani started on top, then that position was taken by Romney, then, a couple of weeks ago, Huckabee was "sweeping the country" and now it seems to be John McCain's to loose, and that today's primary is key to Fred Thompson. IOW, there is no leader and it is foolish to try to call one, yet this map would lead the reader to believe that Ron Paul is on a roll, when he decidedly is not. Ron Paul is not even a player at this point (and has never been one in this race) yet this page is trying to create a movement for him. I do not believe that is the proper role of Wikipedia.

Probably the most egregious is that the title does not match the contents. It purports to contain "straw polls FOR the Republican Party, yet most of the polls are for independent auspices (of questionable credibility) and are not "for the Republican Party" whatsoever.

Following is my overview as to the problems with this page. It should be corrected immediately, or taken down. It is simply a mess of misinformation at this point.

This page has FIVE serious flaws that need to be corrected

(1) The page title indicates that these are “straw polls FOR the Republican Party” yet the Republican Party has no involvement with this page.

(a) The Republican Party is a legal entity and they should be able to control how their name is used.

(b) Using "Republican Party" causes any reasonable person to believe that the page is under the auspices of the Republican Party, when it is not.

(c) Using "Republican Party" is bogus because the numbers being used do not reflect numbers being reported by the Republican Party, or the National Republican Committee.

(d) Using "Republican Party" causes any reasonable person to believe that the polling numbers reported originated with the Republican Party and have originated, or been vetted by them. That is not the case.

Therefore, the title of this page should be changed to "Republican candidates" rather than "Republican Party"

(2) The map portrays entire states dedicated to a single candidate, even though that candidate is scoring in the bottom 10 % of Republican straw polls.

(a) The GOP has conducted over 120 straw polls in the State of Washington in the past year. The Party has ranked the candidates, as to how they polled, and made those totals available to anyone who wants them. In the case of Washington State, Ron Paul has consistently polled in the bottom 10 %. In small groups he ranks in the 6 - 7 % and in larger groups he ranks between 1 - 3 %. Since Tom Tancredo dropped out, Ron Paul's numbers have gone up 1 or 2 %, but he is still polling at the very bottom of the pack. Yet, the map on this page "gives" Washington State to Ron Paul, when he is at the bottom or next to the bottom.

(b) The GOP has polled every county at least once and those totals are not included. Those totals show that Ron Paul is almost on the bottom of the polls. These results are not reported.

(c) The only Ron Paul "wins" that show up for Washington State are months old votes from the "Ronald Reagan Club" which is NOT the Republican Party, and the voters are not the same as the GOP voters. This is another reason that the State of Washington should NOT be colored for Ron Paul.

(3) Problems with the map colors.

(a) Visual aids are used for a number of reasons. One reason is to deliver complex information quickly. Another reason is to show trends. Another reason is to influence thinking.

(b) This map claims to have recent Republican Party straw polls, yet that is not the case. It does not reflect what it says it reflects.

(c) The map does not deliver complex information quickly because the information it delivers is misleading. A reasonable person would look at this map and conclude that Ron Paul is currently winning most GOP straw polls. Yet, that is not the case. Therefore, the reader is being misled.

(d) The map does not show trends. A reasonable person would conclude that Ron Paul is winning most of the most recent polls, yet that is not the case. Certainly Iowa and New Hampshire have proven that his numbers are, indeed, in the bottom 10 %; yet, by using the color yellow on so many states, that looks exactly like what is happening. Therefore, the reader is being misled.

(e) The map certainly is being used to influence thinking. In sociological terms, that is the “bandwagon” effect and it is real. That is why this map should be corrected to reflect reality, or be deleted.

(f) Generally, people are lazy when it comes to doing research, or even just gleaning information. A reasonable person would look at this map and conclude that Ron Paul is winning most of the Republican Party authorized straw polls. Yet, that is not valid for two reasons. First, Iowa and New Hampshire are final evidence that Ron Paul is not winning Republican votes. Second, this map is supposed to reflect recent Republican straw polls, yet the straw polls numbers are not being considered, or reported, and the caucus numbers (which are replacing the straw polls) are also not being recorded. If the straw poll numbers are less than 10 %, and the caucus numbers are less than 10 %, then there is no reason to color those states for anyone other than the actual winners.

(4) Methodology flaws.

(a) When the methodology of a seemingly researched page causes questions, readers should be able to follow research links source material and understand how the numbers were derived. In fact, this page has numbers arranged in a jumbled fashion so that it is difficult to contrast and compare the numbers that are being considered. Standard statistical practices are not being followed, so it is very easy to confuse people if they are trying to confirm the validity of the map. (b) Maps should be easy to understand with straightforward explanations as to how numbers are derived. In fact, these numbers cannot be studied to form a complete picture. It does not appear that any standard procedure has been followed.

(c) When the methodology of a seemingly researched page causes questions, readers should be able to follow the research links and find out the raw data that was combined into a meaningful form. Instead, the resources linked on this page DIRECTLY links to Ron Paul's campaign organization; some to join and some to contribute money to the campaign.

(d) When a page purports to contain statistical and polling information, the rudimentary rules should apply so that everyone has a reasonable chance at understanding the information being presented; they are woefully absent in this page.

5. Steps necessary to prove the accuracy of the statistics contained on this page.

(a) The reader would have to read all of the qualifiers; analyze them, and try to figure out what they mean.

(b) The reader would have to read each event and try to determine whether they are, or are not, "Republican Party" straw polls.

(d) The reader would have to contact each of the 50 state GOP headquarters, and to get the actual figures, and then try to figure out why the map looks so very different from the actual GOP numbers compared to a page that says "Straw Polls FOR the Republican Party, when there hasn't been a single straw poll done FOR the Republican Party in this entire page.

Conclusion:

This page purports to contain "straw polls for the Republican Party" yet Republican straw polls are not being used.

This page purports to show the most recent in "straw polls" yet many of the polls being used are from the summer of 2007.

This map shows Ron Paul leading in a number of states, yet, he has never lead in the aggregate. The fact that the author has found a few obscure polls (from specific interest groups, not from the Republican Party) that he won, does not mean that the thousands of straw polls where he placed at the bottom or one up from the bottom should be discarded, in favor of a specific obscure poll, just to be able to call a state in his favor. In fact, in scientific statistical analysis, his obscure wins should be treated as outlayers and certainly never used as an indication of prominence.

Readers come to Wikipedia because they trust this site. Yet, this page delivers gross misinformation.

This page is not up to the standards of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suttonplacesouth (talk • contribs) 01:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am in a huge hurry right now in the "real world" and thus do not have time to investigate. However, you say that your comments have been removed. That's a serious charge and one that's easy to check. This is a list of your edits. It shows that you are the most recent editor of both Talk:Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election/Comments‎ and Talk:Straw polls for the Republican Party (United States) presidential nomination, 2008‎. Therefore nobody can have added to your comments, let alone removed them. -- Hoary (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: The history of the former ("Comments") page makes it clear that you created it by adding your long comment to it. And this page makes it clear that the only [conventional] link to this page you had created is right here, on this talk page of mine. Almost certainly nobody interested in the article was even aware that this "Comments" page existed. No wonder that it got no response. -- Hoary (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This editor just left a load of misinformation on this page that must be corrected. First of all its the New Hampshire Primary its not a caucus nor a straw poll. Secondly, today's primary in Michigan was a must-win for Romney not Thompson, Thompson is focused heavily on South Carolina. This editor seems to feel there are "thousands of straw polls" but he has absolutely no proof of this whatsoever. His documented irregularities and lack of evidence for his assertions forces me to believe that this guy has little crediability on the subject. Sorry for wasting your time.--STX 04:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am far from being an expert on the matter of the US presidential elections but nevertheless they are my favorite spectator sport and I know you're right about Michigan being important for Romney rather than Thompson (who, the last I heard, seemed to have lost enthusiasm for the entire campaign). But I've been trying to put aside the substantive issues (or non-issues) here, and instead concentrating on WP matters. Notably, if somebody were to post a long, polite and clearly relevant message on an talk page only to have it silently deleted, there'd seem to be something very wrong. I looked into that complaint and found it to be baseless. I think much of the problem is that Suttonplacesouth is very unused to article talk pages: I can't think why else he'd have created a "Comment" page. Meanwhile, let's try hard to be as polite as we can. (Not that I'm always much of a model for this ideal.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Omega Page

I have undid your migration of the "popular media" reference from the Omega watch page to the discussion section. If you are going to criticize the format then possibly you should focus the same attention on the other various brands on the wiki. I have also added a link to the presumed "source" for reference. Mjancsics (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Omega SA, and discuss the matter there. -- Hoary (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review

FYI: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 25 Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 11:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh-oh. I'll look at it tomorrow. (Right now I'm connected via modem.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I've replied there. I guessed you would be OK with a tongue-in-cheek response, but one forgets the wider audience. Colin°^Talk 10:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we're all on the same wavelength. (Well, um [cough] all of us who spell the definite article in the conventional way.)

This person is starting to interest me. (He's certainly energetic -- why doesn't he just put all that energy into doing some genuine research that will genuinely impress other professors who are actually alive?) -- Hoary (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks for removing vandalism from my talk page, very much appreciated! EJF (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

All just part of the job. Your correspondent professes to be very interested in penises; he'll have to indulge this interest elsewhere for the next few hours. -- Hoary (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

a thank you note

		Thanks for participating in my RfA!
		Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Your support and remarks contributed so much to this. If you followed my RfA you know what happened. Most of the editors who posted opposing opinions have never edited with me. Some articles I edit deal with controversial topics and with respect to a very few of these, editors who didn't know much about me had some worries about confrontational editing and civility. Since I support their high standards I can easily (and will gladly) address this. The support and ecouragement to run again soon has been wonderful, thanks again. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Re Vilnius & EB

Glad you liked it (both the city and the post) :) I am happy to know someone is interested in that posting... So to address your comments... Basically, EB article was written quite a while ago (certainly more than 20 years ago, but I guess 1960s or 1970s) and never really updated from scratch. I mean, they added that Lithuania regained independence and updated population count, but that's pretty much it. So most problems with the articles stem from there.

1. It's a sticky point. I actually read a bit more about it since I posted the "inaccuracies". It appears that there was a settlement of some sort thousands years before AD, but it seems it has no connection with the settlement that grew into today's city.

4. Yeah, you can argue over choice of words. But in essence you get to the senamiestis through the Cathedral Square and if no one tells you chances are you will never notice the Gediminas Tower.

5. It's another sticky point... You can argue EB is correct (or simply cut off longer explanations because it's paper).

6. I have an issue with rectangular streets because they are so uncommon in Vilnius (try memorizing the map for driving....) and the article had neighborhoods in plural.

So, anyway, I am right (women always are :P), but thanks for the comments. Appreciate it. Renata (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

KColorEdit

that web have a wrong info, KColorEdit belongs to Extragear module inside of Graphics package.

Greetings Orgyforever (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be replying to this question of mine. But please reread the last sentence of what I wrote. I don't want to discuss the matter here. -- Hoary (talk) 08:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

But I wrote the same here. Also, I already answered your question, what's the diference?, anyway sorry Greetings Orgyforever (talk) 08:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Your thoughts

Do you have any thoughts on this? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The writer uses sentences of considerable syntactic complexity and manages to pull them off successfully. So she's as likely as anybody else is to have two doctorates -- though people with two doctorates are rare, and I've never yet heard anyone inside a university refer to "the halls of academia". That's all I can guess about her. What's she saying about you? Damned if I know. My advice [...] is to stop prevaricating and shifting focus in this regard: in which regard? Well, it's all very minatory and I suppose intended to make you quiver in your boots about, um, well, about something.

Digging around in her list of contributions takes me to this edit, and talk of a small coterie of "Wyss Survivors", as we term ourselves, who banded together via private email over the past 2 years or so. Let them band, say I. Or bind, or bond.

More concretely, my thought on this message if it arrived in my own talk page would be to ignore it completely. But that's not your style. I suppose you could ask her just what it is that she's on about. Or perhaps I will, but I'll get a night's sleep first. During that time somebody may beat me to it. (Pity that MarkSweep's not around these days.) -- Hoary (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I won't be replying to the IP at all, which is why I wondered what your thoughts might be (I thought the same thing about "the halls of academia"). Gwen Gale (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Still trying for NPOV (so all the candidates are treated fairly)

Hoary

“Straw Polls for the Republican Party” remains a mass of misinformation, and now at least two more pages are involved; “Straw Polls for the 2008 United States presidential election” and “Straw Polls.” The footnotes (23) are ALL Ron Paul support documents. [The topic matters not; everything is a Ron Paul promotion.]

These pages are error ridden so are providing an inaccurate picture of the Republican candidates before the Feb. 5 caucus. I would like to have these pages corrected before that date. There is not a single poll (and never has been) that supports the claim that Ron Paul leads in even ONE state, yet these pages (and maps) show Ron Paul LEADING in 19 states!

By doing his own surveys, and deciding which polls count and which do not, and his own analysis, and his own conclusions, then writing up his own answers to justify non-standard survey methods, he is completely ignoring STANDARD STATISTICAL ANALYSIS.

He uses polls from the Ron Paul web site and then he comes to the conclusion that the polls favor Ron Paul. He claims that Ron Paul is the "winner" of the most straw polls, yet he is controlling the number of polls that he will even consider. He has discarded and discounted the 3,077 legitimate Republican straw polls that were conducted in person, under controlled one-on-one conditions by the Republican Party during a two month period last year. I happen to know that Ron Paul lost ALL BUT ONE of those 3,077 polls, which may be a reason why his great supporter does not want to consider those 3,077 losses.

He “awards” entire states to Ron Paul based on Christmas Party attendance, Libertarian socials in parks, luncheons, [admitted stuffed ballot boxes], and radio call-in shows. The list of 19 hacked and spammed results would be laughable if it were not so stunning!

He uses Ron Paul support materials for his footnotes. The Ron Paul links do not relate to the text; they just promote Ron Paul’s candidacy.

He depends on Ron Paul support materials to prove his links. He creates “proof” of his own efforts by linking to other sites that he has created. Then, he proves that link by using identical Ron Paul support documents. He uses Ron Paul supported “Straw Polls” to support his “Straw Polls for the Republican Party” and then he uses his “Straw Polls for the Republican Party” to support his “Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election” IOW, he is vouching for himself by vouching for himself, by vouching for himself.)

Then, at the next link, he uses identical sets of Ron Paul support documents as footnotes to prove that link, and then on the third link he again uses the same Ron Paul support documents as footnotes, and as the support of the link. IOW, there is a cross-contamination, where A proves A and B proves B and C proves C, yet it looks like there is a great deal of footnoting going on but it is just rah-rah Ron Paul (in fact, that is the name of a whole page of Ron Paul links that one footnote holds). That is correct; one footnote is actually a listing of a series of Ron Paul links. The Ron Paul footnotes do not relate to the text they are supposed to support. Instead, they are just sprinkled through-out the articles. And, rather than providing background, they all promote Ron Paul’s candidacy.

[I have had a year of statistics/polling (PolySci core curriculum), four years of statistical work at a TV station, and statistical/polling for many campaigns. I have never seen anyone match his chutzpah. In fact, if I had used even ONE of his 19 examples, I would have been relieved of duty, or I would have had a letter put into my file. ]

How do I bring NPOV to these three pages? The other candidates are being cheated out of "their" wins because the states that rightfully belong to them are being "squatted" on by Ron Paul. Am I allowed to re-write his text and use new footnotes? Or will he just take it down and put his writing back up?

Thank you very much for any suggestions. This is a situation that deserves to be repaired. I'm certain that I am up to the word-smithing that the sites require. I just need to know that I have a shot of repairing the situation. Suttonplacesouth (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you do.

Sorry to sound like a schoolmaster, but first please read WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NEU. You're going to have to be able to demonstrate familiarity with them.

Then, referring to at least one of these three, prepare a persuasive but fairly short rationale for what you're doing. Minimal boldface and no exclamation points (!!!) please. Do not write anything that might be (however unfairly) regarded as boasting about your background in or knowledge of statistics or politics; indeed, don't mention either. However, feel free to cite books about statistics methodology to support yourself -- "as Darrell Huff points out in How to Lie with Statistics (Houghton Mifflin, 1953; p.73)" -- and generally to demonstrate (rather than announce) competence/expertise. I suggest you prepare it elsewhere, and only post it to the article's talk page when it's really polished.

(Imaginary example above: offhand, I forget where and when Mr Huff's little classic was published.)

Then remove all the junk from the article. Don't remove it all in one edit; instead, in each edit remove as many examples as you can of each species of junk, and describe this species of junk as clearly and concisely as you can in the edit summary.

Then feel free to add good material. Be scrupulous not only in what you include, but also in your attributions. After all, you don't want to appear just a bit more scrupulous and balanced than the opposition, you want to appear overwhelmingly more scrupulous and balanced. More to the point, you want your edits to stick.

If you run into polite/intelligent opposition, deal with it politely and intelligently. Consider that it might be not so much opposition and more the result of misunderstanding. If you run into rude or pigheaded opposition, resist the considerable temptation to tell the person what he (yes, usually he) should do with his body parts. Instead, decide what WP policy your opponent is (opponents are) violating, and tell them politely on their talk page.

If that doesn't do the trick, then bring up the matter as coolly and tersely as possible at WP:AN/I.

Do not get into a revert war, even if you're certain that your opposition has broken one or more policies and that you are in the right. Instead, refer the matter to WP:AN/I.

All the best. -- Hoary (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey

Hey, your comments on that page have prompted me to investigate a bit further and I've filed a suspected sockpuppet report. I think we all were trying to AGF, but it's a bit obvious when it gets to AFD. My question is are the comments from User: 220.227.207.12 on the AFD page from the same person? Toddst1 (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this is getting really weird. Time for ANI? Toddst1 (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason for that. Also, and particularly as this editor has been criticized for adding lots of junk to this article, it seems both brutal and unhelpful then to threaten him with a block for removing it: he might legitimately wonder what the hell it is that he's expected to do. Of course, I understand your point (and also have reason to doubt the effectiveness of any nuanced advice), but you could try a bit harder to encourage him to distinguish between (a) core material that's neutral and sourced, and (b) mere mentions and puffery. -- Hoary (talk) 02:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding the warning: While I see a fair amount of good faith edits (or at least attempts) on this editor's part, I can't say most have been constructive. Certainly you can see outright rejection of constructive guidance here - he/she doesn't have enough time it seems. Taking everything out of the article except one sentence without explanation also doesn't seem constructive, including removing edits that you and I have made to try to improve the article. Warning folks not to do that is very appropriate. If their english isn't good enough to understand the rules after pretty straight forward coaching, well, they probably shouldn't be editing.
• My ANI suggestion is that there seem to be rather quite a few folks related to Pandey and/or several socks - none of them constructive and I read that discontinuous rant that I pointed out above as a rather hostile comment. However, as you said, it's not completely comprehensible. Either way, I appreciate your efforts. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of that.

I didn't detect any hostility within the comment, but I'm not sure what I did detect.

It's all very odd. It seems that PCP retains an academic position, and furthermore does so in a nation where English is used for academic purposes. I can hardly believe that the writer is such a person, so it wouldn't be autobiographical. (Looks to me more like adulation by a much younger relative.) There are plenty of (rather dubious) little additions to other articles, but little or no other damage, I think. So I'd be inclined to let the AfD run its course and then -- if the conclusion is delete, which seems highly likely -- mop up afterwards. If there's more trouble after that, well, then one can ask for more help. -- Hoary (talk) 07:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

100%freehuman

You might've walked into the middle of this one. This is a new user who objected to Keilana semi-protecting a page she was in an edit war as an anon-ip over. She's copying all this material for the purpose of "The information was added to keep record for a complaint add so people reading the page understand why it is copy protected!". And she doesn't know how to/want to sign her comments. So as long as she doesn't edit other people's comments to say different things, I really don't think it worth the effort to convince her that any user can link-walk from page to page in this matter. Thanks for the attention though, it always ticks me off when users decide they can word something better than the original poster. MBisanz ^talk 09:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I suppose I get the general thrust of that, though I can't say I understand all of it. I know nothing about what Keilana has done and don't want to commend or criticize her. But this 100% person looks like a -- Oh dear no, I mustn't be "uncivil", must I? -- Hoary (talk) 09:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If she doesnt have a vaild reason the page shouldnt be protected and if people fear there own words or action they should rethink them dont you think ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 100%freehuman (talk • contribs) 09:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If somebody doesn't have a valid reason for protecting a page, then no, it shouldn't be protected. If you think that some page has been wrongly protected, bring up the matter at the right place, which is not here. As for the second half of your question, I don't understand it. You may wish to rephrase it and ask it elsewhere. Please do not bother to ask it here. -- Hoary (talk) 09:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You have NO right to delete my userpage ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.6.59 (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

re:Celebritywristcruft

No problems with it, just added my bit to the Omega bit plus took the Rolex and Rado article for an article dieting. The next bit is, shall I remove the Breitling Ambassadors section. Willirennen (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

As I am getting sick of this piece of edit war by a particular user, I have no choice but to place this on WP:RFC/ECON, feel free to have your say there. Willirennen (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some formatting problem there. I don't know what it is, I'm afraid. It probably doesn't matter much though. -- Hoary (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Meiji

What can I do about this situation? I'd like to add (in the Commons as well as in en:WP) the necessary facts (photographer, date, etc.), but the Commons page is protected (for reasons that make no sense to me...). Pinkville (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Truly bizarre. How, I wondered, would you so much want to change something by somebody whose style was so similar to your own? So I dug around and found that you'd actually made the change yourself. Sorry for my late response, but I'm glad to see that you found the solution. (Perhaps simply that the page was unprotected during this time.) That's a stunning erection he's sporting, isn't it? -- Hoary (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I snuck in to edit while the Protection Giant was sleeping... So, no doppelgänger. Only a very powerful man could pull off that headpiece... Pinkville (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Debito Arudou

Hi Hoary. I respect your opinion, that's why I wanted to ask you these questions:

1. Do you think there is a general consensus from established users (let's ignore the newly created SPAs for the deletion discussion) to remove most (all?) of the Arudou personal website citations?

2. Do you think it's something worth doing?

I ask because I spent a lot of time researching that article, and it's a lot of work, and while I agree that it would be improvement, ultimately Arudou sometimes solicits his readers on his blog to go off and try to change Wikipedia to present what he wants on the article's page. I'm not sure that's actually a good thing, either, especially when we're not talking about unsourced defamatory material.

What do you think? J Readings (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Good questions and I appreciate your asking me. I'll reply within an hour. -- Hoary (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me quickly add that I wasn't the one who added most of these personal website citations. I had put citations from reliable secondary sources, deleted what was clearly original research, and/or unsourced defamatory material, etc. Only over the past couple months did this happen, and that was after Arudou started soliciting his readers. J Readings (talk) 06:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Arudou's site is (with some imaginable exceptions that I shan't bother to get into) an excellent authority for what Arudou is saying. Let's just take one example, chosen more or less at random:

Responding to Arudou's statements regarding the United States Department of State in the Hokkaido International Business Association (HIBA), Alec Wilczynski, Consul General, American Consulate General Sapporo, said that Arudou's statements contain "antics," "omissions," and "absurd statements" as part of an attempt "to revive interest in his flagging ‘human rights’ campaign." On his website Arudou responded with the statement "A surprising response from a diplomat," and posted commentary from an associate regarding the renunciation of Arudou's United States citizenship.[9]

Within that, debito.com is obviously the best possible source for "On his website Arudou responded". But what's the source for the snippets by "Alec Wilczynski, Consul General, American Consulate General Sapporo"? If Arudou again, this is not good. (NB using Wilczynski as a source for Arudou would of course be no better.) More to the point, what are "Arudou's statements regarding the United States Department of State in [HIBA]"? And what reason are we given to think that they are significant -- were they taken up in any third party's commentary anywhere; and if so, where? -- Hoary (talk) 06:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

Well, for that particular quote, Arudou wrote an e-mail essay and circulated it on several e-mail chat fora, including HIBA. He then archives his e-mail essays on his personal website, as the footnote links show. The Arudou statements that the US Consul General are objecting to are (or at least were) located in the "Japanese naturalization" section; they regard allegations against the US State Department of "coercing" him to give up his US citizenship, etc. I haven't checked if they're still there, but, according to Arudou's e-mail essay sent to HIBA, Wilzinski publicly responded to the forum and Arudou took that e-mail and posted it to his website. Is it contentious? Yes. Does it involve second-parties? Yes. Should it be removed? I would think so. But that would mean removing all of the allegations towards the US State Dept. on why he gave up his US passport, too. No journalists wrote about the subject, as far as I know, according to Lexis-Nexis, but Arudou promotes that story. Personally, I would have happily cited the journalist, but this is all part of the problem. When is it ok to cite his website given it's all about "what Arudou is saying"? Are 20 citations to his website excessive when they constitute 60% of the footnotes? Judging from the guidelines on WP:BLP and WP:SOAP, I think that they are, but that's just my opinion.

So, just to clarify, what's your view on the Early Life section and Background personal details if they can't be sourced elsewhere? This was my original question. J Readings (talk) 07:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's wrap up the first one. I can't see anything remotely notable about any Arudou–Wilzinski disagreement. If it had been brought up in one or more books, magazine articles, or newspaper articles created by a third party, OK; failing that, it's nothing. Well, perhaps en:WP is missing encyclopedic material here; but, famously, it doesn't judge what this is and instead depends on others.

I suppose you could source the strictly biographical stuff from the man himself, but it seems excessive. The last part of the first section reads When Debito Arudou was a non-citizen, his wife considered writing her name as Ayako Aldwinckle (アルドウインクル 文子 Arudouinkuru Ayako?) on Arudou's jūminhyō. They decided to use Ayako Sugawara instead; as long as she was not formally married to Debito Arudou, she could retain a separate family name. [2] [7] Why should we care what she was called or about any of this? Not surprisingly, this doesn't seem to have been made into a news story: one of the two sources is Arudou and the other a dead link that, rather charmingly, offers to introduce me some bodacious Japanese females. -- Hoary (talk) 08:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No argument from me on the latter issue. I didn't add it; I thought it was excessive then; I think it's excessive now. Personally, the best barometer for vetting issues is a Lexis-Nexis, Factiva, or Google News search for individual points on the subject's biography. Not surprisingly, there is plenty of third-party material (Japanese and English) on the hotspring lawsuit. I've always advocated going with just that; journalists had an eye on highlighting what was important and omitting what was cruft.

I posted a note on the contributing editor's user page, letting him know that there's the possibility of editing major portions of the article again. I'm sure he wont't be overjoyed (and might even resist it), but what other choice do we have? I don't know. Frankly, this is going to be a lot of work and stress for little return, and I really don't relish doing it. <sigh> Oh well. Thanks for the input, J Readings (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, just cut the junk. I started, but I quickly got bored because I find Arudou's tone of affronted dignity so tiresome. (Plus I have "real-life" obligations to attend to.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the more closely I've read, the less impressed I've become. I think you've done a pretty scrupulous job on somebody who's just not encyclopedic. He's noteworthy within one noteworthy legal case, and, so far as I can see, that's it. So I have to vote for a redirect, and thereupon radical cutting. Though I seem to be in a small minority here, and I suspect that the article will live on. -- Hoary (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I don't take this stuff personally. Do you think the nomination for deletion committee should be made aware of this blog entry, and, more importantly, the final entries in the commentary section from Arudou where's actually telling readers what should be changed or deleted because he simply doesn't want anything critical from secondary sources to exist? See: http://www.debito.org/index.php/?p=321 Personally, I'm beginning to think that trying to add balance of secondary sources was a mistake from the very beginning. His readers will always try to do what he suggests should be done: create a soapbox. J Readings (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

First, a clarification: there's no "nomination for deletion committee"; there are only the participants in a particular AfD and the one (uninvolved) admin who wraps it up at the end.

I noticed that page and skimread it last night (my time). It all seems mild to me. It's clear that he wants to have the last word while not appearing to insist on having the last word; well, there's nothing reprehensible or even unusual about that combination. Do you take what he says as some kind of threat or call to arms? If so, note that very near the end he says (in bold capitalized italics) "why bother anymore", which rather suggests to me the renunciation of any ambitions at WP. There's nothing urgent or even worrisome about what's written there. If there were, we'd expect to see a result of it during this AfD. Well, the only possibly related input I've seen so far are three or so postings by one brand new user (rather a waste of people's time, as he was rather incoherently raising points better/already raised elsewhere) and one by an IP. If lots of apparent meatpuppets start commenting, then somebody can slap the standard warning to meatpuppets at the top of the AfD; if this doesn't deter them, then I think the usual course of action is to let the meatpuppets come and do their thing till the AfD ends.

The AfD is overwhelmingly opposed. For that reason it doesn't look as if it needs an unusual opposition: I think it's unlikely that we'll see meatpuppetry in support of the article.

On the other hand you may read this web page of Arudou's as embodying some kind of general threat/request to control his en:WP article. (It's so long, so repetitive and so full of typographical gimmickry -- PASSAGES IN FULL CAPITALS, etc. -- that I can't be bothered to read it seriously; so I wouldn't know if there's such a threat/request.) If so, this might imaginably have some bearing on whether en:WP should have an article about him. But I doubt it: a number of people and organizations repeatedly and unambiguously attempt to control pages about themselves, and these efforts are normally (a) dealt with if and when they are made, and, when necessary, (b) anticipated by semi-protection, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. And, yes, "nomination for deletion committee" was a poor choice of words. In my defense, I was rushing to type something short but semi-descriptive in order to get back to my day job. J Readings (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Spencer

Congratulations on one of the most thoroughly researched and entertaining AFD nominations I have seen. Edison (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Likewise. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, thank you both very much.

Though I feared that I'd be clobbered for breaching "AGF" and "CIVIL" (and possibly POINT too), I've found that yes, one can conspicuously call the work of other WP editors in good standing a great pile of steaming horseshit and not be hauled up before some committee. (Not yet, anyway.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Just wait till the forensic investigators get their hands on those diffs! Pinkville (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what they'll do when they click on horseshit? Gwen Gale (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, since you tipped me off to that, I felt under an obligation to redirect it where it directed before. Tempted though I was to re-redirect it somewhere like "Creation science"..... Hoary (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Haha forgive me for having fun with you, I'd have done it myself straight off but knew you'd see it within a few minutes have to grit your teeth doin what you had to do :) Had it on my watchlist though, in case you didn't look at your talk page for hours. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ulrichs

nice exposé on nonexistent journals. but, fyi, Ulrichs is not prepared from library holdings, but from journal publisher information as confirmed by Ulrichs. (in past decades they didnt confirm it all that well sometimes, but after much effort from the libraries now they finally at least say what parts they have not confirmed). What shows reported library holdings is OCLC WorldCat. DGG (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point. You're right, and I plead the sleeplessness defense. -- Hoary (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could disagree with you

But that is a little horrifying. I thought the nihongo template was just for the lang=ja thing, and perhaps for some better formatting, I had no idea it added all that other business. That new symbol (thankfully subsequently removed) was a bit over the top too, I don't see why it was necessary. Actually, looking at the code now, I think most of that bloat was a result of the recursive template-calling "required" to render the symbol, so it's not as bad right now as it was when you made the comment on my talk page.

Concerning whether to use the nihongo template multiple times in an article, I don't think this should be down to an individual's discretion, there should be a concerted effort to clean up and centralise all these templates and get a clear consensus for their use, because right now all that's a bit fractured. (Does anyone still use {{lang-ja}}?) I tend to use nihongo when the format is English (JAPANESE Romaji) and nihongo2 in (most) other cases. Beyond that I just improvise. It would be nice if the nihongo template only displayed the link to Help:Japanese in the first instance, but that's probably not possible.

Anyway, I don't really know what to do, to be honest with you, I just implement these kinds of things, I'm not much good at discussing their usage. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Colegrove, citation needed

Do the "citation needed" notes here: Daniel Colegrove] refer to the statement preceding or following? I think I found the answer however I wanted to be sure I did not misunderstand. and what would be the protocol for citing news articles that are not present (as far as I have been able to find) in "online" archives?

Thank You,

Moe Richart Moyopic (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I stuck "{{fact}}" and similar flags after assertions that seemed to cry out for a specific source, for more clarity, etc.

You cite news articles that aren't online in pretty much the same way that you cite those that are online, other of course than not supplying an URL. So (fictitious example): <ref>Nicolas Bourbaki, "Daniel Colegrove exhibition draws record numbers", ''Birmingham Clarion-Examiner'', [[4 March]] [[1997]], p.A3.</ref>. I can't immediately think of articles here that show actual examples of this, as the articles I work on rarely depend on this kind of source. However, some of Hiroh Kikai is sourced to magazine articles that aren't online; for example, what's now the second footnote cites an article in Aera. (This source is explained in more detail under "Kanda" within the "References and external links" section.)

Here and here are what happens to dodgy-looking articles on photographers. Don't let this happen to your article! -- Hoary (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information and your rapid response.

As always I do have one other question about a somewhat controversial subject.

Some of this photographers work is published (plagiarized) as the work of another photojournalist. He has no legal claim to these images as he sold the copyrights, however they are his works.

My feeling is that this is very pertinent information and may well prove to be the most notable fact about this man.

The documentation of this is available, however would it be too "sensitive" to publish here at this time? Moyopic (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

However unfairly he may have been treated, "plagiarized" doesn't seem to be the right word, if I'm to judge from what you write above. So for a start I'd urge you to be very careful indeed about your use of language. (NB I'm not complaining about what's above: you don't have to be quite as circumspect on a talk page as in an article.)

You talk of documentation that's available. Is it published, and if so then where? -- Hoary (talk) 04:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I have photostatic copies of a contract along with contact sheets of the images also some court documents(these are not published) also copies of news paper clips (I'm still trying to determine the publisher of origin) The would be "breaker" of the "miscredited" use of images story was barred from publishing (when she persisted, she was also sued).

As to the copyright issue it is what it is, however another party taking the credit for the images is what that is too.

My feeling (at this point) is to let the article stand for now leaving the discovery and writing of further information for future editors.

In your opinion does this article stand as is?

Moyopic (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at the article later. Meanwhile: photostatic copies of a contract along with contact sheets of the images also some court documents(these are not published). None of these would be acceptable. [A]lso copies of news paper clips (I'm still trying to determine the publisher of origin) Ditto.

There could be an interesting story here. If so, then some writer should have it published elsewhere; the WP article could then cite the published story. If it did so, it would have to do so carefully and fairly. (See not only WP:V and WP:NOR but also WP:POV.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

203.129.63.140 and Gaijin

This is precisely why Jim and I initially left the page. This editor seems pretty insistent that his POV that the word is "racist" be inserted into the lead and everywhere else. I noticed that you warned him about the 3RR, so has Slp1. He just reverted again for the fourth or fifth time in 24 hours. The editor doesn't seem to care about (or understand) these things. I'm wondering if someone should report him. It's the only way to calm down all these disruptions and finally get him to work with others. J Readings (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In the spirit of "DIY", I've just now given him a well deserved break from editing. -- Hoary (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Just when I had almost finished the 3RR report!! I will get faster at these things one day. Thanks for saving me the final bits and pieces --Slp1 (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Slp1, file it anyway. An official complaint should be reported. This has been going on for way too long now. It's the only way editors can work together -- everyone needs to respect and work from the same policy and guideline pages. J Readings (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

One explanatory note, however. I have edited that page in the past and I may edit it in the future. However, I haven't edited it recently, do not intend to edit it soon, and haven't even read it recently. In warning and blocking, I was wearing my admin and not my editor hat; I'm not going to switch between them in mid dispute. Indeed, I haven't even read through the changes that are disputed, beyond noting that one side (a representative of whom I have blocked) (i) is attempting to cite somebody via Googlebooks but screwing it up, and (ii) is obviously mangling what purports to be a direct quotation, despite repeated warnings. It's the combination of the second plus 3RR that got the block. The first may for all I know have the seeds of something good in it. I urge you editors (i) to look into that attempted additional citation and, if it merits addition or mention, adding it properly, and also (ii) to see whether the IP attempted, however clumsily, to make any worthwhile improvement among all the mess. -- Hoary (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm embarrassed to admit that I didn't know that Hoary was an admin. Usually (not always), there is a sticker on the User page. That's why I wanted Slp1 to file. I just thought that Hoary was making a "citizen's arrest" type statement. Anyway, I apologize for the misunderstanding. I'm typing this from a library, so I need to get back to work. One of us will look into the citations over the next few days. Regards, J Readings (talk) 04:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

J R, I hope that any apology is not to me. Normally, I'm just a regular editor. On occasion, I'm just a regular administrator. If there appears to be any prestige attached to the latter, it's illusory. -- Hoary (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Pico Iyer

Our strange deleter is back again[1]. I've left a msg on their talkpage, which you're welcome to watch, amend, edit, append, etc. Hopefully they'll see it before their IP changes again (I assume that's what has happened before, unless they're just blatantly ignoring). I'm off to sleep now...but, Oh, the mystery! -- Quiddity (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder if I might create an article on the book. . . . Hoary (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Camera (Swiss magazine)

こんにちわ、Hoary.

Your move of Camera (magazine) was fine (although I wouldn't call the Japanese version a "rival"), but perhaps a more eloquent disambiguation would be Camera (magazine, Japan) and Camera (magazine, Switzerland). Now that I think of it, appellation cannot apply to the latter magazine:Camera existed between several countries (France, Switzerland, Germany and the US) from 1965 to its 1981 demise — a period almost as long as the life (in a much later period, in the bargain) than its Japan-only "rival". <added>It seems that this is not mentioned in any clarity in the article - my apologies. </added>

By the way, you may be interested to know that the editor in Chief of Camera magazine for the above "international" period later became a longtime contributing editor to Asahi Camera with his article "Porter's Corner". Small world, eh?

Cheers, take care,

THEPROMENADER 17:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Rival for the title Camera magazine", perhaps.

There'd be a difference between Camera (magazine, France) and Camera (French magazine) in that the former couldn't be Belgian, etc. But outside Japan there are no Japanese-language publishers that might publish a camera magazine, and there's no Swiss language; I don't like to say this in response to your most amicable message but I think your suggested disambigs sound a bit less eloquent than my own solution. But yes, there's something to be said for yours: it's imaginable that people might later come up with a Camera from Spain and another from Argentina, and then consistency might be helpful. If the non-Japanese Camera that already has an article was Swiss to a considerable degree, can't one just ignore its other domiciles when titling it?

I don't remember "Porter's Corner". I tend to flip through Japanese magazines very lazily and miss a lot, so I can easily believe that I've missed this. Roughly when was it? -- Hoary (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In its last (and best) years, Camera wasn't known as a Swiss magazine. You can even find hardbound volumes of the magazine here in Paris's most prestigious libraries (the BPI at the Centre Georges Pompidou, for example), so I think the "Swiss magazine" title is not only inapplicable but misleading - it was not at all a reflection of Swiss culture as this formula would insinuate. For this I would really like you to move the article back to where it was.

I'll be talking with Allan this weekend, so I'll let you know more about his article in the coming days. Thanks for your interest : ) THEPROMENADER 21:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The article starts Camera magazine was a photography revue published out of Luzern, Switzerland between 1922-1981. The wording is slightly odd, but what seems clear from this sentence and the article as a whole is that it was published in Luzern for its entire lifespan. This implies to me that in at least one sense it was Swiss for its entire lifespan. Above, you seem to say that from 1965 it was published elsewhere than Luzern, or perhaps in various places in addition to Luzern; but this isn't clear.

Something not known to be Swiss may still be Swiss. The last time I looked, Nestlé was Swiss, but it wasn't trading on its Swissness (no talk of "Swiss precision", no little Swiss flags), and I don't suppose most of its consumers were particularly aware of its Swissness as they bought or consumed its products. Of course there's no need to title its article Nestlé (Swiss company), but if there also happened to be an unrelated French company making a similar range of products, I'd have no qualms about so titling it.

I would assume that the Centre Pompidou would have more or less complete runs (whether hardbound or not) of the more substantive west European photographic magazines. If it has rows of hardbound volume after volume of Camera, all well and good: the JCII library in central Tokyo similarly has shelves of bound copies of the (only intermittently interesting) US magazine Modern Photography, but this fact doesn't make MP any less American.

If I understand you right, you want Camera (Swiss magazine) to be retitled Camera (magazine). The latter would then need a disambiguating hatnote telling people that it wasn't Camera (Japanese magazine). The latter was for 35 years one of the top two photo magazines in a large and competitive market (though unfortunately in a single language that the huge majority of the world's photographers can't read): it may not be as significant as the Luzern (-plus?) publication, but it isn't dwarfed by it. So the need for a hatnote would be unfortunate.

At the same time, there's something to be said for a claim that (even until 1965) the Luzern Camera was a lot less Swiss than the Tokyo Camera was Japanese: even when the magazine was exclusively in German it would (I presume) have been widely sold in Germany and Austria. So maybe Camera (Swiss magazine) is unfortunate even to describe the magazine before 1965.

Can we come up with a different solution? I propose that Camera (magazine) would remain a disambig page, pointing to Camera (Japanese magazine) and Camera (XYZ), where XYZ is something we can discuss.

(We could even have Camera (1922-1981) and Camera (1921-1956), although the proximity of the start years could be confusing.)

(Irrelevantly: As you're interested in photography, what do you think of this AfD?) -- Hoary (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day!

User:Wilhelmina Will has wished you a happy Valentine's day, and good luck in love and friendship!

A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for tagging the 163.153.108.11 talk page regarding the "silly" edit. The district reports that they have identified the students involved and are talking appropriate action. --NERIC-Security (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

William Hillcourt

I have the biography FAC here and would appreciate any ideas for improvement and review. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Monster

No thanks! :) Tyrenius (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm (peers out from behind the sofa), me neither. I think I'd need to spend a few days reading about it before I'd be happy to make a judgement either way, and unfortunately I'm in one of those "expand the Wiki" modes rather than "reduce the Wiki-crap" modes! Good luck on your quest... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there something we do here when a Wikipedian passes away?

Someone I had worked with in the real world (former journalist turned copy editor until he retired recently) passed on the 22nd. He was fairly new to Wiki however he was quite exited about contributing. I noted that he has passed on his user page. I feel kind of weird about it and now I wonder if there is a "thing" to do in this situation. Myraedison (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to hear about this.

There is this page, but please read its introduction. As for administrative procedures, I don't suppose that there are any. Of course you might mention his death in the talk pages of any articles to which he made major contributions. -- Hoary (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This is him Moyopic (I looked at his contributions to see who he may have been connected to here) He started a biography on a photographer I am interested inDaniel Colegrove I have been "hands off(ish)" with the bio because I know the subject...long story. I found out today Moshe had passed because I sent him an email about an edit... Any way...It's just weird, he was a nice guy... Myraedison (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahem

I see how you attempted to slander me on the Admin's Noticeboard. Is there something you'd like to tell me? "Troubled" am I? Just what do you mean?! Belicia (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I did not attempt to slander you. I was concerned by the high ratio of your edits that prompt warnings or puzzled questions, and I was particularly concerned about your very odd combination of (i) deletion of a large amount of material from an article, (ii) announcement that the article was in use, and (iii) prompt abandonment (it seemed) of that article to work on something unrelated. -- Hoary (talk) 08:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Welsh place names in articles on English towns

Thanks for your prompt action in blocking User:217.39.132.9 - your approach has my full support. You may not know that there has been a continuing discussion on this topic going on for several weeks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements, and your views on the topic would be gratefully appreciated. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to have helped. Kilpeck was already on my watchlist; I noted an edit to that, and thereby found a stream of edits. I had no idea that a debate was going on and hope that my block won't be misunderstood as a blow on behalf of one side of the debate. After all, the mass deleter was removing this (arguably useless) information on simplistic grounds: Kilpeck (for example) didn't need a Welsh name because it's not Welsh but English and Welsh is not a language of England. Had the IP instead cited some decision somewhere I'd have looked into that cite. I also noticed that the IP had a history of dubiously explained removals and disruptive editing.

As for the question of which side in this is right, I have my own opinions and tomorrow or later, if time permits, I'll say something on that page. -- Hoary (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Anon. IPs on this issue

I saw you blocked User:217.39.132.9 for persistent vandalism on articles re Welsh and other language names for places. I saw you recently reverted an edit by User:172.141.39.235 over at Liverpool which is exactly the same as the edits made by the IP you previously blocked. Coincidence? I believe the two are the same and that this user is circumventing the block. Thought I'd flag it. I have my eye on the article anyway so I'll revert any more attempts when I'm able. Coldmachine^Talk 09:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No coincidence. Yup, we happened to notice it at about the same time. The new IP too is experiencing a short break from editing. -- Hoary (talk) 09:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town

Other admins have recommended that we follow WP:DFT as nothing seems to resolve the series of Tendentious edits. FWIW, I have no interest in prolonging this discussion and the earlier advice seems apropos. However, thanks for your help in trying to find a solution to this issue. Bzuk (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC).

"Tendentious"? But yes, I get your point -- and if I'd been wasting as much time on this as you had, I'd lose my ability to write English too! Yes, let him (i) have the last word, (ii) declare victory, and (iii) leave. -- Hoary (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Whoops, typo on my part, As is evident by the continual reference to disputed and unverified commentary repeated countless times, now with the continued wrangling categorized as "below standard", the 666" issue represents Tendentious editing. From the Wikipedia definition on tendentious editing, here are some of the characteristics of this type of editing (see: [2]:

• • Repeated reversion of the “vandalism” of others;
  • Constant repeating of the same argument over and over again, without persuading other editors;
  • Assuming that no other editors will assume good faith, no matter how often reminders are given;
  • Suspicion or accusing other editors of “suppressing information”, “censorship” or “denying facts;”
  • Continual challenges to the reversion of personal edits, demanding that others justify their actions;
  • Deleletion of the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not discuss their edits first;
  • Inability to properly frame talk page discussions and threads;
  • Campaigning to "Right Great Wrongs!" FWIW, this "string" will continue ad infinitum, but I am not going to add to it. Bzuk (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC).

Yes indeed! Next we'll hear that Beatles songs reveal hidden messages when played backwards. Er, no, hang on, that sounds familiar.... Hoary (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

More Demi Moore

I have replied to your project talk page commentary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverts

Yeah, and it's only 4.30pm here so I've got no excuse! You're welcome and sleep well. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Take a look

Could you take a look at this and tell me what you think? Gwen Gale (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The links this person are adding aren't bad, but they're also not so obviously necessary. Yet again it's not obvious how they're worse than some of the external links already present in those articles. I'd read through Wikipedia:External links and then apply what it says to all the links in an article, without favoring those links that happen to have been there for a longer time. -- Hoary (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Argh that's spot on what I was thinking :) Gwen Gale (talk) 10:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Graham Bell article

Dear H, could you look into Meucci who has insisted on changing the original article to reflect a POV about the invention of the telephone. The actions have been similar to other trolls in the past and he seems to have followed me home, making comments on my talk page as well. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC).

I've been away for a few hours; I see that he has won himself an indefinite block in the meantime. -- Hoary (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Photo uploaded

I think I uploaded a photo of me, Image:Nicholson Baker - headshot.jpg, to the Wikimedia commons. Thanks for your help.--Wageless (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, hello, I've just this morning traversed Eurasia, turned on my computer, and seen your message for the first time. Sorry I didn't see it (let alone respond) earlier, but it seems that the photo has been fixed up in the meantime so all is well. Feel free to ask me for help in the future, though. -- Hoary (talk) 05:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Pixilated

Judging by your discussion with Bzuk, I'd have to agree with you about "pixilated" and Mr. Deeds Goes to Town. Allowing an editor to speculate upon the origins of the word in the article itself rather than on the discussion page does seem a little out of line. The involved editors became so incensed about the anon posting his opinion of whether or not there is a 666 in the movie, they overshot their mark some. So, good job eradicating a trouble spot!--76.245.122.159 (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Mitsutarō Fuku

Hi, I removed the tag questioning the notability of Fuku but the references appear a bit messy (which I may have contributed to). Since you're the user who added them I think it'd be good if you verify them and if possible make them consistent. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've done a quick semi-fix.

Your edit summary to this diff suggests an interest in Japanese photography (and not merely in the five or so people who are rather improbably stars outside Japan). If so, that's excellent news. The state of articles on Japanese photographers in en:WP is dreadful: some months ago, somebody's bloody bot created hundreds of substubs that have deceptively blued what had been perfectly decent redlinks. Take a look at this and the number of items within it that are still marked "BGSS". You'd be very welcome to turn any of these into actual articles, or even just into stubs that are worth looking at.

Hmm, it's time for me to give Pinkville another nudge. He's done excellent work on 19th-century photographers of Japan, but I haven't noticed much recently. -- Hoary (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Remarkable coincidence that I was expanding the articles mentioned below while this discussion was happening! :~) I have some additions to make in "our" field over the next while, so at least a few more of the BGSS should become more substantial... Pinkville (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

SS Suzuki

Hmm, my ears are burning... As you see, I'm adding material (I have much to add) to the Suzuki articles as well as some of their related articles, but it's rather complicated, with much contradictory or confusing data... Bear with me, I'll come back to this over the next couple of days... Pinkville (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The best news I've read in a long time!

Just two weeks ago I saw Bennett's book for the first time, at Narita airport. However, buying it at full price (plus Japanese margin) on my way out of Japan and carrying it around SE England for ten days and thence back to Narita really seemed too silly. Plus I'm running out of floor space for piles of books. I've asked the library to get it. If all that fails, I'm afraid I may have to resort to Amazon. -- Hoary (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back! I've sent you an email. Pinkville (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I've got the (most amicable) email and am now thinking it over (or "mulling" it as the IHT would say). -- Hoary (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd probably say "mulling", but I'd be thinking about the wine... Pinkville (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Bennett gives Suzuki I's original name as: Takahashi Yujirō. Is this a possible reading of 高橋真一 ? Pinkville (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Damn, I overlooked this question. I can hardly believe that it can, no; but I'll ask the missus to be sure. -- Hoary (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't. Further, and regardless of the particular kanji, "Yujirō" is rather implausible: isn't "Yūjirō" what was meant? -- Hoary (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Bennett irritatingly doesn't use macrons, so I always have to guess. Yūjirō is undoubtedly what is meant. Still no resolution to the name confusion... Pinkville (talk) 11:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

People did like changing their names back then. Two names for the same person? (By far the most obvious reading of 真一 is Shin'ichi, though alternatives are possible. Indeed, I've a hunch that back then a name was essentially its written form, pronounced in whatever vaguely plausible way the family or holder wanted, and perhaps alterable to taste. And no, Yūjirō isn't plausible. But this really isn't my field.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

And I don't know where Bennett got "Yujiro" from... I'll see if I can figure it out. Pinkville (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done what I need to at the moment, but you might want to have a look again at Suzuki I in case I accidentally erased any of your edits. Pinkville (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Now Suzuki II is "done"... merely waiting for your (and other?) corrections. Pinkville (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

S II turned out to be a much more interesting figure than I expected! I plan to tackle Fuku and Shimooka soon... The latter has some truly confounding name issues... Pinkville (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Junk freedom

I welcome your comments on the Contemporary Music project about (bio) infoboxes. These are discouraged on the other mainstream (classical) music projects - Composers, Classical Music and Opera (and it sub projects) - I hope we won't have them on Contemporary Music either. Berst regards, --Kleinzach (talk) 07:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. I spent five minutes wondering whether or not to post. The proponents of "infoboxes" are so full of themselves that I've been warned in all seriousness not to reason, even politely, against infoboxes on rather somnolent project to which I'm a regular participant because doing so might be just the thing to incite their proponents to boss people around. I got into a bit of a rumpus about this as a visitor to yet another project here (continuation here); I don't think I was very persuasive, but I think my comments did have a minor positive effect and I found a kindred spirit in User:Orlady. -- Hoary (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Right - I haven't read through the universities debate in detail but it seems to be a typical infobox debate! I can direct you to acres of them that we have had on Composers, Classical Music and Opera, however in each case an overwhelming majority of editors have been against using Biographical infoboxes. You can see the policy guidelines we have here, here and here.

However I should emphasize that we are not against navigation boxes or infoboxes for geographical and quantitative data where they can be preferable to putting data in paragraphs of text - our opposition is to their use for people. Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

People, ugh . . . try this for a sample edit, merely duplicating what's anyway immediately adjacent (and arguably is relatively trivial) and aggravating this with visual junk asking for a mugshot. I suppose if that article can be degraded in that way then so can any of my articles. Grr.

A professional archaeologist, well well. I'm terribly ignorant of this; I only learned the name Nagaoka-kyō last week. -- Hoary (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We've had some hilarious infoboxes in the past - I should have kept them. BTW I'm in Hokkaido now. --Kleinzach (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope the weather up there isn't as dismal as it is here in Tokyo. -- Hoary (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have a tick

Take a look at Talk:William Desmond Taylor and User talk:Cleo123. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. How about Image:WORLDHEALTH2.png and its deletion debate? -- Hoary (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Done, yes my jaw did drop. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Whew. The word I'd been searching for was "batshit". -- Hoary (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC) ...... PS and if you're in the mood for odd XfDs, try this one. -- Hoary (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Odd fits. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

And look where he shows up. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Here too! -- Hoary (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

imput? Gwen Gale (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wotton House

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Wotton House, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.net-encyclo.com/en/Wotton_Underwood. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 10:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, ha ha, I ripped it off from Wotton Underwood. I imagine that this net-encyclo.com thing is yet another commercial scrape of en:WP. -- Hoary (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Bleh. Those seem a dime a dozen nowadays. Added to the list, it shouldn't pop up anymore. — Coren ^(talk) 12:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Kuwabara

I have left quite a few responses to this. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)